The Problem with Otaku Lounge

[Sara]

[color=purple]What's your opinion of Otaku Lounge?

I know that, in general, the people I talk to have a problem with it--be it post quality, [i]thread[/i] quality (the topic of discussion), or even member quality. I've always had a soft spot for this forum, but I often find myself agreeing with them. Sometimes (not always), this place can be a pain in the neck.

But I'd like to put the question to the people who actually post here on a regular basis: [i]What[/i] (be specific if you can) do you like and dislike about O. Lounge? [b]What would you like to change?[/b]

If you don't like the kinds of threads that are here, what kind of thread [i]would[/i] you like to see more often? Do you have any suggestions or ideas for this forum--things that would make [i]you[/i] enjoy it more?

The general consensus seems to be that this place needs some work. My question for you is, what kind would you like to see? (And what about it now do you like?)

[size=1]tireless defender of the undercooked,
Sara[/size][/color]

[wrist cutter]

[size=1][color=purple]It's worth noting that anything [i]approaching[/i] personal attack in this thread (even against oneself ;)) will be deleted.

I'm looking for honest input here. Thanks.

-Lore[/color][/size]

[Tigervx]

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=Teal]Maybe more debate threads? I mean, I know debates are very touchy and are only one step away from flame wars, but they're very good threads when they don't. When I look in here, alot of the threads are about personal issues and basically funny stuff, but what about politics? What about the modern world? I mean, threes no discussion about the War in Iraq, a very controversial topic. I think I remember when the War in Iraq started (I'm not sure if it was the WoI, so please don't quote me) the first couple threads got closed. I believe alot of people are afraid to post controversial threads because they know they'll develop into flame wars and get closed. Perhaps have a sticky of guidelines for a debt thread about hot issues?[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Sol-Blade]

[SIZE=-3]Hmm, okay let me try my hand at this. I've only been coming here a few months, but hey my opinion is as valid as anyone elses...right? *silence*

Heh, I made a funny. Anyways, to get back on topic, what I was saying was...oh wait! That's the main problem I've seen right there...threads getting WAY off topic. I'm tired of seeing some pretty good discussions about life, or theories, or politics; turn into small little wars between members and/or stray posts about completely irrelevant info. I mean, sure it's a place to talk about real life issues, but I mean if you are going to post in a thread about politics...[i]post about politics[/i]. Don't bring up some completely useless/pointless issue that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It makes it hard to understand what the actual debates (given there is one) are about.

I wouldn't say thread quality is a problem. I haven't really seen any threads where I mouthed "WTF" at the screen or some other words I can't really mention!

Post quality, well no problems really here except the one mentioned above. You can't really [i]control[/i] what people are going to type, you can only set guidelines and rules and hope people read them and follow them. I don't think that the rules here are strict in anyway, I think they are common sense if anything. I mean, nobody wants to read "OMFG I LUV TOM CRUISE HE IS TEH ROXXORS!!!!!!!11!1infinity!!11" in a thread about, hey you guessed it...Tom Cruise. I mean if there ever was that is. lol

Another thing I hate to see, people bashing and dissecting every single post in a thread. It's pretty disheartening to see people rip apart people's theories, just to prove a point (I mean, if they are wrong, sure then tell them why. Don't start calling them names and judging how smart or stupid they are based on ONE post) and it gets out of hand sometimes. Some of those threads with 50+ posts, at least HALF of them are people berating someone's post to death. It's strange to read a thread where 10 people quote the same post over and over and bring up the same issues with it over and over and OVER. Correct them, debate them, Agree or Disagree with them...but please let it DIE after a couple posts. Don't keep dwelling on something that was said a week ago.

