Originally by: Sera Ryskin

---

1) Having an opinion that fits into reality. Some things are up for debate, but if you ignore science/logic/etc in forming your opinions, you get zero respect.

2) Defending your opinion rationally. If you don't understand your positions well enough to defend them against criticism, how exactly are they any better than if you'd just flipped a coin to decide and managed to get the right answer by blind luck?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

... is exactly zero.

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

My reality and rational are totally different to yours. I wouldn't possibly expect you to understand where my point of view comes from, not in the least because you haven't seen, heard or felt the things I have. Unless you have witnessed a revolution or two and have seen the horrible things people do to eachother.

---

Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker

---

Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!

---

Originally by: Elron Hubward

---

You guys are americans aren't you?

---

Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker

---

Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

And what makes your opinion respectable over mine ?

---

Originally by: Deviana Sevidon

---

The only thing I read so far, is that you will only tolerate my opinion if I earned your respect before.

---

Quote:

---

You can be the most respected <insert profession here> in the world, when you present some opinion, it SHOULD be considered by the same standards one would consider a layman's opinion

---

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

Surely respect is something that is earned? A lot of people seem to have the attitude that you start off having respect, and then lose it if you act like a ****. Is it just me, or does this seem completely wonky?

---

Originally by: Davina Braben

---

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

Surely respect is something that is earned? A lot of people seem to have the attitude that you start off having respect, and then lose it if you act like a ****. Is it just me, or does this seem completely wonky?

---

You get a certain amount just for being a human being actually.

Notice how people don't spit at you in the street, refer to you as "****breath" and urinate through your mailbox?

That isn't because everyone likes you.

---

Quote:

---

1) To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.
2) To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit.
3) To relate or refer to; concern.

---

Originally by: Sera Ryskin

---

That falls under point #2, by the way, personal experience is just fine for supporting your positions (though it doesn't overrule everything else, if there is contradictory evidence).

---

Originally by: Vabjekf

---

Facts are not truth, they are widely agreed upon assumptions.

---

Originally by: Sera Ryskin

---

I'm talking about objective facts

---

Originally by: Vabjekf

---

sure it does, it decides if people are guilty beyond REASONABLE doubt, not ALL doubt, that would be impossible! A fact is just something that everyone agrees is probably true, and is important enough within the currently understood model of the universe that people drop the probably.

The only truth that can be absolute is the kind that does not require anything external to be evident. And those are very few in number and rarely go beyond 'stating the obvious'

---

Originally by: Richard D. Feynman

---

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesnÆt know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty ù some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I donÆt know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question ù to doubt ù to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."

---

Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker

---

Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

We're not perceiving reality, we're perceiving quantum states, so how can anyone claim he/she knows the truth? zomg!

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

heisenberg disagrees!

---

Originally by: Sera Ryskin

---

... is exactly zero. Congratulations, you have an opinion, that's hardly a respect-worthy feat of brilliant intellect. Now, I'm not completely heartless, if I feel someone is wrong, I give them a chance to listen and discuss the subject reasonably. But if they just reject that chance and continue ranting on, ignore everything I said, start insulting me, etc, respect is gone and their only purpose is entertaining me and/or anyone who happens to be watching the execution.

If you want respect, you get it by doing two things:

1) Having an opinion that fits into reality. Some things are up for debate, but if you ignore science/logic/etc in forming your opinions, you get zero respect.

2) Defending your opinion rationally. If you don't understand your positions well enough to defend them against criticism, how exactly are they any better than if you'd just flipped a coin to decide and managed to get the right answer by blind luck?


Oh, as you might guess from this thread, I have even less respect for pseudo-scientific frauds, and I will do what I can to publicly expose and humiliate them. Don't expect to bluff your way to an image of intelligence by throwing around of scientific-sounding nonsense and hoping your audience won't know enough to call that bluff, and don't expect any kindness when you run into an expert who does.

---

Originally by: mercyonman

---

Originally by: Sera Ryskin

---

... is exactly zero. Congratulations, you have an opinion, that's hardly a respect-worthy feat of brilliant intellect. Now, I'm not completely heartless, if I feel someone is wrong, I give them a chance to listen and discuss the subject reasonably. But if they just reject that chance and continue ranting on, ignore everything I said, start insulting me, etc, respect is gone and their only purpose is entertaining me and/or anyone who happens to be watching the execution.

If you want respect, you get it by doing two things:

1) Having an opinion that fits into reality. Some things are up for debate, but if you ignore science/logic/etc in forming your opinions, you get zero respect.

2) Defending your opinion rationally. If you don't understand your positions well enough to defend them against criticism, how exactly are they any better than if you'd just flipped a coin to decide and managed to get the right answer by blind luck?


