Self-Improvement Begins Every Day.

[Joe Wordsworth]

I was twelve when I got to high school, younger than the rest of the crowd and a little intimidated by them. I met someone on the football team and it didn't take long for the coach to convince me to join. I was on the team for a few weeks when he said something I took to heart.... self-improvement begins every day.

Since then, I have endeavored to improve myself at every opportunity. To become as perfect, physically, as I could; to be intellectually perfect; to be socially graceful and successful. A lot of people snub "conformity", I embrace it. Being able to fit in is an essentially useful tool, and I'd never have started by own business if I hadn't been a part of money-society.

So, when conflict is had, I have to assume that the problem lies with others or myself, and if myself, then it must be addressed.

Many posts have been had on my argument style. As I've recieved encouraging PM's and posts (as well as discouraging ones), I find I am insufficient to decide certain things and must ask others their opinion.

Some have said "you're just starting trouble", some have said "they're just feeling intellectually threatened". Some have said "you're wrong, logic has no place in these issues", and others have said "it's all a kneejerk reaction to the possibility they're wrong". So, opinion is all over the place.

If you've time, here's a series of questions, please indicate whether people are allowed to argue with your answers...

Is there a proper way to disagree with someone on this site and how does one do it?

Are there proper words and improper words and what are they?

What topics are appropriate for discourse, what topics aren't?

I admit to being confused on these matters, now. I'd like to please the most number of people I can.

 

[minsue]

I'd like to please the most number of people I can.

There's your problem, Joe. As you can apparently see from PMs, there are always going to be people disagreeing on what is offensive, what is rude, and what is appropriate.

Personally, I would suggest avoiding direct insults (which you seem to be doing already) and/or referring to someone's reply on a subject as stupid, irrational, or insane (which may need a little work, though I don't think I've seen you use any of those exact words). Course, I've trouble avoiding such things myself.

As for appropriate topics, debates/discussions/catfights on politics & religion will always end up pissing people off. Enter at your own risk.

Edited to add: I missed the instruction about indicating whether or not people can argue with me. Of course they can, whether I like it or not.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I was twelve when I got to high school, younger than the rest of the crowd and a little intimidated by them. I met someone on the football team and it didn't take long for the coach to convince me to join. I was on the team for a few weeks when he said something I took to heart.... self-improvement begins every day.

Since then, I have endeavored to improve myself at every opportunity. To become as perfect, physically, as I could; to be intellectually perfect; to be socially graceful and successful. A lot of people snub "conformity", I embrace it. Being able to fit in is an essentially useful tool, and I'd never have started by own business if I hadn't been a part of money-society.

So, when conflict is had, I have to assume that the problem lies with others or myself, and if myself, then it must be addressed.

Many posts have been had on my argument style. As I've recieved encouraging PM's and posts (as well as discouraging ones), I find I am insufficient to decide certain things and must ask others their opinion.

Some have said "you're just starting trouble", some have said "they're just feeling intellectually threatened". Some have said "you're wrong, logic has no place in these issues", and others have said "it's all a kneejerk reaction to the possibility they're wrong". So, opinion is all over the place.

If you've time, here's a series of questions, please indicate whether people are allowed to argue with your answers...

Is there a proper way to disagree with someone on this site and how does one do it?

Are there proper words and improper words and what are they?

What topics are appropriate for discourse, what topics aren't?

I admit to being confused on these matters, now. I'd like to please the most number of people I can.

Personally, I don't really care much if people cuss me out, insult my family, dog, life, personality, etc. I have been society's kickball for so long that such tactics are old hat.

There are no improper words, only improper methods. Such as always read and adddress points if you can, point out drifting from point in others, and apologize when you're caught doing it.

No topics are taboo, but if you ever want concensus or a lack of bile, avoid politics and religion.