Ahem, so yeah...rant aside, only problem really is stray posts and discussions that go on for way too long. Heh, don't get me wrong, I love this place. You all do a great job anyways![/SIZE]

[Sara]

[quote name='Tigervx][FONT=Arial][COLOR=Teal]Maybe [b]more debate threads?[/b] I mean, I know debates are very touchy and are only one step away from flame wars, but they're very good threads when they don't. When I look in here, alot of the threads are about personal issues and basically funny stuff, but what about politics? What about the modern world? I mean, threes no discussion about the War in Iraq, a very controversial topic. I think I remember when the War in Iraq started (I'm not sure if it was the WoI, so please don't quote me) the first couple threads got closed. I believe alot of people are afraid to post controversial threads because they know they'll develop into flame wars and get closed. Perhaps have a sticky of guidelines for a debate thread about hot issues?[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote][size=1][color=purple]That's interesting. I know that I, personally, don't really care for political debates, as I always feel a bit out of my league.

I think in general, political threads simply run out of steam (or are closed, often for the same reason) simply because people begin to repeat themselves over and over. Or, as you said, it degenerates into personal attacks, with neither side admitting the other any point. The general closing line tends to be "I think this thread has run its course." And by that point, it often has, as nothing new is being added on either side.

A way to avoid that might be defying human nature, but it would be interesting.

[quote=Sol-Blade][SIZE=-3]Anyways, to get back on topic, what I was saying was...oh wait! That's the main problem I've seen right there...[b]threads getting WAY off topic.[/b] I'm tired of seeing some pretty good discussions about life, or theories, or politics; turn into small little wars between members and/or stray posts about completely irrelevant info.

Another thing I hate to see, [b]people bashing and dissecting every single godd...post in a thread.[/b] It's pretty disheartening to see people rip apart people's theories, just to prove a point (I mean, if they are wrong, sure then tell them why. Don't start calling them names and judging how smart or stupid they are based on ONE post) and it gets out of hand sometimes.

Some of those threads with 50+ posts, at least HALF of them are people berating someone's post to death. It's strange to read a thread where 10 people quote the same post over and over and bring up the same issues with it over and over and OVER. Correct them, debate them, Agree or Disagree with them...but please let it DIE after a couple posts. Don't keep dwelling on something that was said a week ago.[/SIZE][/quote]Thanks for your input. :) I very much agree with what you've said here.

The thing about off-topic posts is that conversation naturally evolves. Have you ever played the game where you try and trace back your conversation with someone to where it began? You can go through several topics, trying to reach where you started...things naturally shift from one to another. However, I agree--on message boards, that can get complicated, especially as people can easily bring up and quote posts from several "steps back" in the thread. I guess the question is how far off-topic is still...well...on topic?

As for the second point I've quoted, you've just brought up why I dread debates here. I think that it can be done in a good way and a bad way, but too often, the tone of the thread eventually goes from "here's what I think" to "You are an idiot for not thinking what I think." And [i]that[/i] is a problem, because it puts everyone on the defensive, and when people feel they are being attacked, they attack others. It gets messy very quickly.

good at heart,
Sara[/color][/size]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]When people complain about the lack of new, quality threads in the Lounge, I have only one thing to say to them: Why don't you make one?

I think that is why many people see there as being a problem with the Lounge. Because there aren't enough original threads. But, really, how much discussion inspiring material is there to be had?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Lounge. It is reasonably active, and tends to have at least one thread [if not more] active at a time, which interests me. What is there to complain about? Threads stay mostly on topic, though it is good when discussions morph into something else. Because, when you discuss things IRL, the conversation progresses, and my one suggestion would be that threads be allowed to progress naturally here as they do IRL. At any time returning to the original matter is good, but covering issues brought up within the thread is useful as well.

Overall though, the OL is fine. In my opinion, anyway.[/size]

[Panda]

I would have to say the main problem I see with the OL is the "circle debates" that take place as mentioned before. People debating a topic with the same points rehashed over and over thus eventually leading to the thread being closed. On rare occassion someone will post a new view into that thread and breathe life back into it...but not always. I try to hold out hope that it will happen. Call me an optimist.

Due to the "catch all" nature of the forum having the same high level of thread topic quality as the other forums is difficult. We have everything from the heated ethical debates to the more lighthearted ones like asking about your holiday memories. Both are great in their own ways, but also bad since they can go downhill quickly.