Oh, as you might guess from this thread, I have even less respect for pseudo-scientific frauds, and I will do what I can to publicly expose and humiliate them. Don't expect to bluff your way to an image of intelligence by throwing around of scientific-sounding nonsense and hoping your audience won't know enough to call that bluff, and don't expect any kindness when you run into an expert who does.

---

idk if you know this or not but you are very condescending

---

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

Originally by: Richard D. Feynman

---

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesnÆt know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty ù some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I donÆt know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question ù to doubt ù to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."

---

Take this as you will.


Slade

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

You get the treatment you deserve... the same treatment you apply to other individuals.
Tit for tat with forgiveness is the winning evolutionary strategy for a reason.

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 11/01/2009 18:34:09

Originally by: Akita T

---

You get the treatment you deserve... the same treatment you apply to other individuals.
Tit for tat with forgiveness is the winning evolutionary strategy for a reason.

---

keep that in mind whilst you contradict yourself and troll the next person in line..

who are you to judge which treatment people deserve.. ?

i'm not sure you would do a very good job at it.. arrogance blinds and all that..

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

who are you to judge which treatment people deserve.. ?

---

Originally by: Abrazzar

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Edited by: 7shining7one7 on 11/01/2009 18:34:09

Originally by: Akita T

---

You get the treatment you deserve... the same treatment you apply to other individuals.
Tit for tat with forgiveness is the winning evolutionary strategy for a reason.

---

keep that in mind whilst you contradict yourself and troll the next person in line..

who are you to judge which treatment people deserve.. ?

i'm not sure you would do a very good job at it.. arrogance blinds and all that..

---

Projecting your faults on other people again?

---

Originally by: ReaperOfSly

---

Surely, it's a linear scale with "derision" at one end, "respect" at the other, and by default we start halfway between the two?

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

You got hit with the stupid stick much when you were younger?

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

You got hit with the stupid stick much when you were younger?

---

gee thanks, are you done or do you want to add some more?

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

You got hit with the stupid stick much when you were younger?

---

gee thanks, are you done or do you want to add some more?

---

Nah, you did a good job of making yourself look like a total lunatic already.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

I merely stated what people DESERVE, as in "the reasonable way in which they should be treated so that society as a whole would be better off"... not what people actually GET, which is usually completely different from what they would deserve.
Claiming I would have implied that war crime victims deserve to be victimised is a logical fallacy at best, or a downright insult more likely.

Also, the notion that we are all equal is preposterous.
No, we are NOT all equal. Quite the damned contrary.
The actual quality of each individual is influenced by a lot of factors, from genetic code determining base potential, to upbringing determining how well that base potential is valorified, to circumstances which are more or less random... there's a WIDE spread of people, from vastly inferior to vastly superior, without clear delimitations of skin colour, gender, nationality or belief system, roughly following a Bell curve shape with the "average" being the most numerous, while the vastly inferior and vastly superior constitute a tiny minority, for each larger grouping of individuals or any combinations of groups, to the entirety of the human race.
Saying that we are all created equal, or that we ARE all equal is one of the greatest proofs of both arrogance and ignorance one could possibly present.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

The best reasons there are for doing anything : because you can, because you have nothing better to do at the time, and because people enjoy "defeating" other people.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Of course he feels better now.
Being reasonably convinced of your own superiority over somebody else sets off a strong human rewarding biological mechanism which releases endorphins and a host of other chemicals which make one feel better.

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

well.. yeah backtracking from your previous comment was a wise decision..

---

Quote:

---

do you deny the subatomic level

---

Quote:

---

you are in the universe that is comprised of the same fabric at its very base..

---

Quote:

---

do you deny you are part of the universe?

---

Quote:

---

do you deny the dna blueprint?

---

Quote:

---

pray tell how a view of equality is in any way arrogant when it causes you to appreciate everything as ultimately equal stemming from the same source.. and only changing in size shape and form..

---

Quote:

---

you can be as arrogant and selfish as you want, but fact remains, when push comes to shove, you are just a plain old boring human male, with the same base dna as any other male, same organs, ears nose mouth eyes hair and the rest of it.. and you will live and die just like everyone else..

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

furthermore.. just because you think something doesn't mean its true.. you of all people should know that

---

Quote:

---

also i do think you have a little misunderstanding of biology going.. you should read slades post again..

---

Quote:

---

you don't get to tell me that you are not arrogant and self centered, ever... again..

---

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

Originally by: Richard D. Feynman

---

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesnÆt know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty ù some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I donÆt know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question ù to doubt ù to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."

---

Take this as you will.


