Arguing over division - Is the Argument worth winning? (103)
Rachie14: Free speech applies to all. Please don't forget where you live Lee. If you cannot be civil. May I recommend you remove yourself from the discussion. Simply because you do not agree with me.
It would also offer what is seriously lacking in discussions a respectful view. Rather than one with distain.
This is an example what I was trying to explain to the OP.
I am being civilised and debating well...I was just making a point about correct politically minded people, having a choice to post elsewhere if they don't like the people or the discussion being presented...It would also offer what is seriously lacking in discussions a respectful view. Rather than one with distain.
This is an example what I was trying to explain to the OP.
People don't need to throw their toys out of the pram, just because someone does not agree with them and no need to over dramatis things to the extreme...you don't have to talk to me and you don't have to agree with me...my opinion is my opinion...yours is yours...that's all
------ This thread is Archived ------
LeeCharming: I am being civilised and debating well...I was just making a point about correct politically minded people, having a choice to post elsewhere if they don't like the people or the discussion being presented...
People don't need to throw their toys out of the pram, just because someone does not agree with them and no need to over dramatis things to the extreme...you don't have to talk to me and you don't have to agree with me...my opinion is my opinion...yours is yours...that's all
You were rude. This has nothing to do with being PC. It is about being respectful towards others when you do not agree.People don't need to throw their toys out of the pram, just because someone does not agree with them and no need to over dramatis things to the extreme...you don't have to talk to me and you don't have to agree with me...my opinion is my opinion...yours is yours...that's all
When you suggested I remove myself. There was no need for it. Your view is very much noted throughout the forums. As are many others. Using a dogmatic approach is not acceptable and it is certainly not the OP's intent, her intent is to remove those divisions or accept we're different.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaylana04: Most arguments result from a form of division: two people disagreeing over a specific topic.
"I am a great lover of these processes of division and generalizations.... And if I find any man who is able to see unity and plurality in nature, him I follow, and walk in his step as if he were a god" (Socrates).
Division deepens insight and helps us to create order.
I have written before about classification several times on this forum. Allow me to delve deeper. My hope is that some of us can see that what we are quibbling over is simply how we define and classify the divisions we see.
Let's start with the concept of "friend". We have an extension of this term being all the set of people who are friends to a person. Number is not of importance in extension.
Then we have intention: This is basically its definition - the sum of all the characteristics. For "friend" this includes all the qualities of a friend - loyalty, trustworthiness, etc.
For those deep thinkers, the "Tree of Porphyry" shows the inverse relation between the two - as we focus in one direction (the set of friends) we move away from the definition (what makes a friend) and vise versa.
And one last bit about Division, there are two ways in which we divide: positive division and dichotomy.
In technical terms, positive division is taking the genus (large group) and dividing it into its pieces. Ex. Elements divided into hydrogen, oxygen, etc.
Science teaches us to classify/divide this way. Positive traits guarantee inclusion - even if there is a "bad" trait.
Dichotomy is division by contradictory items. Ex. Gold vs nongold; red and nonred.
In dichotomy, a "non-X" may have a series of positive traits - but they are not considered. So all nonwhite contains red, yellow, blue green etc. But it doesn't matter!
So, let's go into a sensitive topic that had been argued quite recently: Muslims.
Current teaching often attaches a moral onto a belief. As a result, many people deem themselves to be "good" if they believe it and then label those who don't believe it as "bad". (dichotomy division).
(We are sometimes too quick to place these labels on the perceived opposition.)
If I believe that vanilla is the best ice cream and that I am good, then everyone who doesn't like vanilla is "bad".
The error is forgetting that I also believe that all ice cream eaters are the best people in the world.
We have been taught that inclusion and acceptance/tolerance of all differences makes us "good" and that the opposite, exclusion and intolerance, is "bad".
But we forget that we also believe in the free speech, and women's rights, and protection of the weak and the freedom of religion...
Arguments abound. We have to look at how we are defining and classifying our terms.
We are taught to classify all religions as acceptable and this makes one "good".
If we look at the definition of "Muslim", it includes a wide range of individuals including those who are extremists and those who are not.
If we look at the extension of the group and divide using a dichotomy, we have two groups: Muslims and nonMuslims. In extension, number is not important.