The OL has is own little quirks which makes it an interesting place to be.

[Brasil]

Sara, you know what I'd say, even before I say it, heh, but I'll post it anyway.

One of my biggest criticisms of OL is that too many members just don't know when to quit. Normally, I'd applaud that perseverance...when the members have something worthwhile to say, you know? When...they actually have a point that's relevant to the topic and is going to provide a [i]good[/i] discussion.

Like Sol-Blade said, we just don't need people posting incoherent, spammy drivel about their personal lives when we're talking about Politics, Economics, History, etc. The issue is compounded even further, I think, when these members almost outright refuse to acknowledge they're "speaking" irrationally.

I can understand when someone is just giving their opinion on something and they're not really looking for any type of validation (although, I can't remember the last time that's happened), but when it's clear that they're not going to be able to either lead the discussion or to have meaningful and enlightening contributions to that discussion that are going to lead to new ideas...I think it's time to whip out the pruning shears, as it were.

I suppose I'll just use one of those familiar little buzz-phrases of mine:

"It's one thing to have an opinion; it's something entirely different to have an uneducated opinion."

If someone is spewing nonsense, they need to be expected to get called on it, you know? That's really my main beef.

Solution-wise, or what could be changed...I think just a stronger emphasis on having coherent, easy-to-read posts, with a well-formed main idea and a few well-formed support points, so the incoherent gibberish and rambling is kept to a minimum. Basically, just emphasize that members think before they start typing. If they fail to do so, then they will have to suffer the consequences.

That's my take on it.

Sol-Blade, I got the funny. ^_^

[Sara]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']When people complain about the lack of new, quality threads in the Lounge, I have only one thing to say to them: Why don't you make one?[/size][/quote][size=1][color=purple]You and me both. ;) I don't know about you, but the reply I get is usually along the lines of "everything's already been talked about." Not entirely encouraging, heh, I can tell you that.

I think that a lot of people who take issue with O. Lounge dismiss it for the reason you stated--everything is repetitive. However, I also think that if you're interested in talking about something, a little repetition won't deter you. I don't believe it occurs to many people to start a thread about something they would actually [i]like to talk about[/i]. Maybe because they can't think of anything, maybe because thhey're feeling rather defeatist and figure it will be closed or ignored.

For members who have been here for a while, some topics really [i]have[/i] been "done to death." However, that doesn't mean that new faces don't have somehting interesting to say about the same old things.

[quote name='Baron Samedi']Overall though, the OL is fine. In my opinion, anyway.[/quote]Good to hear. :)

[QUOTE=Panda]Due to the "catch all" nature of the forum having the same high level of thread topic quality as the other forums is difficult. We have everything from the heated ethical debates to the more lighthearted ones like asking about your holiday memories. Both are great in their own ways, but also bad since they can go downhill quickly.

The OL has is own little quirks which makes it an interesting place to be.[/QUOTE]You're right, or course. It's a difficult concept to keep a certain level of quality across the board when the range of topics is so diverse.

And yes, it certainly does. ^_^

new and improved,
Sara[/color][/size]

[Sol-Blade]

[quote name='Lore][size=1][color=purple]For members who have been here for a while, some topics really [i]have[/i] been "done to death." However, that doesn't mean that new faces don't have somehting interesting to say about the same old things.[/color'][/size][/quote]

[SIZE=-3]Well, if they have something really worthwhile to add to the thread, then by all means...post away! But if someone is going to jump on the bandwagon and starting pointing out all the holes in someone's opinion/idea/theory/story/life-time achievement award...[U][I]that has already[/I][/U] been pointed out, oh so many times already by many other people (And believe me, there are some [I]sharp[/I] people on this site. You know who you are!!! :D), then the entire post is useless and [I]I[/I] would rather not just post it all together. But again, you can't exactly prevent that from happening, you can only correct, inform, and regulate.[/SIZE]

[Xander Harris]

I dunno. I really like the lounge, because it's my speed. There's other message boards out there that I could join, but the posts pile up so fast it's impossible to keep ahead of them, let alone post anything yourself. Other sites have so few members it's impossible for a discussion to progress at a reasonable pace.