Now, my main problem is that sometimes I really want people to address one specific point and instead am pulled into a stream of never-ending insult wars. For instance, I would be much obliged if you addressed the quoted region in the Wicca thread that I've been trying to get you to address for the last three or four posts.

Also, I apologize if I seem offensive (it's because I'm an asshole), ignorant (it's because I'm an asshole with a potty mouth), and emotional (it's because I am, and an emotional asshole to boot). It's how I get when I argue and why I try to refrain from it on most occassions.

So, in other words, it's partly our fault, partly your fault. We'll work on us, you'll work on you. And we all become happy or possibly we all ignite in horrible glory. It's all 50/50.

 

[Liar]

Is there a proper way to disagree with someone on this site and how does one do it?

Same way that works for me everywhere else works pretty well here: Be nice.

 

[English Lady]

there a proper way to disagree with someone on this site and how does one do it?

Well Just disagree. Try not to get too personal, directly insult a person or his or her beliefs and try and at least take into account their side of the argument if possible*L*

Are there proper words and improper words and what are they?

Well I would say the odd mild swear word is going to slip in if you're arguing over something that means alot to you, but try not to be nasty and foul mouthed in every sentance you produce. Thats just well not nice and is not going to help your cause any.

What topics are appropriate for discourse, what topics aren't?

Oh anything and everything but anything that goes to the heart (a persons religious beliefs, or political standpoint for example) is going to end up with some debate going on. I would like to think we can handle discussions on any topics here and that people can simply avoid argumentitive threads (I tend to with a few exceptions)

 

[GingerV]

I'm NOT a regular. I'm not speaking for anyone but me. I haven't been around here long enough to know anyone else's thoughts or feelings, and wouldn't speak on behalf of a crowd even if I did. Moreover, I don't think the one post I made to one of the contentious threads was more than a tangent. So this just aint meant for me.

But I've got a couple of ideas, things that struck me as I was reading the exchanges. See, I'm a non-philosopher with philosopher friends, and I've been in a similar place before (although not on religion). Correct me if I'm wrong, but most folks spend a good portion of the first year of a Philosophy degree learning to speak the language. It's an academic discipline that uses some words that sound familiar to us non-initiated types, but means something different (like a scientist using the word significant, or theory). Logical, to me, means "makes sense," and that's just not what it means to philosophers, as a cheap example. All important terms are rigorously defined. If not, time and energy are expended FINDING a good definition. "What do you mean by 'religion'?" is the sort of things books get written about and careers are based on if I'm not totally confused. The common sense or colloquial definition just isn't sufficient, nor is "I know what I mean by it" when talking with a philosopher. My friend would drive me round the twist trying to get me to define my terms, when all I wanted to say was that funding scientific research was a good thing...or that education was a universal right. I thought they were simple statements, he thought we needed to define good and right. Tell me people haven't got a universal right to education, and I'll get snarly. Make me defend it as a philosophical principal and I'll fall apart. It doesn't mean my emotional reaction was wrong, or even ill informed. It just means I can't do philosophy.

We came to terms when he finally got it through his head that it was unreasonable to make everyone in the world learn his rules. There are things to learn in this world without applying philosophical rigour to them. There are things which are significant by the colloquial definition, to which no p-value is applicable. I learn things about my subject from the people I speak to day to day, but not by throwing jargon at them or expecting them to quantify their observations. I'm not saying logic isn't applicable. I'm saying that philosophers have to meet the rest of us half way, or communication can't happen. At the VERY least, they have to explain the rules before they apply them. And I can't see this being the best place for a lecture on logic.

So, to get back to the three questions that started this (although just in reference to myself).

Is there a proper way to argue with me, should it ever become needful. Sure. Respectfully and calmly. I'm not an idiot, assume I have a point. If you disagree, say so. If you think I'm factually wrong, tell me where. It's usually best to point out somewhere you agree with me, if there is anything at all. "I think you're right, it's unfair for education to be auctioned off to those with money and denied those without. But I think we differ on whether that constitutes a "right" or not. Maybe we don't agree on what a right is?" Actually, it's a structure that works for conversation. It's NOT a good teaching style, necessarily. Teachers need to dictate, a bit. They also need to test and undermind entrenched beliefs sometimes. In discussions, that's not always appropriate, as it sets up an "I'm right, you're wrong" dynamic.