I appreciate you having read thus far. In conclusion, two wonderful women on here (and others) appear to be attacking each other basically over differing positions on the spectrum of how they define the term "Muslim" and whether they are focusing on the definition versus the genus -- in other words, the pieces or the whole. If they were to talk about the same thing (dissecting and analyzing the definition versus the extension of all who are included in the group), I believe the two opposing sides would see that they actually agree with each other more than initially believed at the onset.
Peace!
I,ll read that in the library later,"I am a great lover of these processes of division and generalizations.... And if I find any man who is able to see unity and plurality in nature, him I follow, and walk in his step as if he were a god" (Socrates).
Division deepens insight and helps us to create order.
I have written before about classification several times on this forum. Allow me to delve deeper. My hope is that some of us can see that what we are quibbling over is simply how we define and classify the divisions we see.
Let's start with the concept of "friend". We have an extension of this term being all the set of people who are friends to a person. Number is not of importance in extension.
Then we have intention: This is basically its definition - the sum of all the characteristics. For "friend" this includes all the qualities of a friend - loyalty, trustworthiness, etc.
For those deep thinkers, the "Tree of Porphyry" shows the inverse relation between the two - as we focus in one direction (the set of friends) we move away from the definition (what makes a friend) and vise versa.
And one last bit about Division, there are two ways in which we divide: positive division and dichotomy.
In technical terms, positive division is taking the genus (large group) and dividing it into its pieces. Ex. Elements divided into hydrogen, oxygen, etc.
Science teaches us to classify/divide this way. Positive traits guarantee inclusion - even if there is a "bad" trait.
Dichotomy is division by contradictory items. Ex. Gold vs nongold; red and nonred.
In dichotomy, a "non-X" may have a series of positive traits - but they are not considered. So all nonwhite contains red, yellow, blue green etc. But it doesn't matter!
So, let's go into a sensitive topic that had been argued quite recently: Muslims.
Current teaching often attaches a moral onto a belief. As a result, many people deem themselves to be "good" if they believe it and then label those who don't believe it as "bad". (dichotomy division).
(We are sometimes too quick to place these labels on the perceived opposition.)
If I believe that vanilla is the best ice cream and that I am good, then everyone who doesn't like vanilla is "bad".
The error is forgetting that I also believe that all ice cream eaters are the best people in the world.
We have been taught that inclusion and acceptance/tolerance of all differences makes us "good" and that the opposite, exclusion and intolerance, is "bad".
But we forget that we also believe in the free speech, and women's rights, and protection of the weak and the freedom of religion...
Arguments abound. We have to look at how we are defining and classifying our terms.
We are taught to classify all religions as acceptable and this makes one "good".
If we look at the definition of "Muslim", it includes a wide range of individuals including those who are extremists and those who are not.
If we look at the extension of the group and divide using a dichotomy, we have two groups: Muslims and nonMuslims. In extension, number is not important.
I appreciate you having read thus far. In conclusion, two wonderful women on here (and others) appear to be attacking each other basically over differing positions on the spectrum of how they define the term "Muslim" and whether they are focusing on the definition versus the genus -- in other words, the pieces or the whole. If they were to talk about the same thing (dissecting and analyzing the definition versus the extension of all who are included in the group), I believe the two opposing sides would see that they actually agree with each other more than initially believed at the onset.
Peace!
------ This thread is Archived ------
ChesneyChrist: Only when somebody gets hurt. A fight happens between roughly equal powers who both thought they were going to win, and the point is to win so brutally and completely that no one disturbs the peace again.
It might seem ruthless but what’s the alternative?Unequal and fights where nobody gets hurt give the world the same atmosphere as this website; Trolls and petty power, endless anxiety and misery.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaylana04, I won't comment on your thread again, as I suspect it will be sabotaged, because some don't agree with me and always looking to attack me personally...you have seen for yourself, that I have given my opinion...presented it poliletly and based on the truth...others can disagree or agree, but not go into posting history etc to try to use that as a tool to defend their point of view...lies are wrong and so is hatred...
I'm on here to talk about a subject and not other poster...others have an agenda to target me, because they don't agree with me and will play any dirty trick in the book to try to make me look bad...It don't wash...
Thank you for letting me have my say and hope this thread stays on this subject and does not turn into another lynch mob attack
I did not ask anyone to leave, but some tried to be an authority figure and tell me, that I had to conform to their ideology or I should leave this thread...Communist mentally and dictatorship...
My suggestion was...if they are not grown up enough to talk about this issue and it upsets them that much, then they have the choice to leave...Choice
I'm on here to talk about a subject and not other poster...others have an agenda to target me, because they don't agree with me and will play any dirty trick in the book to try to make me look bad...It don't wash...