OB is just right, although I would like to see some more new posters (it seems like lately it's the same 8 people over and over)... which I guess is what this thread is supposed to ascertain how to attract, correct?

Also, like Siren said, people need to learn when to give things up and move on. The stupid things people say about relationships thread was fun until it turned into a free for all about wether or not a certain member should have asked another members age :rolleyes: I love political threads as well (heck, I'm seriously considering majoring in poly sci), but there comes a point at which everyone has said their piece, and there is no point in them repeating it, but they do anyway, over and over, wasting energy they could be spending making new threads.

That's my 2 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

[James]

[color=#707875]I can tell you right now, there is very little we can do, on an administrative level, to "fix" Otaku Lounge.

In my opinion, the complaints about OL are totally redundant. Why? Because the "quality", or perceived quality of Otaku Lounge comes from the people who post there. And it's really as simple as that. As long as people are posting within the rules, there is absolutely nothing we can do to make a substantive shift or change to OL; again, it's something that the members dictate.

If people would like to see higher quality in OL, it's up to them to post the threads and the responses to facilitate that. That's what a forum is. We cannot artificially create an environment of quality if the members themselves are not posting "quality threads".

My message is simple. If you don't like the lounge, you have a choice. You can either post in it and try to improve the quality by contributing, or ignore it completely. It's either something you want to participate in or it isn't.

The only thing I'd suggest is for Team Koizumi to be more aggressive in pursuing members who try to take threads down -- people who try to hijack discussions and spin them in various directions.

Obviously, a discussion will grow and evolve over time. That's only natural. But the staff in this area could definitely contribute to quality by actually being more aggressive in terms of applying the rules.

Other than that, there's really nothing anyone can do, at least, on an administrative level. As I frequently say, it's up to the members to think of topics to post and it's up to members to create responses that are reasonable.

In actual fact, if you look at the threads on the first page, you will generally see pretty high quality responses. The problem is that the crazy minority are the ones who are casting a shadow over the entire forum. And that is ridiculous.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole perceived lack of quality or insanity of this forum is really just a big white elephant. Unfortunately a vocal minority are negatively colouring and stereotyping this forum, when a majority of people are contributing some pretty thoughtful posts.[/color]

[MissWem]

[COLOR=DarkRed]I'm with Baron, I like the OL as it is.. mostly, it's only just a few members that somewhat annoy me but that's what makes it more interesting. Not to mention you can't just "change" the way people act on the boards especially if you 'prove them wrong' in a rather brutal manner causing them to become very defensive.

I think the problem with wanting more "discussions" in terms of politics, economics etc. is that politics tends to be very isolated to a particular country, mostly America obviously and a lot of the members on this board I suspect aren't old enough to vote. And another thing is that, I know almost nothing about the politics in my own country let alone another one, simply because it's redundant as my views on any such political topic are null until I'm old enough to 'vote'. That's my problem though isn't it ^^"

Secondly, this [i]is[/i] an anime board and how many of us are educated enough or even willing to research in-depth into an economic (or any other similar type of discussion) to be able to have a very strongly educated opinion about it? I know there are plenty of strong opinions, but it's not always easy to be well educated in it.

I know Siren is obviously very well educated in the literature department, hey I even admire the quality of his posts because of the legibility and style. There are other members I admire for the same/similar reasons.

Anyway bottom line, I like the forum. Maybe the mods should be a little more heavy handed on the people who dissect the same post ten-times over. It does become quite tedious.[/COLOR]

[Delta]

[COLOR=DarkRed][SIZE=1]
I've one: How about putting up a sticky that says "Thou shalt not create threads in the likes of 'Hey, I'm ____; I'm new here and I'd like us all to be friends'".