Are there proper or improper words? Nah...I swear like a deck hand. But I don't approve of personal attacks and insults, and those can be delivered with or without 4-letter epithets. You won't hear insults back from me...but I will walk away from a discussion that's gotten personal. Sometimes this whole grown-up gig makes life much easier .

I'll talk about anything. But I think you have to be realistic about what you're getting into, based on audience. If you're going to start a conversation that is likely to be controversial, you can't then complain that folks are reacting strongly. There are topics I, personally, try to stay away from because I feel personally threatened when they come up. But that's just me. I can talk about anything among friends...I'm just aware that as much as I like a particular group of online people and hope for eventual acceptance, a public forum is not a group of friends and can't be expected to give me the same benefit of the doubt.

Much more than my 2cents, in any case....anyone have change for a $10?

G

 

[Liar]

Re: Re: Self-Improvement Begins Every Day.

Actually, the best advise (or advice? I always mix those up) I can give you, and everyone else is actually not what to say, but what to read. Sometimes people here, and in other places, can come off as very confrontational in an argument, and it's easy to raise one's own gard and type down a counter attack. Now and then I have seen bitter arguments explode, because of some remark that was just one person's attempt at irony. Sometimes I have wanted to reply in anger to a post before remembering "Wait, he/she always writes like that," and that what I saw as insulting was merely the other's, for a lack of a better word, style.

 

[Guest]

Is there a proper way to disagree with someone on this site and how does one do it?
It depends on 'who' you disagree with; a couple people can take criticism, a couple will meet your reasoning, most will not even understand your use of English.

Are there proper words and improper words and what are they?
O. Wilde said (from memory here), "There is no such thing as a bad book; books are well written or badly written. That is all." Same with 'words' here, but then you've got the people who take offense if you know 'big' words. Unfortunately one cannot say, "There is no such thing as a big word", well not if you're not Oscar Wilde.

What topics are appropriate for discourse, what topics aren't?
It depends on the moods and tolerance of the mob.

I admit to being confused on these matters, now. I'd like to please the most number of people I can.
Aw, don't be like that Joe. Be true to yourself. It's taken me a year but I don't give a fuck what people think anymore.

Yeah, I'm angry and fed up and very near to quitting this place. I answered cos I like you and appreciate your smarts, your regard for others and your passion for thinking.

best to you, Perdita

 

[doormouse]

Okay, Joe.

And I don't care less who picks the fuck out of this.

It's not 'what' you say, it's 'how' you say it that annoys me.

Your posts are endlessly picking people's comments apart.

Go back, and take a look. You quote them, and paragraph by paragraph, you add your snidbits. You don't give anyone a chance at an opinion. You're always stating... ' I have such and such diploma....' Who really gives a rats ass who's got what?

We're all authors. We're all here for the same reason. Get off your damn high horse and let others speak.

Okay, I deleted the rest. You get my point.

If you don't, go back to your text and look it up.

 

[cloudy]

Doormouse, I love you dearly, but I think that was a little harsh, darlin'.

For what it's worth, Joe, you seem to be a very intelligent guy. The fact that I disagree with you on some things doesn't change that.

I do, however, think you unintentionally come across as patronizing at times, and that's why some get offended.

 

[doormouse]

Agreed, harsh.

I make no apologies. I, like he, am entitled to my opinion.

I've had my comments put under the microscope. So. I said my piece. It's over.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Ah, what sensitive souls we artists be.

Passionate, loyal, educated, loving, opinionated, wordsmiths, jesters, madmen/women, but mostly human.

