The Argument Thread

[ashtweth]

Hi Seth, the simple way to say what i said is that arguments are usually "motivated" or are the "effect" not cause....sources can include due to inbalances in life from others or yourself (frustration) , trauma, or even in this case paid informants in the free energy forums...

The fact is an argument must have strict logic behind it and 99.9% of them i have seen stray..i guess the real point of this thread is self regulation and identification of these HERE You must never elevate yourself from defaming others, the logic that the poster presents here is a clear indication of the "motivation" of "arguments". Its very clear and can be a useful tool here to help you COMMUNICATE AND WORK TOGETHER (what arguments prevent) if understood .Its like gong to the gym, you work better if some one spot's you, other wise you cheat

Ash

[ashtweth]

Well - im glad someone can make some sense out of this thread

I honestly havent got a clue what im doing here, why i came, or where im going.....

I suppose anything is good for a laugh, eh?

Actually, i think you are doing far more then you realize the traits that are contained in logical educational material you posted, are present in members behavior here, mine also!

[ashtweth]

arguments prevent consolidation and should be eradicated for their role in this potential look at this and still we argue
YouTube - Starve The Beast - July 15, 2010 - GLOBAL NONCOMPLIANCE!!!

[seth]

Hi Seth, the simple way to say what i said is that arguments are usually "motivated" or are the "effect" not cause....sources can include due to inbalances in life from others or yourself (frustration) , trauma, or even in this case paid informants in the free energy forums...

Ash

eh.....?

argument are only effects, not causes?? dont understand. all effects are causes of other effects, and all causes are themselves the effects of other causes. Thats my view.

''sources can include due to inbalances in life...''

''paid informants'' - who do i see to get paid for informing? I want me some of that action!!!

[seth]

arguments prevent consolidation and should be eradicated for their role in this potential look at this and still we argue
YouTube - Starve The Beast - July 15, 2010 - GLOBAL NONCOMPLIANCE!!!

Therefore arguments CAUSE non consolidation. (even though they themselves may be the EFFECT of ''inbalances'')

They are both causes and effects. Like everything.

[ashtweth]

Yes arguments CAUSE an effect, the motivation behind them have a cause and effect ...arguments are a FROM a cause.logic deduction is a passion of mine too

[ashtweth]

''paid informants'' - who do i see to get paid for informing? I want me some of that action!!!

Believe that informants cause arguments and disrupt forums, i have been around for years and have seen this Ask the seasoned vets here they will tell you that this happens a lot

[seth]

Believe that informants cause arguments and disrupt forums, i have been around for years and have seen this Ask the seasoned vets here they will tell you that this happens a lot

and what makes you think they are ''paid informants''? Isnt it rather unlikely that people would be paid to come to energetic forum.com and start an argument? But still, if this is the case - wheres my cheque? Ive been working my @ss off today.


I think its just ordinary people getting their kicks from disrupting forums We are all contentious really, and love a good argument - if we werent, we'd be off building an OU machine to save the world, rather than sitting here and quibbling over cr@p that really doesnt matter.

[vidbid]

Response.

It just hit me where your going wiht this

Genius..its self reflection or introspection at how we exercise the reactive mind, that cripples and underlies every thing we do...

sneaky and genius

Please refer to the ground rules.

[vidbid]

Response.

contentious - the perverse tendency to start quarrels, disputes and ARGUMENTS

Which contentious poster started this contentious thread?

DENIED.

• ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE

[jibbguy]

POINT OF ORDER Mr. CHAIRMAN!

The topic under debate has become "Debate"! Therefore the previous poster was in compliance

Since this IS the topic presently discussed; here is something that i have been waiting for a while to post; this looks as good a place & time as any.

_____________________

Here are some suggestions, hard won over many years, for those good folks here who find themselves in debates with shills, naysayers, or even honest Skeptics.. Or as is often the case, in office "business" situations too

> Quoting opponents incessantly is not effective. Who do you want the readers to listen to ... YOU, or your opponent? It should be done infrequently (... or when quoting an ALLY occasionally which is fine). Look, its not all that bad and perhaps this is just mainly personal choice, but in the end it looks like you are trying to keep them from editing their old posts or something... Meaning you are SCARED of them doing something... And that is not projecting "confidence". Anyone who has ever done "Sales", knows what a killer that is. And if you don't think that in the end, a debate is about "sales"... don't bother reading the rest of this

> The best way to not only defeat, but utterly CRUCIFY an opponent who uses ad hominem attacks against you, is to simply point them out. This is so basic, and effective, that we are finally seeing this highly LAME tactic going by the wayside (although some people never seem to figure this out). "Defeat" in this sense, is to discredit their message. Thinking people are not inclined to listen to those who's main contribution to the discussion is personal attack against others... It engenders personal "dislike". Lol this is NOT conducive to winning debates. Once an opponent makes it "personal", they give the impression they have no credible intellectual argument. Ad Hominem really is: "The first and last resort of the incompetent".