Slade

---

Quote:

---

* always disbelieve everything by default, only believe something after it's proven (within reasonable margins of error)
* always assume you are right about something you already believe, unless proven wrong ; try to prove what you believe to be right in case of diverging opinions
* always discard your old opinions which were proven to be wrong in favor of those proven to be right (or at least better)
* treat new information in a skeptic manner (if it can't be trusted to be accurate/correct, it matters a lot less, but everything matters to some degree)
* constantly reassess your own opinion based on any new piece of information you come across even if nobody tries to prove you wrong (be your own critic)

NOTE : Matters of taste or preference that have no intrinsic scientific value are not to be regarded as "opinions" for the scope of this thread.
Wether you prefer to drink red wine or while wine instead, that is a preference, not an opinion.
Arguing that drinking red wine is more healthy than drinking white wine, now THAT however IS an opinion.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 11/01/2009 19:20:20

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

furthermore.. just because you think something doesn't mean its true.. you of all people should know that

---

Of course I know that.
The difference betwen you and me are that you have a preconcieved notion that is directly opposing the current scientific consensus and fail to accept the fact your opinions are very likely crap, refusing at every step of the way to prove them in any way that would be even resembling the scientific method... while on the other hand I try to logically, empirically prove most of the non-obvious things I say, and try to argue to the validity of my claims if contested.
Did I ever say I wasn't arrogant nor self-centered ? Are you blind ?
OF COURSE I am both arrogant and self-centered, sheesh.
You forgot to add easily angered and rude in such an emotional state, competitive and ruthless.

That doesn't automatically make anything I say wrong, however.

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

you've allready contradicted that quote several times ITT regardless how much you claimed to support it at the time you wrote the self quote you pasted..

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

Originally by: Richard D. Feynman

---

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesnÆt know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty ù some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I donÆt know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question ù to doubt ù to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."

---

Take this as you will.

Slade

---

---

Originally by: Richard D. Feynman

---

"The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesnÆt know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty ù some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I donÆt know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question ù to doubt ù to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

comedy gold ITT

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 11/01/2009 19:23:12


Yeah. Precisely that. Explain to us what you understand from that quote.
My distilled understanding of that quote is presented in bullet-point format at the bottom of post #9 in this thread.

Quote:

---

* always disbelieve everything by default, only believe something after it's proven (within reasonable margins of error)
* always assume you are right about something you already believe, unless proven wrong ; try to prove what you believe to be right in case of diverging opinions
* always discard your old opinions which were proven to be wrong in favor of those proven to be right (or at least better)
* treat new information in a skeptic manner (if it can't be trusted to be accurate/correct, it matters a lot less, but everything matters to some degree)
* constantly reassess your own opinion based on any new piece of information you come across even if nobody tries to prove you wrong (be your own critic)

---

What's yours ?

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

comedy gold ITT

---

yes you are indeed quite funny.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

comedy gold ITT

---

yes you are indeed quite funny.

---

You're playing it quite well. Any normal troll would have gotten bored already but you keep persisting. I've already dismissed the option that you are genuine because that would require a stupidity that would in itself tear the fabric of space and time.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

You're playing it quite well. Any normal troll would have gotten bored already but you keep persisting. I've already dismissed the option that you are genuine because that would require a stupidity that would in itself tear the fabric of space and time.

---

Originally by: Sera Ryskin

---

The fact that you quote Feynman to justify your pseudo-scientific bull**** is just priceless irony.

Here's a hint: Feynman had no more patience that I do for frauds and stupidity. He was a scientist, and that quote is intended to be about scientific argument. I have no doubt that Feynman would, if presented with compelling evidence, change his mind.

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

nothing is certain anything goes and must be considered, disregarding factors separates the truth from itself..

---

Quote:

---

what i've done is perfectly consistent with that.. i did highlight it but you're probably gonna ask anyways regardless so i'll just drag it out here too..
"and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true."

---

Quote:

---

whereas you guys are sure about everything and ignore anything you can't prove immediately (totally contradicting the aforementioned) i instead present my oppinions and perspectives.. and leaves the proof and discoveries to whomever finds them, and it sure won't be any of you guys.

---

Quote:

---

"Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained."
and that's exactly what you two have done.. akita with his blind arrogance and his "oh i was right before so i'm allways right in the future" attitude.. and the other guy with his self proclaimed intellectual mastu(r)bation in order to defeat someone in an argument, he just likes to hear himself speak, and probably likes to stand in the mirror whilst touching himself.. which is all fine and well, but it is however totally unrelated to the pursuit of truth..

---

Quote:

---

you lost your heads guys and you know it, however smart you think you are.. in your arrogance and self centeredness you became blind..
sry guys.. game over.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

I do not know wether 7shining7one7 is married or not

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

comedy gold ITT

---

yes you are indeed quite funny.

