Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

[coberst]

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

“Metaphors we live by”, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.

“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.

What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

[sparkhammer]

coberst:
You tend to style your posts as a set of dogmatic assertions. I know, I know, most of us do that around here! This tends to trigger a lot of counter-examples and logical objections. In metaphorical terms, think Newton's third law.

[WarOnIgnorance]

Originally Posted by coberst

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

My guess is that the origin is to be sought in the fact that while you advocate learning most of the ideas you present are trivial and/or unoriginal, which is somewhat obscured by your style.

The particular subforum in which you mostly post has an excellent history of quality threads.
Here are a few examples:

What is wrong with Western Society? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives
History of Western Philosophy - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives
Define "Good" and "Evil" - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives
What is the Best Form of Government? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

I'm sure that if you would present something similar, the replies would be of the level you hope for.

This is meant as constructive criticism, even if you don't take it that way.

[White Rabbit]

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Here are a few examples:

What is wrong with Western Society? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives
History of Western Philosophy - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives
Define "Good" and "Evil" - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives
What is the Best Form of Government? - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

Wow! Them's some cool threads you got there.

[coberst]

I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

[mawg]

Originally Posted by coberst

I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

If a person doesnt have the courage of their convictions , and / or will not take a stand for what they believe in , then they are confused or weak minded.


the topics discussed here usually are the very important to those who state an opinion , or to the world in general and the opinions expressed are by both sides deeply held .

to assume that a "hold " position would be possible or acceptable for a forum to discuss these matters is not logical.

[soot]

Originally Posted by coberst

I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

I agree with you.

I see that a lot on the Internet in general, and a lot more on this particular site because of the nature of the subjects being discussed and the very lax moderation of the site (which I do not intend as a criticisim of the moderation, merely an observation).

I also think the phenomenon you refer to also has a lot to do with the lack of geographically induced consequences the anonymity of the Internet affords. People wouldn't be half as dunder-headed about the half-baked notions they spew as Gospel truth here if they actually had to argue their positions in person and were personally exposed, every day, to the ridicule and damaged reputation that the nonsense they espouse would earn them.

It's also very true that many people who take very strong positions on issues of politics, economics, foreign affairs, etc... have never been formaly educated, to even the most basic degree, in the subjects on which they post as though they are expert. It's pretty hard to remain a student in the more advanced concepts of a branch of study when you've never been a student of the basics.

[SMadsen]

Originally Posted by mawg

If a person doesnt have the courage of their convictions , and / or will not take a stand for what they believe in , then they are confused or weak minded.

Or perhaps they are just curious and engage in debate with other people in order to explore a subject rather than merely having a need to spew an ego all over the internet.

[White Rabbit]

Originally Posted by soot

It's also very true that many people who take very strong positions on issues of politics, economics, foreign affairs, etc... have never been formaly educated, to even the most basic degree, in the subjects on which they post as though they are expert. It's pretty hard to remain a student in the more advanced concepts of a branch of study when you've never been a student of the basics.

And it is also true that those of us who actually do have advanced formal educations in precisely these topics do get tired of beating our heads against a wall of arrogant nonsense and reading threads that make a mockery of the very idea of intelligent discussion.

Btw, your statement of agreement with the words of that coberst fellow is precisely the kind of mind-numbing statement that tells me not to bother posting in public forums. I can read coberst's drivel at a dozen forums on any given day - and you agree with him. I rest my case.

For those of us who happen to be rather well educated upon the topics we address, there is generally only insults and ridicule. I can't see much reason to bother playing along.

[Imperator]

wow, you are back..I thought you had retired(?)..welcome back..

[White Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Imperator

wow, you are back..I thought you had retired(?)..welcome back..

I never left at all. I often post in one of the private forums at USPO where discussions are troll-free.

I have stopped posting in public threads at USPO in protest against USPO administrative toleration of a moderator that consistently baits, trolls and insults with impunity. As far as I'm concerned, that sets the tone for the whole forum and is one of the main reasons that USPO threads are so toxic (and so attractive to other toxic posters).

I prefer other less toxic sites for actual discussion of issues (PoFo mostly).

[Mrs. M]

In case you didn't catch coberst's message on this forum, you can see the same message at these:

Hypography Science Forums - Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground. - ForumGarden

Science Forum - Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground. - SciForums.com

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground. - INTP Central

http://forums.armageddononline.org/a...s-t12876.html?

ILovePhilosophy.com Discussion Forums :: View topic - Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground. - Religion and Philosophy - City-Data Forum

Someone definitely spends too much time on the internet!!!

[soot]

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

And it is also true that those of us who actually do have advanced formal educations in precisely these topics do get tired of beating our heads against a wall of arrogant nonsense and reading threads that make a mockery of the very idea of intelligent discussion.

Btw, your statement of agreement with the words of that coberst fellow is precisely the kind of mind-numbing statement that tells me not to bother posting in public forums. I can read coberst's drivel at a dozen forums on any given day - and you agree with him. I rest my case.