Thank you for letting me have my say and hope this thread stays on this subject and does not turn into another lynch mob attack
I did not ask anyone to leave, but some tried to be an authority figure and tell me, that I had to conform to their ideology or I should leave this thread...Communist mentally and dictatorship...
My suggestion was...if they are not grown up enough to talk about this issue and it upsets them that much, then they have the choice to leave...Choice
------ This thread is Archived ------
LeeCharming: Kaylana04, I won't comment on your thread again, as I suspect it will be sabotaged, because some don't agree with me and always looking to attack me personally...you have seen for yourself, that I have given my opinion...presented it poliletly and based on the truth...others can disagree or agree, but not go into posting history etc to try to use that as a tool to defend their point of view...lies are wrong and so is hatred...
I'm on here to talk about a subject and not other poster...others have an agenda to target me, because they don't agree with me and will play any dirty trick in the book to try to make me look bad...It don't wash...
Thank you for letting me have my say and hope this thread stays on this subject and does not turn into another lynch mob attack
I did not ask anyone to leave, but some tried to be an authority figure and tell me, that I had to conform to their ideology or I should leave this thread...Communist mentally and dictatorship...
My suggestion was...if they are not grown up enough to talk about this issue and it upsets them that much, then they have the choice to leave...Choice
And here lays the problem. When you make personal attacks upon other posters suggesting they should leave and they respond to your behaviour and call you on it. Mob like mentality, there is mainly me voicing my opinion. No different than you and you turn it into this kinda of drama. Not once did I challenge you upon your opinion. I'm on here to talk about a subject and not other poster...others have an agenda to target me, because they don't agree with me and will play any dirty trick in the book to try to make me look bad...It don't wash...
Thank you for letting me have my say and hope this thread stays on this subject and does not turn into another lynch mob attack
I did not ask anyone to leave, but some tried to be an authority figure and tell me, that I had to conform to their ideology or I should leave this thread...Communist mentally and dictatorship...
My suggestion was...if they are not grown up enough to talk about this issue and it upsets them that much, then they have the choice to leave...Choice
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaylana04, You see my last post was for you only, but someone intercepted it..How disrespectful is that to you
I will leave you to decide...you know what has be written on your thread and you know who was trying to act as an authority figure...it was not me I said free to leave...as in free choice
I will leave you to decide...you know what has be written on your thread and you know who was trying to act as an authority figure...it was not me I said free to leave...as in free choice------ This thread is Archived ------
Rachie14: You were rude. This has nothing to do with being PC. It is about being respectful towards others when you do not agree.
When you suggested I remove myself. There was no need for it. Your view is very much noted throughout the forums. As are many others. Using a dogmatic approach is not acceptable and it is certainly not the OP's intent, her intent is to remove those divisions or accept we're different.
Yes, this is an example of what my intent is...When you suggested I remove myself. There was no need for it. Your view is very much noted throughout the forums. As are many others. Using a dogmatic approach is not acceptable and it is certainly not the OP's intent, her intent is to remove those divisions or accept we're different.
There are three parts to every communication:
1. What is said.
2. What isn't said.
3. The tension between the two.
Soooo.... Lee and Rachie,
What Lee said was indeed fact - people can choose to leave.
What might have been implied or perceived by the recipient was the implication towards her.
Thus tension could be felt.
Now, the problem is, as I stated earlier, we do not know at what point another person can become offended. That choice is also theirs and theirs alone.
We can try to not be offensive by using correct speech.
We can be polite but that doesn't mean that we can guarantee we won't offend someone.
But if one is trying to make a point, it may in the course offend someone because of the implications.
This fear shouldn't be the reason to not state an opinion. Enforcing this fear is a repression of free speech.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaylana04: Yes, this is an example of what my intent is...
There are three parts to every communication:
1. What is said.
2. What isn't said.
3. The tension between the two.
Soooo.... Lee and Rachie,
What Lee said was indeed fact - people can choose to leave.
What might have been implied or perceived by the recipient was the implication towards her.
Thus tension could be felt.
Now, the problem is, as I stated earlier, we do not know at what point another person can become offended. That choice is also theirs and theirs alone.
We can try to not be offensive by using correct speech.
We can be polite but that doesn't mean that we can guarantee we won't offend someone.
But if one is trying to make a point, it may in the course offend someone because of the implications.