---

You're playing it quite well. Any normal troll would have gotten bored already but you keep persisting. I've already dismissed the option that you are genuine because that would require a stupidity that would in itself tear the fabric of space and time.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: 7shining7one7

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

comedy gold ITT

---

yes you are indeed quite funny.

---

You're playing it quite well. Any normal troll would have gotten bored already but you keep persisting. I've already dismissed the option that you are genuine because that would require a stupidity that would in itself tear the fabric of space and time.

---

Ahah! So you DO admit that consciousness can affect matter!

P W N D !

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

...Yeah, sure, you're free to think your kids are smart...

---

Originally by: Rondo Gunn

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

...Yeah, sure, you're free to think your kids are smart...

---

[you're] Kinder and gentler than I.
If your kids are ugly and stupid, I will be sure to let you know.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 12/01/2009 15:49:40

Originally by: Rondo Gunn

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

...Yeah, sure, you're free to think your kids are smart...

---

[you're] Kinder and gentler than I.
If your kids are ugly and stupid, I will be sure to let you know.

---

Hey, according to 7shining7one7, I'm self-centered, arrogant and don't know what else... therefore you must be the incarnation of evil

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 11/01/2009 19:20:20
Did I ever say I wasn't arrogant nor self-centered ? Are you blind ?
OF COURSE I am both arrogant and self-centered, sheesh.
You forgot to add easily angered and rude in such an emotional state, competitive and ruthless.

That doesn't automatically make anything I say wrong, however.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

...is usually zero when they're spouting nonsense.

Just because somebody has an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean we should feel the least bit obligated to respect it without reserve, especially when that viewpoint stems from an acute lack of education, understanding, knowledge or mental acuity.
Actually, quite the contrary, it is a major disservice to the human race as a whole just as for the local society and even the particular person with the opposing viewpoint NOT to point out the glaring defficiencies in his logic.

What I'm probably trying to say, Political Correctness as a concept... it's just bullcrap.
And trying to not hurt somebody's feelings regardless of why... even moreso.


Yeah, sure, you're free to think your kids are smart or your wife beautiful, and I can respect that since it hurts nobody.
But when you let your at-best-mediocre wife attend a beauty pageant then get upset she didn't win, now that I can't be possibly expected to respect, that's just silly.
Or worse, when you try to enrol your stupid kids in the same class as the actual smart kids then complain "the education system has a problem", now then we have a serious problem, and all due respect is way, WAY out the window.


Respecting other people's opinions regardless of their quality or veridicity is crap.
And people who try to push that particular viewpoint on the issue are worthy of nothing but contempt, if not downright hatered.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 12/01/2009 15:49:40

Originally by: Rondo Gunn

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

...Yeah, sure, you're free to think your kids are smart...

---

[you're] Kinder and gentler than I.
If your kids are ugly and stupid, I will be sure to let you know.

---

Hey, according to 7shining7one7, I'm self-centered, arrogant and don't know what else... therefore you must be the incarnation of evil

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

You can be the most respected <insert profession here> in the world, when you present some opinion, it SHOULD be considered by the same standards one would consider a layman's opinion, and vice-versa....

---

Quote:

---

You Can not Simultaneously Prevent and Prepare for War - Albert Einstein.

My first paying job in my life was teaching astronomy at the Miami Space Transit Planetarium. I have been fascinated by the stars and planets for as long as I have had a memory. I bow to no one in my respect and admiration for Albert Einstein's stunning insights into the nature of space and time, matter and energy. That a young Austrian clerk sitting in a Swiss patent office could puzzle out the structure of the Universe using only logic and imagination is in my mind the greatest feat of intelligence in human history.

With that said, why aren't the cosmological theories of George Patton or Dwight Eisenhower ever the subject of bumper stickers? Probably because cosmology is well outside their realm of expertise.

E=mc2 is a statement of such beauty and elegance that it commands belief in an ordered and structured universe. Human nature is not so ordered and structured. Psychology is not as predictable as gravity, and it is a mistake to think that it is. Human beings are subject to Murphy's Laws, not Newton's.

Quoting Einstein is an appeal to authority. But politics is not an area where Einstein is an authority. I give Einstein's opinions on spacetime great weight; his opinions on politics and human nature, not so much. No one holds Einstein up as a great authority on fashion, grooming, family life, football or hairstyling. Why? Because the modern era's greatest mind clearly didn't know diddly-squat about them.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 12/01/2009 15:49:40

Originally by: Rondo Gunn

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

...Yeah, sure, you're free to think your kids are smart...

---

[you're] Kinder and gentler than I.
If your kids are ugly and stupid, I will be sure to let you know.