Words are a powerful tool as well as a weapon.
We must choose wisely, my friends.

~A~

 

[cloudy]

Ah, what sensitive souls we artists be.

Passionate, loyal, educated, loving, opinionated, wordsmiths, jesters, madmen/women, but mostly human.

Words are a powerful tool as well as a weapon.
We must choose wisely, my friends.

~A~

 

[impressive]

GingerV -- WELL SAID!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, if its my tone that's the problem... and not my actual points; that's someplace to start, isn't it? Like I say, it was never my intention to offend anyone--I try hard and not use insulting terms, regardless how they're used against me. Insults aren't very productive, its something people in my profession have to learn Day 1.

But, if there are issues with "condescension" or "pompousness", I really have to ask for help or tolerance on that front. I think Ginger hit the nail on the head with her comments about her philosophy friends. They sound like just the sort of people that would have little problem with my dialogue or reasons for doing it, and perhaps philosophers really must meet the general public half-way on the matter of language.

I was particularly moved by her point on definition.

So... from here, I guess the question is how does one fix the problem? Comments like "just fix it" or "be more kind" aren't really solutions so much as pleasantries. I appreciate them, but they don't give me much to work with if I am to adjust the settings, so to speak.

I only ask (and dismiss it if you want) that you please... curb the offenses a bit, doormouse. I don't think they're warranted, but even if they are, they're not going to help.

 

[cloudy]

Well, if its my tone that's the problem... and not my actual points; that's someplace to start, isn't it? Like I say, it was never my intention to offend anyone--I try hard and not use insulting terms, regardless how they're used against me. Insults aren't very productive, its something people in my profession have to learn Day 1.

But, if there are issues with "condescension" or "pompousness", I really have to ask for help or tolerance on that front. I think Ginger hit the nail on the head with her comments about her philosophy friends. They sound like just the sort of people that would have little problem with my dialogue or reasons for doing it, and perhaps philosophers really must meet the general public half-way on the matter of language.

I was particularly moved by her point on definition.

So... from here, I guess the question is how does one fix the problem? Comments like "just fix it" or "be more kind" aren't really solutions so much as pleasantries. I appreciate them, but they don't give me much to work with if I am to adjust the settings, so to speak.

I only ask (and dismiss it if you want) that you please... curb the offenses a bit, doormouse. I don't think they're warranted, but even if they are, they're not going to help.

You know, I wouldn't worry about it too much. You speak how you speak, and there's no sense in trying to please everybody. Goodness knows I've pissed off my share of folks at one time or another.

The only advice I can offer is to reread your posts before you click the submit button. I've changed many a reply after reading through it, and deciding it was unnecessarily harsh or offensive. Not that yours are, but some of mine have been, that's for sure.

That, and keep an open mind - realizing that there are some things people are going to disagree with you about, no matter how logical or polite your reply.

 

[Marsipanne]

I know there've been some argumentative threads, but I did the wise thing and not look at them, otherwise I'd probably think of soemthing to say, and then get into trouble in some way. I've had arguments with people on the Internet before, and they can certainly be the most damn annoying things. Personally, I avoid arguments now. I'm a very sweet-tempered person, I almost never get angry. Talking with some extremely delusional people made me angry, and that takes a lot. I see no point in arguing with people on the internet. You're never going to meet them anyway. Honestly, once I made a 100% neutral, 100% rational argument, totally objective and the person who I was addressing threw it back at me with sarcasm and a lot of rudeness. After that, I just stopped visiting the site. Arguing on the internet is totaly shit, it's when you argue in real life that matters.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Marsipanne
I know there've been some argumentative threads, but I did the wise thing and not look at them, otherwise I'd probably think of soemthing to say, and then get into trouble in some way. I've had arguments with people on the Internet before, and they can certainly be the most damn annoying things. Personally, I avoid arguments now. I'm a very sweet-tempered person, I almost never get angry. Talking with some extremely delusional people made me angry, and that takes a lot. I see no point in arguing with people on the internet. You're never going to meet them anyway. Honestly, once I made a 100% neutral, 100% rational argument, totally objective and the person who I was addressing threw it back at me with sarcasm and a lot of rudeness. After that, I just stopped visiting the site. Arguing on the internet is totaly shit, it's when you argue in real life that matters.