This fear shouldn't be the reason to not state an opinion. Enforcing this fear is a repression of free speech.
It was a direct attempt Kay at oppressing anothers point of view. As shown in his posting history. Directed towards me. There are three parts to every communication:
1. What is said.
2. What isn't said.
3. The tension between the two.
Soooo.... Lee and Rachie,
What Lee said was indeed fact - people can choose to leave.
What might have been implied or perceived by the recipient was the implication towards her.
Thus tension could be felt.
Now, the problem is, as I stated earlier, we do not know at what point another person can become offended. That choice is also theirs and theirs alone.
We can try to not be offensive by using correct speech.
We can be polite but that doesn't mean that we can guarantee we won't offend someone.
But if one is trying to make a point, it may in the course offend someone because of the implications.
This fear shouldn't be the reason to not state an opinion. Enforcing this fear is a repression of free speech.
There was no place for it in the discussion. The emotional maturity is beyond reasoning.
I am not removing myself based on someones inability to keep his personal grudges at the door.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaylana04: Yes, this is an example of what my intent is...
There are three parts to every communication:
1. What is said.
2. What isn't said.
3. The tension between the two.
Soooo.... Lee and Rachie,
What Lee said was indeed fact - people can choose to leave.
What might have been implied or perceived by the recipient was the implication towards her.
Thus tension could be felt.
Now, the problem is, as I stated earlier, we do not know at what point another person can become offended. That choice is also theirs and theirs alone.
We can try to not be offensive by using correct speech.
We can be polite but that doesn't mean that we can guarantee we won't offend someone.
But if one is trying to make a point, it may in the course offend someone because of the implications.
This fear shouldn't be the reason to not state an opinion. Enforcing this fear is a repression of free speech.
I think you have looked at this in a mature way and understood the concept of free speechThere are three parts to every communication:
1. What is said.
2. What isn't said.
3. The tension between the two.
Soooo.... Lee and Rachie,
What Lee said was indeed fact - people can choose to leave.
What might have been implied or perceived by the recipient was the implication towards her.
Thus tension could be felt.
Now, the problem is, as I stated earlier, we do not know at what point another person can become offended. That choice is also theirs and theirs alone.
We can try to not be offensive by using correct speech.
We can be polite but that doesn't mean that we can guarantee we won't offend someone.
But if one is trying to make a point, it may in the course offend someone because of the implications.
This fear shouldn't be the reason to not state an opinion. Enforcing this fear is a repression of free speech.
Only one person can't define what free speech is meant to mean and they won't accept, they are in the wrong...free to leave...free choice not dictating to someone...the other poster was trying to control me though and they suggest I left the thread, because they did not agree with me...I don't care if they agree or disagree with me...but I don't like them bringing me into their drama and making this thread about them, because it is not...it is about a thread subject nothing more...no need for personal
attacks on me for having an opinion.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rachie14: It was a direct attempt Kay at oppressing anothers point of view. As shown in his posting history. Directed towards me.
There was no place for it in the discussion. The emotional maturity is beyond reasoning.
I am not removing myself based on someones inability to keep his personal grudges at the door.
Rachie,There was no place for it in the discussion. The emotional maturity is beyond reasoning.
I am not removing myself based on someones inability to keep his personal grudges at the door.
You know of my posting history, so I hope that you can see the sincerity of my question.
How does bringing up his posting history (in this comment) compare with him not keeping his personal grudges at the door?
In law cases, impartiality keeps a judge from sitting on a case where he has prior knowledge.
------ This thread is Archived ------
LeeCharming: I think you have looked at this in a mature way and understood the concept of free speech
Lee, The compliment is accepted.
The discourse between you and Rachie is an example of what the thread is about.
She has defined "personal attacks" to include different attributes than you.
Your writing does have implications that could be offending to someone who includes that trait in his/her definition.
I believe that both of you agree on one aspect- a person has utter freedom to express her/his opinion and has the right to leave a discussion on their own free will.
The point is to realize where the other person is on the spectrum!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaylana04: Lee,
The compliment is accepted.
The discourse between you and Rachie is an example of what the thread is about.
She has defined "personal attacks" to include different attributes than you.
Your writing does have implications that could be offending to someone who includes that trait in his/her definition.
I believe that both of you agree on one aspect- a person has utter freedom to express her/his opinion and has the right to leave a discussion on their own free will.
The point is to realize where the other person is on the spectrum!