---

Hey, according to 7shining7one7, I'm self-centered, arrogant and don't know what else... therefore you must be the incarnation of evil

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

Yesterday some guy mentioned that the only two countries not suffering from economic disaster right now are the UK and Germany. Someone else proved him wrong and got ganged upon by half the forum members and got banned.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

Yesterday some guy mentioned that the only two countries not suffering from economic disaster right now are the UK and Germany. Someone else proved him wrong and got ganged upon by half the forum members and got banned.

---

You can't be serious... UK is so obviously into deep crap, and Germany doesn't look all that good either, and whoever says otherwise is having a 'shrooms-induced trip or somesuch. I find it hard to believe the majority of this forum would be so stupid as to claim the UK and Germany are unaffected or that they would support somebody who says that, even lacking fresh obvious proof to the contrary.

Link to the thread you mention so that we can all go in and make fun of the people who claim otherwise.

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

Quote:

---

Link to the thread you mention so that we can all go in and make fun of the people who claim otherwise.

---

I can't link the thread, I got IP ban

---

Quote:

---

People need to believe that they live in lala land and if that idea is tarnished in any way shape or form their world comes crumbling down. It is the same with Shining. He has his beliefs and clings to them, for that I respect him.

---

Quote:

---

I do think he takes pleasure in being the centre of attention, but then who doesn't? I respect him for his political views which would be classed as 'controvertial' by those who disagree. Though, to be honest, the ramblings in this thread are making me lose some of that respect.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

...is usually zero when they're spouting nonsense.

Just because somebody has an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean we should feel the least bit obligated to respect it without reserve, especially when that viewpoint stems from an acute lack of education, understanding, knowledge or mental acuity.
Actually, quite the contrary, it is a major disservice to the human race as a whole just as for the local society and even the particular person with the opposing viewpoint NOT to point out the glaring defficiencies in his logic.

What I'm probably trying to say, Political Correctness as a concept... it's just bullcrap.
And trying to not hurt somebody's feelings regardless of why... even moreso.


Yeah, sure, you're free to think your kids are smart or your wife beautiful, and I can respect that since it hurts nobody.
But when you let your at-best-mediocre wife attend a beauty pageant then get upset she didn't win, now that I can't be possibly expected to respect, that's just silly.
Or worse, when you try to enrol your stupid kids in the same class as the actual smart kids then complain "the education system has a problem", now then we have a serious problem, and all due respect is way, WAY out the window.


Respecting other people's opinions regardless of their quality or veridicity is crap.
And people who try to push that particular viewpoint on the issue are worthy of nothing but contempt, if not downright hatered.

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.

---

Not necessarily.
Different known "facts" which leads each side to genuinely believe they're both right (and the other part "obviously" wrong) is a much more common cause of disagreements.
Both disagreeing parties might be partially right, they might be both completely wrong, and only sometimes one of them right and the other wrong.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Respecting other people's opinions regardless of their quality or veridicity is crap.
And people who try to push that particular viewpoint on the issue are worthy of nothing but contempt, if not downright hatered.

---

Originally by: Roguehalo

---

Can you nano Titans?

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

Sounds like you think you can learn nothing from anybody else, that your opinions at your current state in life are the final and they will never change because of someone else?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

Sounds like you think you can learn nothing from anybody else, that your opinions at your current state in life are the final and they will never change because of someone else?

---

Sounds like you misread

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

But you should still respect people.

---

Quote:

---

Treat others as you want to be treated you know?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

But you should still respect people.

---

Respect people, yes.
Respect the right of other people to have an opinion, yes.
Respect people that consider their opinions factual regardless of evidence to the contrary, no.
Respect people that consider their opinions factual regardless of evidence to the contrary AND on a rampage about how they are right and everybody else wrong, HELL NO.

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

Evidence needs interpretation which is subjective.
Take 9/11 for example. People dont accept the same evidence as the truth.

---

Quote:

---

Scientists disagree on what is possible. So are you going to treat the other guy without respect because he interprets the evidence differently?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

Evidence needs interpretation which is subjective.
Take 9/11 for example. People dont accept the same evidence as the truth.

---

And that's why civilized people have arguments and opposing viewpoints, with lengthy discussions about how things can be interpreted and why they should be interpreted one way or another... as opposed to generalized skull-bashing until "the truth" is on the side of whoever's last left standing.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 18/01/2009 15:12:06

No... it's quite simple.
You're going to treat with respect the people that present their case, take your counter-arguments and try to come up with explanations that would explain their viewpoint in light of your recently presented counter-point.
People who are unable to accept the possibility they might be wrong, people who aren't interested in hearing your counter-point, or in other words people who simply dismiss your counter-arguments on a "but it doesn't fit my theory so it must be wrong" basis... now, those, you DON'T treat with respect.
Simple, isn't it ?

---

Originally by: Roguehalo

---

Can you nano Titans?

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

I just dont agree with them but I still treat them with steadily decliningrespect.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

I just dont agree with them but I still treat them with steadily decliningrespect.