I've been in just the situation you've mentioned, before. I can definitely understand your whole position. If I can make the analogy, though, I consider philosopers to be the thought-doctors of the world to some extent. Honor-bound are they to try and help where possible, and study where possible, and promote moderation and good health where possible.

I find I can't turn away, often, out of a sense of those sorts of things.

 

[Marsipanne]

The problem is, opinion and ideas are not to be treated the same way as a virus, so your analogy kinda breaks down. A person is not necessarily harmed by having a certain opinion. Of course, a 'thought-doctor' might think they are, but I believe that you have to know when to stop. Also, how do you deal with the hyperchondriacs (or is it hypochondriacs?) and those who believe they don't need treatment? The matters of the mind cannot be dealt with as systematically as the matters of micro-organism-inflicted disease like pneumonia.

 

[doormouse]

I know there've been some argumentative threads, but I did the wise thing and not look at them, otherwise I'd probably think of soemthing to say, and then get into trouble in some way. I've had arguments with people on the Internet before, and they can certainly be the most damn annoying things. Personally, I avoid arguments now. I'm a very sweet-tempered person, I almost never get angry. Talking with some extremely delusional people made me angry, and that takes a lot. I see no point in arguing with people on the internet. You're never going to meet them anyway. Honestly, once I made a 100% neutral, 100% rational argument, totally objective and the person who I was addressing threw it back at me with sarcasm and a lot of rudeness. After that, I just stopped visiting the site. Arguing on the internet is totaly shit, it's when you argue in real life that matters.

Uh huh.

And that's where I went wrong. I 'said' something in a thread I knew was all about arguements.

My bad.

And, apologies Joe. As Cloudy said. You don't need to change to please anybody. I said some things that were uncalled for, and I apologise. I should have kept my mouth shut.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I'm feeling the love now....mmmmmm.

 

[doormouse]

I'm feeling the love now....mmmmmm.

That's my tit

 

[gauchecritic]

Where you goin' with that shotgun?

Some improvements are made by osmosis. Not everything that changes you is necessarily an improvement.

When you get to my age lad, you'll see things differently....

Bet you're sick of that one eh?

Joe, simply being logical and unemotional gets right up some people's noses. However right you are doesn't necessarily make you right.

Quite a while ago I (famously I hope) had a running arguement with a guy here (not amicus). He was logical and polite, I was logical and arguementative back. When his logic became circular or particular I became sarcastic (and witty?) and went the comedy route. (well I thought it was funny anyway) and there never was any conclusion to our battles. (we still meet occasionally and buy each other drinks. naa not really) We do however acknowledge each other and (I think on both our parts) have a grudging respect.

What can you learn from this to help your discourses at the AH?

Well one, (if you read into that what I put there) is that I've just set myself up as an elder, urbane, humourous, witty and really rather clever sort of chap. (Not in Harold or Mabeus' league though)

Two, I'm vain and fallible.

You're doing quite well with the vain but the fallible isn't coming across very well.

To my mind the very worst thing I could ever be called would be humourless (with 2 'U's).

Personally I don't think you are. But I can see how some people would think so. Especially with the "ad hominem this" and "ad baculum that".

Whatever.

Useless advice that is so vague you can't possibly use it: Be people first.

Gauche

 

[Pure]

Tell me Joe, if you managed to tick off fewer people, would you consider yourself "improved"?

There is no lack of people who've rarely, if ever, pissed off other posters they're interacting with.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think I'd say that if I could figure out how to be more palatable, I would consider that an improvement.