Well, here’s an illustration of the point.
Over on
this topic, it turns out that a very engaged, respected, and regular member of this forum was watching quietly in the audience while I duked it out with two very determined opponents (one a cultural Anglican, the other an atheist). One of them declared victory without answering the question, so when she/he continued using fallacies instead of answering the question, I declared victory. (My intention was to stop the false impression the opponent was making that he had won by “proving” I was uninformed).
I think that accuracy is pretty important. For example, the person to whom you referred to above who ‘declared victory’ did nothing of the sort. He (for I am a he) said he was going to end the discussion if you continued what he thought to be a nonsensical line of questioning.
Your response was:
‘That sounds like a no. I win by default.’
Game, set and match. Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys. Really? Even though your arguments had been deconstructed right from the start and alternatives listed which you hadn’t addressed.
To get back on point, a forum is a place where ideas can be exchanged. If someone has a point of view and that view is not accepted by the ‘opposition’ then it requires some explanation as to why. That is the exchange.
So many times in discussions (maybe because I am looked upon as the ‘opposition’ as identifying myself as an atheist), any points I put forward are often totally ignored and I simply get a repeat of the other person’s view. Even though I have explained that I don’t accept it and why.
At that point I generally call it a day, thank the person for their (name removed by moderator)ut and drop out of the discussion. I have spent waaay to many hours on this forum repeating myself endlessly to no avail.
Another bete noir, while I’m here discussing discussions, is the tendency of some to extrapolate wildly from one rather inocuuous statement to something much more extreme. For example:
W: I am a materialst.
C: Oh, so genocide is perfectly acceptable!
Rather than develop the idea of materialism and see how the belief in (limited) purpose can be resolved (surely an engaging and worthwhile discussion), one is immediately pigeonholed as a card carrying psychopath.
Having said that, I accept that there is a vast difference in age, experience, education, English skill and debating technique within any forum (and I am probably lacking in all except age). So we all have to accept that and treat each other with as much respect as they likely deserve.
From my own perspective, I treat all discussions as if I am holding forth with the other person propping a bar somewhere. I try not to say (or accept being said) anything that wouldn’t be said by two reasonable peopel in that situation. Nothing that wouldn’t lead to being asked outside to clarify a point for example.
Anyway, I’m off for some pie with Mary now. She’s buying (private joke).