---

I agree with the "fixed" version

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They would have never admitted they are wrong in the first place anyway, so the only remaining strategy is public humiliation.
Of course, it can backfire in case you are eventually proven to be wrong, but eh, no pain, no gain, right ?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.

---

Not necessarily.
Different known "facts" which leads each side to genuinely believe they're both right (and the other part "obviously" wrong) is a much more common cause of disagreements.
Both disagreeing parties might be partially right, they might be both completely wrong, and only sometimes one of them right and the other wrong.

---

Originally by: Lance Fighter

---

This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.

---

It is trivially obvious that this is untrue.

I like apples; you like cherries. We can honestly disagree over whether cherry pie is better than apple pie.

And if one pie shop does great apple pies but mediocre cherry pies, and another one vice versa, we can honestly disagree over which is the better pie shop.

Obviously the analogy is a little trivial, but you get the idea.

---

Originally by: Jim McGregor

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

They would have never admitted they are wrong in the first place anyway, so the only remaining strategy is public humiliation.
Of course, it can backfire in case you are eventually proven to be wrong, but eh, no pain, no gain, right ?

---

Ive had this happen to me, its not pretty.

---

Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker

---

Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 09:58:55

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.

---

It is trivially obvious that this is untrue.

I like apples; you like cherries. We can honestly disagree over whether cherry pie is better than apple pie.

And if one pie shop does great apple pies but mediocre cherry pies, and another one vice versa, we can honestly disagree over which is the better pie shop.

Obviously the analogy is a little trivial, but you get the idea.

---

Having a disagreement over taste preference is dishonest. As that is not something one should really be disagreeing over unless you seek to dominate the other persons preferences. I define a disagreement as 2 sets of facts that do not stack against each other; to use a historical example, Galileo's defiance of the catholic church.

A disagreement is totally different to a preference. Hmmm let me find some reading material.

@ Akita, **** happens :P

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 19/01/2009 09:58:55

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

Edited by: Celeste Coeval on 18/01/2009 11:49:36
Disagreements require dishonesty on one side.

---

It is trivially obvious that this is untrue.

I like apples; you like cherries. We can honestly disagree over whether cherry pie is better than apple pie.

And if one pie shop does great apple pies but mediocre cherry pies, and another one vice versa, we can honestly disagree over which is the better pie shop.

Obviously the analogy is a little trivial, but you get the idea.

---

Having a disagreement over taste preference is dishonest. As that is not something one should really be disagreeing over unless you seek to dominate the other persons preferences. I define a disagreement as 2 sets of facts that do not stack against each other; to use a historical example, Galileo's defiance of the catholic church.

A disagreement is totally different to a preference. Hmmm let me find some reading material.

@ Akita, **** happens :P

---

Well you're stretching the definition of "dishonest" a little further than I would care to, but if that's how you view it then you still ahve to take in to account priorities. Different people can - for good, logical and acceptable reasons - have differing priorities, which are often not easily subject to objective comparitive analysis. How do you balance spending money on transport infrastructure vs education, for instance?

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

People should allow for parameters for which they have no stake in, that also effect other people. The individual must take responsibility for knowing when they are pushing arguments based on something irrational or pride. If for example, you do not have the vernacular to articulate the argument and back up your solid counter arguments with verifiable evidence, then you are being dishonest. Tolerance and patience are required for dealing with disagreements where evidence states that both parties have interests that conflict, a prime example being the Eve O forums.

---

Originally by: Kerosene

---

If you don't respect a viewpoint because it is fundamentally incorrect (see religion, global warming, any media sensationalism) then it's quite interesting to be able to argue to your own more valid point. If the opponent's argument is indeed built on the house of cards you think it is then it shouldn't be a problem to convert their way of thinking.

If they still refuse to accept that you're right and they are wrong then disrespect, and a smack up side the head, is due.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Person A can say: freedom is paramount and must not be compromised. Who can argue against freedom?

Person B can say: the safety and wellbeing of children must be our first concern. Who can argue against keeping children safe?

Person C can say: we must never permit injustice to go unpunished. Wo can argue against injustice?

But obviously, freedom, justice and the wellbeing of children must often conflict with each other, despite the fact that every thinks that all 3 are essential. How can you say that Person A and B are dishonest for disagreeing with Person C that justice must always be done?

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

People should allow for parameters for which they have no stake in, that also effect other people. The individual must take responsibility for knowing when they are pushing arguments based on something irrational or pride. If for example, you do not have the vernacular to articulate the argument and back up your solid counter arguments with verifiable evidence, then you are being dishonest. Tolerance and patience are required for dealing with disagreements where evidence states that both parties have interests that conflict, a prime example being the Eve O forums.