For those of us who happen to be rather well educated upon the topics we address, there is generally only insults and ridicule. I can't see much reason to bother playing along.

Is it possible for you to open your mouth without being a snarky little bitch?

Apparently I should have added that there is a startling degree of arrogance on the part of a few posters who think they are much smarter than they actually are, and thus miss the forest for the trees when they construct elaborate mechanisms which reinforce their own assumed superiority while actually making them look like jackasses to anyone who takes even a moment to seriously consider their tripe.

It’s a shame you won’t be posting here anymore, as I’ve learned from you on several occasions. The loss of your input will be missed, by me at least.

But your pissy schoolgirl attitude won’t be missed, nor will the intellectual hammer you tend to think it is your right to hold over the head of the membership here. Frankly, it was getting a little bit tiring listening to your rants about how “nobody wants to mess with White Rabbit because he’s powerful smart and will attempt to skillfully belittle you if you cross swords with him”, or something to that effect.

All I can really say about that rubbish is:



In all events, if you really think that "that Coberst fellow" is wrong in his position here I think you're a fool. A well educated fool perhaps, but a fool never the less. After all, you can't teach common sense, and you've proven you lack it on more than one occasion.

Have fun posting wherever it is you'll be posting in the future. Whatever forum you find yourself on will be gaining a true intellect. Unfortunately, they'll also be gaining a surly child, delusional with intellectual grandeur.

I hope they can appreciate the former and ignore the latter, as I have. Best of luck to you, and don't let the door hit you in your pretentious ass.

[Mrs. M]

Originally Posted by soot

Is it possible for you to open your mouth without being a snarky little bitch?

Apparently I should have added that there is a startling degree of arrogance on the part of a few posters who think they are much smarter than they actually are, and thus miss the forest for the trees when they construct elaborate mechanisms which reinforce their own assumed superiority while actually making them look like jackasses to anyone who takes even a moment to seriously consider their tripe.

It’s a shame you won’t be posting here anymore, as I’ve learned from you on several occasions. The loss of your input will be missed, by me at least.

But your pissy schoolgirl attitude won’t be missed, nor will the intellectual hammer you tend to think it is your right to hold over the head of the membership here. Frankly, it was getting a little bit tiring listening to your rants about how “nobody wants to mess with White Rabbit because he’s powerful smart and will attempt to skillfully belittle you if you cross swords with him”, or something to that effect.

All I can really say about that rubbish is:



In all events, if you really think that "that Coberst fellow" is wrong in his position here I think you're a fool. A well educated fool perhaps, but a fool never the less. After all, you can't teach common sense, and you've proven you lack it on more than one occasion.

Have fun posting wherever it is you'll be posting in the future. Whatever forum you find yourself on will be gaining a true intellect. Unfortunately, they'll also be gaining a surly child, delusional with intellectual grandeur.

I hope they can appreciate the former and ignore the latter, as I have. Best of luck to you, and don't let the door hit you in your pretentious ass.

My, my...coming down kind of hard on White Rabbit, aren't you? If you'll read some of his post on this forum, you'll discover that he's definitely not a fool and can out-debate most everyone here. He's one of the more respected posters and it's a shame that he doesn't post in the public forums more often.

[soot]

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

My, my...coming down kind of hard on White Rabbit, aren't you? If you'll read some of his post on this forum, you'll discover that he's definitely not a fool and can out-debate most everyone here. He's one of the more respected posters and it's a shame that he doesn't post in the public forums more often.

I don't think it's too hard. I think he’s a well educated obnoxious prig who thinks much too highly of himself.

As I said, he definitely has a wealth of intelligence, learning, and understanding to contribute. It has been my experience that he is right more often than wrong, and that he makes good points more often than poor ones. He’s taught me a number of things in the short time I’ve been a member here.

I don't think that he's a fool in general; I just think that his response to this thread is foolish.

And I don't equate being able to "out debate" anyone here with having something of substance to say or with winning an argument because you're right.

Debating is a skill just like any other. It can be studied and honed and perfected, as much as anything can be perfected.

Rabbit is certainly a skillful debater, but sometimes that simply entails being able to cloak one's argument in smoke and mirrors more skillfully than one's opponent. An admirable ability no doubt, but it doesn't add any substance to one's argument. When that carefully contrived but factually weak argument is read from the perspective of one who has nothing invested in the argument, and judged solely on its merit rather than on its craftsmanship, it loses much of its luster.

If Rabbit can’t win an argument on merit he’ll simply blind you with bullshit, and failing that he’ll attempt to intimidate with threats.

I agree it’s a shame that he doesn’t post in public here more often. But it’s also a shame that he’s too big for his britches.

He would be much more personable if he would add to the discussion where he has something of value to say, and show a little humility when he doesn’t or when he’s disagreed with.