Could you confirm what you mean by definition of personal attacks? Are you saying she is very sensitive and unable to discuss subjects, without taking them to heart? That's not debating like a mature adult if that is what you mean? I don't agree that her interpretation of free speech is the same as mine...she wants to play the self righteous angel and dictate what she claims is right or wrong, when her words say different...it's one rule for her and another for anyone who don't agree with her...well that's how it appears to meThe compliment is accepted.
The discourse between you and Rachie is an example of what the thread is about.
She has defined "personal attacks" to include different attributes than you.
Your writing does have implications that could be offending to someone who includes that trait in his/her definition.
I believe that both of you agree on one aspect- a person has utter freedom to express her/his opinion and has the right to leave a discussion on their own free will.
The point is to realize where the other person is on the spectrum!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaylana04: Rachie,
You know of my posting history, so I hope that you can see the sincerity of my question.
How does bringing up his posting history (in this comment) compare with him not keeping his personal grudges at the door?
In law cases, impartiality keeps a judge from sitting on a case where he has prior knowledge.
Kay, I have no problem with you or your intent. However I do with his childish behaviour. You see Lee is actually manipulating you. The manipulation goes like this.You know of my posting history, so I hope that you can see the sincerity of my question.
How does bringing up his posting history (in this comment) compare with him not keeping his personal grudges at the door?
In law cases, impartiality keeps a judge from sitting on a case where he has prior knowledge.
Post his opinion. Sweet talk you with an apology that is not an apology. IF I upset you is not accepting his behaviour that he actually did. Throw an offhand insult, have a paddy whack when pulled for his behaviour. Then ask you to please review it. What he is saying is look I did no wrong, please it's all her. Then turn on the charm with your so mature.
This is what people have to deal with.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Rachie14: Kay, I have no problem with you or your intent. ...
This is what people have to deal with.
Rest assured that I see it, Rachie. This is what people have to deal with.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Kaylana04, Can you see how manipulative she is trying to influence your views and trying to paint me in a very bad light....She does not understand the definition of free speech and being entitled to having an opinion, unless it is inline with her...she has taken this thread to heart, like she does often on other threads...it's immature and unproductive...You don't have to agree with me and never said anyone had to...she on the other had hates people who don't agree with her and has tunnel vision...it's her way or no way at all mentality...
Let's remember, that she addressed me first on this thread and I was just giving my opinion on the subject, so who is asking for arguments, drama and trouble...give you a clue it's not me...I like civilised debating and could do with all the silly tantrums
Let's remember, that she addressed me first on this thread and I was just giving my opinion on the subject, so who is asking for arguments, drama and trouble...give you a clue it's not me...I like civilised debating and could do with all the silly tantrums
------ This thread is Archived ------
LeeCharming: Could you confirm what you mean by definition of personal attacks? Are you saying she is very sensitive and unable to discuss subjects, without taking them to heart? That's not debating like a mature adult if that is what you mean? I don't agree that her interpretation of free speech is the same as mine...she wants to play the self righteous angel and dictate what she claims is right or wrong, when her words say different...it's one rule for her and another for anyone who don't agree with her...well that's how it appears to me
Lee, I don't know what is her definition of "personal attacks". Suffice it to say that it includes her own past experience and her own interpretations. It is hers alone.
Now, the next series of questions contain a number of implications. This is exactly what I was referring to in a prior comment. By wording them as a question, it gives the air of innocence, when you may or may not be implying the words as a direct statement.
It is fine to disagree with me on my assessment of both of your definitions of free speech. However, do you seriously claim to know her wants and desires? Oh, if life and relationships were that simple..... The biggest challenge in intimate relationships is guessing what the other person wants...sigh....
I understand that you see her actions as "self righteous" and "dictating".... her actions are included in your definition...
Sometimes, the things we see in others is merely a reflection of our self.
------ This thread is Archived ------
And never the twain shall meet...
------ This thread is Archived ------
LeeCharming: Kaylana04, Can you see how manipulative she is trying to influence your views ...
Rest assured, Lee, I see it....------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Democrats destroyed America
Trump on Trial
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Gal / sdarlagg passed away on April 10, 2024
Have it both ways!
makeover
Kultur-multur
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
biggest lie
What happened to CS while i was away.. (Long time)
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
It would also offer what is seriously lacking in discussions a respectful view. Rather than one with distain.
This is an example what I was trying to explain to the OP.