Regarding forum conflicts (please read)

I have friends who say they have seen ghosts, friends who say they can see auras around people, even friends who believe in faeries. I’ve never experienced any of these, but if my friends asked me if these things are real or if I believe in them, my only response can be, “I’ve never experienced it for myself, but I won’t discredit what you say is your experience.” If these friends started a thread on the forum titled “Your strangest experience with a ghost” and I came to the thread and wrote “I’ve not had any hallucinations or delusions in my life – sorry!” What exactly would I be accomplishing by doing that? Would that help me make more connections here? Whatever the answer is, it’s a person’s right to write whatever they want as long as it doesn’t involve making personal threats or illegally slandering someone. That being said, I feel like it’s a positive thing for me to think about what my point is in sharing something.

In my interactions in real life and electronically, I try to think “Is it true (do I really mean it)? Is it helpful? Is it kindhearted?” If the answer is no to any of these, I try to avoid saying it (although this really doesn’t include goofy posts like Kim Jong Un looking at things). This doesn’t mean that if someone calls me names or says that I’m delusional that I think they are doing something wrong – it’s their right to say whatever they want. The way I govern myself doesn’t have to be anyone else’s way. I’m grateful to all of you for writing what you think and feel because it helps me learn.
 
If saying that single sentence created so much 'controversy', then I suggest those people stay away from my blog. You'd hate me for life.

This is pretty late in saying this, but I do need to say it. People choose to interpret what somebody says using their own agenda or opinion to formulate that interpretation. I gave my opinion in the form of a statement which describes that I've never had a delusion or hallucination, because that's how my own thought-process and logic has resolved the issue of whether the realm beyond the natural exists. I am never going to apologize for stating an opinion, and I am certainly not going to edit what I say for the benefit of a few hurt feelings. As AJ said above me, it is not their right to govern what I say. I've seen a couple of people on this thread comment as an indirect reply to what I said, and quite deliberately implied they were also offended by what I said.

I have witnessed extremely hateful comments on this forum, in-fact they were so hateful they actually expressed hatred for an entire group of people. I've witnessed all kinds of blatant slander, bigotry, racism and intolerance on this forum. But not once have I ever engaged with these comments as a result of my hurt feelings.

Your hurt feelings does not constitute a valid reason to boycott my opinion.
 
Last edited:
JJJA said:
If saying that single sentence created so much 'controversy', then I suggest those people stay away from my blog. You'd hate me for life.

This is pretty late in saying this, but I do need to say it. People choose to interpret what somebody says using their own agenda or opinion to formulate that interpretation. I gave my opinion in the form of a statement which describes that I've never had a delusion or hallucination, because that's how my own thought-process and logic has resolved the issue of whether the realm beyond the natural exists. I am never going to apologize for stating an opinion, and I am certainly not going to edit what I say for the benefit of a few hurt feelings. As AJ said above me, it is not their right to govern what I say. I've seen a couple of people on this thread comment as an indirect reply to what I said, and quite deliberately implied they were also offended by what I said.

I have witnessed extremely hateful comments on this forum, in-fact they were so hateful they actually expressed hatred for an entire group of people. I've witnessed all kinds of blatant slander, bigotry, racism and intolerance on this forum. But not once have I ever engaged with these comments as a result of my hurt feelings.

Your hurt feelings does not constitute a valid reason to boycott my opinion.
Click to expand...

Nobody is governing you. You're still here aren't you? Your post is still there isn't it?

We're saying our opinions. It's you who aren't going to govern what we say.
 
[MENTION=5807]AJ_[/MENTION]

I like your recent post but I personally differentiate between an experience and an interpretation of an experience. I do not deny their experience but I would prefer that people use reason and evidence in concluding their intrepratations. Doesn't mean I am willing to dive into their threads throwing out evidence on why they are wrong. There are also a lot of things that simply have no proof of their existence or lack of existence and are therefore inarguable. It is therefore pointless to enter in on a debate about these things.

Yes, belief in ghosts and fairys is innocent and no big deal but...
At the end of the day I cannot help but feel that these people who could believe what they do, although often logical in its own system, still lacking in objective reasoning and little concern for probability would hold destructive beliefs and deny the truth when it really does matter.
 
JJJA said:
Your hurt feelings does not constitute a valid reason to boycott my opinion.
Click to expand...

It is what human beings do. You cannot circumvent reality to fit with your own view of what human beings should or should not be. You as a logical and reasonable and intelligent human being are capable of anticipation and this makes you capable of adapting to circumstances and situations in order to gain the greatest benefit from your environment. Why not alter your statements and approaches in a way that enables better communication with these individuals and makes them want to read your posts?
 
Grayman said:
[MENTION=5807]AJ_[/MENTION]

I like your recent post but I personally differentiate between an experience and an interpretation of an experience. I do not deny their experience but I would prefer that people use reason and evidence in concluding their intrepratations. Doesn't mean I am willing to dive into their threads throwing out evidence on why they are wrong. There are also a lot of things that simply have no proof of their existence or lack of existence and are therefore inarguable. It is therefore pointless to enter in on a debate about these things.