> The target of a forum debate IS NOT the opponent. It is the READERS. Lol, only a fool expects to "change the opponent's mind". And a good debate is about exchanging IDEAS, that the readers can consider for themselves for value.

> Some shills or trolls will "anger bait" deliberately in an attempt to MAKE you lose your temper. Do not allow these rather disgusting tactics to manipulate you. Forgetting this is a sure way to lose the readers... and the debate. It is also effective to point out blatant examples of "baiting" to the readers... do that once and i guarantee that opponent won't try it again But the point is to NEVER get angry over what some nameless troll says in a forum. If you do, ALWAYS cool off before posting. Life's too short, people. Let it slide. Often, it is best to totally ignore blatant insults, and let them sit there for a while.. smelling up the place . There is no "win" in "out-stinking" an opponent, folks... the readers have pinched looks and are heading for the open windows; and you can't "blame the dog" this time

> No comment should be posted without making at least one new and unique point. Rehash and review for emphasis is useful and necessary at times for core points, but also always add something new to it.

> Intimidation tactics only work for those who can be intimidated... It is absurd to worry about some faceless entity on a forum, they are just shadows. They don't "exist" in real terms. Oh sure, they are some guy or gal sitting at their 'puter... but they are not the persona projected, they are not "real" in this sense. Many will attempt to use "Alpha Dog" tactics to intimidate anyone in an attempt to "chill" a thread; giving the implied message that if you oppose their viewpoint they will "crush you" somehow because, "they are obviously superior". DO NOT squat; lift your leg right back: Works every time If you do feel this "intimidation" chill factor:

To yourself, think of the guy as some ugly fat dude in a stained wife-beater T, eating a donut with crumbs all over the keyboard who is pretending to be a rock star or something. the problem with nearly all the "Alpha Dogs" is they are extremely brittle.... One-trick ponies. You won't even have to "bait" them, once the intimidation tactics don't work, they will usually screw it up themselves via their own ego, even paid shills... who surprisingly, are often not much better than others in this regard of "ego". And REMEMBER....

> Nearly EVERYONE is capable of being manipulated into ruining their arguments THEMSELVES via their own ego!! Remember that, keep an eye for it, and you are immune Doing this manipulation to others is the "Dark Side", Luke... Don't go there; it's harder to do right than it looks... and can backfire badly.

> There are plenty of people who ARE NOT SHILLS who lose their temper, yell out insults, etc. The internet seems to "recruit" them lol. Don't call them out, or answer in kind. NEVER lose your temper. Don't get personal. Reply rationally. Stay on message. Works every time. It's not hard to do once you understand that this is NOT A PERSONAL COMMUNICATION like you have on the street. Lol, these people would never dare talk to us like that on the street anyway And perhaps that is a very good thing to remember: Do not write something that you WOULD NOT SAY TO THEM IN PERSON.

> Pick your battles well. Ignore those that can do little good even if you "win"... They are a waste of time, and perhaps that is the point of them anyway.

And hey, you don't have to turn every post into a Machiavellian strategic battle plan either. These suggestions are about WINNING DEBATES. Which not every thread is. And it's not for everyone and some find it distasteful, like "used car sales" requiring the wearing of checkered sport coats or something. But i strongly believe that if we can generally improve our debate skills, we can get our message out more effectively to a wider audience... especially when those whose JOB or personal crusade it is to oppose our views, makes it into a "Debate". And in the end, always remember it should be about the ideas, not the person.

And there may be a time, and maybe soon, when this becomes important: Like when we will all have to work together to get a critical message out to the world. Because you can BET, that this will also be the time when we are attacked the most for doing so.

There's plenty more about debating shills (er, i mean "skills"), but you'll have to wait for the "book version" (jk)

__________________________

[Armagdn03]

Quote:
Originally Posted by seth View Post
Whats next? The complete works of Shakespeare in an abridged, easy to read, 3 pages?
DENIED.

vidbid response:

DENIED.

* ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
* FAILED ATTEMPT AT SARCASM[/LIST]

@vidbid

DENIED
- With respect to "ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE" - Sentence structure indicative of inquiry rather than over statement assuming fact.

DENIED
- With respect to "* FAILED ATTEMPT AT SARCASM" - Over statement indicating failure to communicate intent through sarcasm without stating metric used to empirically validate or invalidate statement in question. Personal opinion used as pass fail criteria followed by overt statement of fact despite statistically insignificant resultant (sample size in question = 1 individual out of 6+ billion)

Note: Previous denial applicable to all statements of "FAILED ATTEMPT AT SARCASM"

[vidbid]

Response.

POINT OF ORDER Mr. CHAIRMAN!

The topic under debate...

DENIED.

• ARGUMENTUM VERBOSIUM

[vidbid]

Response.

@vidbid
DENIED... Sentence structure indicative of inquiry...

DENIED.

• STATEMENT VEILED AS QUESTION

[vidbid]

Response.

@vidbid

DENIED
sample size in question = 1 individual out of 6+ billion

DENIED

• FALLACIOUS ATTEMPT AT ARGUMENTUM AD NUMERUM.