---

Tolerance and patience are means for resolving disagreements, not for avoiding them in the first place. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to be an expert on everything; and even experts in a given field can disagree, so some amateur conscientiously trying to do research in order to avoid a disagreement can hardly be faulted for drawing different conclusions to someone else.

And as the apple pie/cherry pie analogy illustrates, people can bring different axioms to the debate.

Person A can say: freedom is paramount and must not be compromised. Who can argue against freedom?

Person B can say: the safety and wellbeing of children must be our first concern. Who can argue against keeping children safe?

Person C can say: we must never permit injustice to go unpunished. Wo can argue against injustice?

But obviously, freedom, justice and the wellbeing of children must often conflict with each other, despite the fact that every thinks that all 3 are essential. How can you say that Person A and B are dishonest for disagreeing with Person C that justice must always be done?

tl;dr: existence is vastly too complex for such a black and white pronouncement as "all disagreements are the result of dishonesty". That's the kind of insane thinking that fanatics use to cause vast misery, since you're in effect saying that anyone who disagrees with you is evil.

---

Originally by: Lance Fighter

---

This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.

Originally by: Slade Trillgon

---

Originally by: Kerosene

---

If you don't respect a viewpoint because it is fundamentally incorrect (see religion, global warming, any media sensationalism) then it's quite interesting to be able to argue to your own more valid point. If the opponent's argument is indeed built on the house of cards you think it is then it shouldn't be a problem to convert their way of thinking.

If they still refuse to accept that you're right and they are wrong then disrespect, and a smack up side the head, is due.

---

Someone here posted a quote awhile back and I wish I new who the originator was.

"You can not reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into"

It is not dead on, but pretty close to it.


Slade

---

Quote:

---

I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Hey, according to 7shining7one7, I'm self-centered, arrogant and don't know what else...

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Quote:

---

I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

---

Contrary to what the OP and many others may think, they aren't always right, and it really is the height of conceit to believe otherwise. Many things such as maths, chemistry, electronics are based on fact and can be taught. People can be right and they can be wrong. Faith, politics, language, music, art are matters of opinion and belief and people are entitled to their own. I may not like the same music as you, nor the same books, nor the same ships in Eve, that doesn't make you wrong just because you don't agree with me.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

We now better than ever understand the world around us and we can even explain how and why religion ever got its start.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Yes your right to say things deserves defending as long as it does not entail the systematic indoctrination and molestation of children, the blind acceptance of dogma be it about silly virgin births or the condemnation of and outright hostility against someone's sexuality and much more stupid ****.

Religion does not deserve respect.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

While blind acceptance is blatantly wrong (where are you getting the molestation thing from?? Because it doesn't happen at all outside of temples??),

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

perhaps you are painting everyone with faith with the same brush. Asking questions, learning and doubting are actually the norm

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

You've been reading too many tabloids. Anyway, this thread is one giant Akita T rant and now a poke at religion yet again, the sooner it's locked the better.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

And now the the thread is going to get locked

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

I consider teaching belief to children molestation

---

Quote:

---

You must be living on a different planet then because questioning old ideas along with introducing new ones has been what the church has been maniacally trying to prevent ever since the middle ages

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

...thankfully I have kept the ability to carefully assess information presented to me and to change my opinion where evidence is presented.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

I consider teaching belief to children molestation

---

I understand what you mean, but that is the wrong choice of words. This is the extreme of what you mean, and yes it's wrong and yes it's against children's human rights.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

And I respect your right to believe that, even though I believe different This is why religion and politics need to kept off the forums. Nothing divides men more

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

And I respect your right to believe that, even though I believe different This is why religion and politics need to kept off the forums. Nothing divides men more

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Edited by: Akita T on 20/01/2009 05:34:22

Well, you did say that all disagreements are the result of dishonesty, and Malcanis took it to mean that that's kind of a "sign of evil", even if it's a bit of a stretch for him to say that...
...so, by that particular kind of stretched logic, he can claim that you implied that everybody who disagrees with you is sort of evil

---

Originally by: Celeste Coeval

---

When a person attacks in an unrelated way to the subject, dishonesty enters the discussion, someone has been dishonest and uses deformation of character to win their argument.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

tl;dr: existence is vastly too complex for such a black and white pronouncement as "all disagreements are the result of dishonesty". That's the kind of insane thinking that fanatics use to cause vast misery, since you're in effect saying that anyone who disagrees with you is evil.

---

Originally by: Lance Fighter

---

This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

And now the the thread is going to get locked

---

Funny enough, the reason why it will be locked is because if we continue this I will ask you to look up the meaning of a scientific 'theory', you will refuse because you think you know it anyway, I will collect and present you with some more witty statements and quotes regarding religion, you will feel mildly uneasy but start spouting more dogma in defence because that's all you have, I will suggest some other sources which can easily refute some of the assumptions in your dogma's and we end up with me having gained some experience in talking with religious nutters like you, and you not having moved an inch and continuing to live with a major delusion for some time to come.