Yes, belief in ghosts and fairys is innocent and no big deal but...
At the end of the day I cannot help but feel that these people who could believe what they do, although often logical in its own system, still lacking in objective reasoning and little concern for probability would hold destructive beliefs and deny the truth when it really does matter.
Click to expand...

Caring that other people lack objective reasoning is in itself a road fraught with troubles. That is one thing that I personally struggle with. Being worried that other people are delusional has caused me so many internal issues and strife, and it's even worse when I try to correct them (and fail) as it produces a very negative backlash. I get caught up in trying to fix what I see as a problem and I do not like failing, and eventually I start piling up a lot of negative interactions with that person.

TBH I'd rather not talk about that shit at all but it is so tempting some times for some reason. I think I'm a masochist.
 
Grayman said:
It is what human beings do. You cannot circumvent reality to fit with your own view of what human beings should or should not be. You as a logical and reasonable and intelligent human being are capable of anticipation and this makes you capable of adapting to circumstances and situations in order to gain the greatest benefit from your environment. Why not alter your statements and approaches in a way that enables better communication with these individuals and makes them want to read your posts?
Click to expand...

Just because it is what you claim human beings to do, does not make it valid or the right thing. An opinion is not a feeling, and I do not feel any regret for describing my own lack of spiritual experiences in such a blunt way. It was still an opinion and I stick by it. If people choose to interpret it in an 'insulting' or 'insensitive' way, it is not my obligation nor responsibility to manipulate the way in which I express my opinion to suit the needs of particular emotions. I am not trying to deceive anyone. In-fact, given how bluntly I made my point, it should be rather clear that I am doing the opposite of trying to deceive. This is completely dodging the issue which I have already addressed in the post which you quoted partially. I'm not going to edit the way I express myself because it hurts the feelings of some.

There are particular rules of engagement when it comes to discussing and debating an issue subjectively. The issue of spirituality is a subjective discussion by-definition, precisely because there is no solid evidence to suggest spirits nor the supernatural exists, which is why I decided to call them hallucinations and delusions (experiences in the mind, not external). But some people do not seem to understand the difference between an emotion, a personal experience, a logical viewpoint or an opinion based on reasoned thought-processes.
 
Last edited:
I have no sympathy for people who have no sympathy.

29ndzx2.jpg
 
JJJA said:
If saying that single sentence created so much 'controversy', then I suggest those people stay away from my blog. You'd hate me for life.

This is pretty late in saying this, but I do need to say it. People choose to interpret what somebody says using their own agenda or opinion to formulate that interpretation. I gave my opinion in the form of a statement which describes that I've never had a delusion or hallucination, because that's how my own thought-process and logic has resolved the issue of whether the realm beyond the natural exists. I am never going to apologize for stating an opinion, and I am certainly not going to edit what I say for the benefit of a few hurt feelings. As AJ said above me, it is not their right to govern what I say. I've seen a couple of people on this thread comment as an indirect reply to what I said, and quite deliberately implied they were also offended by what I said.

I have witnessed extremely hateful comments on this forum, in-fact they were so hateful they actually expressed hatred for an entire group of people. I've witnessed all kinds of blatant slander, bigotry, racism and intolerance on this forum. But not once have I ever engaged with these comments as a result of my hurt feelings.

Your hurt feelings does not constitute a valid reason to boycott my opinion.
Click to expand...

There's a way to communicate. As an example, I could write "fuck Christians" or I could write "I strongly disagree with the Christian agenda/belief system and what it does to its followers."

You're entitled to express your opinions in aggressive or constructive manners, but you should know when you're being disrespectful. Being disrespectful directly leads to negative reactions, and never changes anyones minds. It's basically you saying "look at how awesome my beliefs are!"

We've all been exposed to hate, slander, bigotry, etc. on this forum. It's what happens when people openly discuss what's on their minds.

Lastly, there's no such thing as boycotting opinions. Having your opinions heard by everyone is not a human right. Being a member of an online forum is not a given, it is a privilege. You have to play by the rules, and respect others.
 
ezra said:
There's a way to communicate. As an example, I could write "fuck Christians" or I could write "I strongly disagree with the Christian agenda/belief system and what it does to its followers."

You're entitled to express your opinions in aggressive or constructive manners, but you should know when you're being disrespectful. Being disrespectful directly leads to negative reactions, and never changes anyones minds. It's basically you saying "look at how awesome my beliefs are!"

We've all been exposed to hate, slander, bigotry, etc. on this forum. It's what happens when people openly discuss what's on their minds.

Lastly, there's no such thing as boycotting opinions. Having your opinions heard by everyone is not a human right. Being a member of an online forum is not a given, it is a privilege. You have to play by the rules, and respect others.
Click to expand...

So called boycotting opinions is a joke in the first place.

I don't expect him to change anything. I have no hope that he will. I fully anticipate that he won't change at all. I would be shocked if he did. Since we're on the subject of logical differences, there's a big difference between expecting someone to change their behavior and telling them how it is.

Go ahead and stay the same. I don't give a shit. This is how it's going to be though.
 
I am not arguing with you on what is right or wrong, should be or shouldn't be. I am not of the belief that I can or should change your opinion. I am simply providing the only possible solution to a problem. You cannot change the hearts and minds of everyone else, have them all hold your same views on stating opinions, setting aside their own emotions, and communicate based on your own standards. You only have control of you. I am not saying you are responsible for the feelings of others because that would be an impossible expectation. But if you have the opportunity and the know on how to make a situation better why would you hold to your belief of what 'should be ' with gritted teeth even willing to let it all burn over a overly simplified standard of right and wrong (truth and lies in relation to self expression).
 
Grayman said:
I am not arguing with you on what is right or wrong, should be or shouldn't be. I am not of the belief that I can or should change your opinion. I am simply providing the only possible solution to a problem. You cannot change the hearts and minds of everyone else, have them all hold your same views on stating opinions, setting aside their own emotions, and communicate based on your own standards. You only have control of you. I am not saying you are responsible for the feelings of others because that would be an impossible expectation. But if you have the opportunity and the know on how to make a situation better why would you hold to your belief of what 'should be ' with gritted teeth even willing to let it all burn over a overly simplified standard of right and wrong (truth and lies in relation to self expression).
Click to expand...

Not to mention bringing it up again after it had been dropped a while ago. This was all off my mind pretty much. I would have chalked it up to a misunderstanding that got out of hand for a while. But he had to renew it because he needed to say something.

Even I stopped caring and had let it go pretty much and I have a hard time letting go of things. Now I'm just annoyed that we're talking about this AGAIN.
 
Seriously…what was this, like three weeks ago now or something?

And once again, I could really give a flying fuck what anyone believes or doesn’t believe.
So quit trying to make it seem like I’m suppressing your opinion.
The reason a tiff was made about it in the first place was because you came on a thread asking about people’s spiritual experiences and you called them hallucinations, the people delusional and ignorant for believing such a thing…that’s still fine if that is your opinion.
It was the wrong thread to post that in…it wasn’t a debate thread, and frankly, no one there gave a fuck that you believed that…it was just a rude, uncalled-for bit of verbal diarrhea.
And I still stand by that.
If you come in with an opinion that people disagree with and instead of trying to prove your point you just turn the group posting into crazy people…then expect someone to get pissed off at you.
Duh.
 
Last edited:
JJJA said:
I think some forum members should take into account this phrase and why it applies to some of their posts:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Perhaps as a result, the number of conflicts would be a bit less.
Click to expand...

Problem with that is a lot of people just can't get their head around figurative premises. People who can't get the point of an analogy because it is not literal for example.

Edit:
Also I've tried using this technique many times and most people who are not experienced with argumentation methods just see it as taking things too far.
 
sprinkles said:
Problem with that is a lot of people just can't get their head around figurative premises. People who can't get the point of an analogy because it is not literal for example.

Edit:
Also I've tried using this technique many times and most people who are not experienced with argumentation methods just see it as taking things too far.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you are trying to discuss on a a figurative scale. I see Reductio ad Absurdum most commonly during discussions in-which I voice an opinion in a literal sense, and somebody attempts to debunk my opinion by asking me to prove the literal using extremely figurative methods, which is a form of bias because I did not originally use figurative reasoning to conclude the literal theory, but the person is trying to enforce their figurative theory in an attempt to trash my literal one.

Another good example of Reductio ad Absurdum is the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy. The person tries to explain every single answer which science has yet to uncover to be the work and intervention by God, thus proving his existence. It's probably one of the most common forms of logical fallacy with God-believers trying to defend their corner.
 
JJJA said:
It depends on what you are trying to discuss on a a figurative scale. I see Reductio ad Absurdum most commonly during discussions in-which I voice an opinion in a literal sense, and somebody attempts to debunk my opinion by asking me to prove the literal using extremely figurative methods, which is a form of bias because I did not originally use figurative reasoning to conclude the literal theory, but the person is trying to enforce their figurative theory in an attempt to trash my literal one.

Another good example of Reductio ad Absurdum is the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy. The person tries to explain every single answer which science has yet to uncover to be the work and intervention by God, thus proving his existence. It's probably one of the most common forms of logical fallacy with God-believers trying to defend their corner.
Click to expand...

Those aren't reductio ad absurdum though. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical reductive technique use to expose poor logic. It's not a poor argument in itself and there is a correct method for doing it.

What you describe here is more about circular reasoning, begging the question, moving the goal posts and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
 
sprinkles said:
Those aren't reductio ad absurdum though. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical reductive technique use to expose poor logic. It's not a poor argument in itself and there is a correct method for doing it.

What you describe here is more about circular reasoning, begging the question, moving the goal posts and the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with everything you just said, so lets agree to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top