---

Originally by: Lance Fighter

---

This is either a troll or a noob... Ill take the noob route.

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Didn't you say indoctrinating children was wrong a few posts ago? My point was that there are degrees of what is and isn't acceptable, and different people differ in those degrees. There was no derailment at all, I was highlighting your very own point.

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

Only a small portion of the world see what you posted as abuse.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

the difference between indoctrination, and simply teaching kids faith.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Contrary to what the OP and many others may think, they aren't always right

---

Quote:

---

Faith, politics, language, music, art are matters of opinion and belief and people are entitled to their own.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

Only a small portion of the world see what you posted as abuse.

---

Game, set, match. You managed to lose your own argument. You can have the rest of thread, it'll be locked soon enough anyway. PS. The above was nothing to do with Islam, it was to do with hamas. There's a world of difference. And it was highlighting the difference between indoctrination, and simply teaching kids faith.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Anyway, this thread is one giant Akita T rant and now a poke at religion yet again, the sooner it's locked the better.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Why don't you tell that to the face of homosexuals or people who like anal sex, to the people who like using contraception or any other number of people that have been or still are pressured on the basis of faith.
Or, how about you tell that to the mothers who don't want to raise unwanted children, or to all the scientist that want to work in stem cell research but they can't.
Oh, and don't even get me started with politics and the "right to an opinion".

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

By YOUR logic, I guess we should have respected fascist Germany's right to a political and faith-based opinion that set in motion something horrible. I mean, they had the right, didn't they ? And violence could have never been the solution to that, could it ?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

You are one of the few to even attempt to derail the thread to be about religion.

---

Originally by: Fenderson

---

In other words you are free to believe whatever you want, so long as your beliefs do not lead you to ACTIONS that impinge on others' rights. Once you cross that line, you forfeit your own rights in the interest of protecting everyone else's rights.

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Originally by: Fenderson

---

In other words you are free to believe whatever you want, so long as your beliefs do not lead you to ACTIONS that impinge on others' rights. Once you cross that line, you forfeit your own rights in the interest of protecting everyone else's rights.

---

Finally, someone who can say it better than I can. This is what I'm obviously not doing a very good job of getting across

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

Only a small portion of the world see what you posted as abuse.

---

Game, set, match. You managed to lose your own argument. You can have the rest of thread, it'll be locked soon enough anyway. PS. The above was nothing to do with Islam, it was to do with hamas. There's a world of difference. And it was highlighting the difference between indoctrination, and simply teaching kids faith.

---

Originally by: Fenderson

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Originally by: Fenderson

---

In other words you are free to believe whatever you want, so long as your beliefs do not lead you to ACTIONS that impinge on others' rights. Once you cross that line, you forfeit your own rights in the interest of protecting everyone else's rights.

---

Finally, someone who can say it better than I can. This is what I'm obviously not doing a very good job of getting across

---

think that through a little more before you agree with me. i am not saying that all beliefs deserve respect, i am saying that people have a RIGHT to believe whatever they want. I also have a right to disrespect any beliefs that i do not agree with.

Furthermore, i have a moral imperative to discredit any given belief if i have good reason to think that following that belief could cause harm to others or the impingement of other's rights.

---

Originally by: The AEther

---

Nothing wrong with it if you teach kids faith. That's right. Why teach them only one? Your faith? Aren't you depriving them of an alternative, an opportunity to question and explore what else is out there?

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Nice picture...

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Why would anyone teach their children something they believe to be wrong? I will teach my children what I (and hopefully my hot, millionairess wife) believe to be true and you will pass your beliefs to yours.

---

Originally by: Corwain

---

It's a link too smartypants.

---

Originally by: Super Whopper

---

Your mother is not your millionairess wife and her basement is not a mansion. No matter how many times you say it to yourself..

---

Originally by: KingsGambit

---

Why would anyone teach their children something they believe to be wrong? I will teach my children what I (and hopefully my hot, millionairess wife) believe to be true and you will pass your beliefs to yours.

---

Originally by: Sokratesz

---

Why not teach them to find out what they want to believe for themselves instead of indoctrinating them with your own?

---

Originally by: Corwain

---

It's a link too smartypants.

---

Originally by: Elron Hubward

---

I think my Iron-o meter just melted. You guys are americans aren't you? Go on, admit it.

---

Originally by: Akita T

---

Originally by: Corwain

---

It's a link too smartypants.

---

I was already familiar with the site, and I wouldn't have posted "The Duelists", but rather "Tireless Rebutter" vs "Artful Dodger".

---