[quote name='Derelict Destiny][COLOR=DarkRed']Secondly, this is an anime board and how many of us are educated enough or even willing to research in-depth into an economic (or any other similar type of discussion) to be able to have a very strongly educated opinion about it? I know there are plenty of strong opinions, but it's not always easy to be well educated in it.[/COLOR][/quote]
Hmm, true. But I must admit that I've learned a lot of educational stuff from OB (Lady Asphyxia's Hobbit Woman thread, for example). There've been times when I was even tempted to do research on a particular topic just because the thread that was discussing was, hrmm, lively. That's right: I was [i]tempted[/i].

Love and Peace!
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Queen Asuka]

[color=hotpink][size=1]For some reason, it seems to me that it's mostly the older members who complain about the OL. I don't know if this is because I only talk to older members, being one myself, or if it is the general consensus, but I'm leaning towards the former rather than the latter. I think that what it is for me and probably a lot of other people is that it's nothing new. Just about everything that is talking about in there has already been discussed a million times before in the previous years of our membership here.

Since retiring from my moderating duties, I've made an effort to post in the OL on a regular basis so that I can perhaps get to know these younger and newer members and to can my Elitist B*tch attitude about everything. I realize that they have important things to say and even when they sound so stupid and immature, I realize that I used to be the SAME way, going back and reading some of my first posts around this place.

I think the OL will ALWAYS be the way it is. It's just the way it is set up and somethings that may seem redundant and mundane to some of us will be very important to the younger and upcoming generation. At least, that's my take on the whole thing. You tell me what you think. ^_^;[/color][/size]

[Hevn]

One thing is...I don't like debate threads or any thread that leads to any debate. It's just tiring to see people bashing each other with their opinions. Here in OL, it's hard to see a "calm" debate thread. It's just that when people hear the word "quality" all they think about is politics, or economics, or gay issues, or divorce etcetera etcetera. Then everything leads to a debate.

Another thing is...I don't like personal problems threads (although I admit of creating one once >>). For OB's sake come on, just sign up for myOtaku, get friends, and pour out everything there. Better yet, solve problems on your own. OB's no Dear Abby. -.-

All I want is to sit comfortably on my chair and read threads that are a little less complicated like what I want for Christmas or things I regret or new amazing stories and inventions or why Mimmi is teh cuteness, err...yeah.

Anyway, Otaku Lounge is okay with me. I just choose which threads I want to read and, if by any chance, I stumble upon something that would make my eyes bleed of anger or annoyance, I just move away from that thread as much as possible.

[Dagger]

I've come to hate debate threads--[i]not[/i] because they're circuitous, not because the most enthusiastic participants rarely reconsider their respective stances, not because the same topics pop up month after month. Oh, no... I couldn't care less about those things. What really gets to me are personal attacks, and they seem to be everywhere nowadays. Members go after each other for the most ridiculous of imagined offenses--sometimes, it seems, simply for a person's personality or very existence. It's annoying, it's stupid, and it's extremely off-putting.

A debate in which people present and refute arguments is one thing. A debate in which people start delving into their opponent's psychology and attempt to discredit him not by rebutting his evidence, but rather by acting as though his opinion is a direct extension of some deep mental flaw, is an entirely different animal. Am I the only one who keeps seeing the same two or three people hijack thread after thread? I feel certain that most of the members here would rather conduct an intelligent, rational discussion than be right at all costs. So why does this keep happening?

I particularly agree with what Sol-Blade said; I roll my eyes whenever I see members (and again, it's only a few people who do this!) dissecting each other's posts ad nauseam. It drives me freaking crazy, and drives me away from the threads in question. Just learn to let it go. :rolleyes:

~Dagger~

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]
A debate in which people present and refute arguments is one thing. A debate in which people start delving into their opponent's psychology and attempt to discredit him not by rebutting his evidence, but rather by acting as though his opinion is a direct extension of some deep mental flaw, is an entirely different animal. Am I the only one who keeps seeing the same two or three people hijack thread after thread? I feel certain that most of the members here would rather conduct an intelligent, rational discussion than be right at all costs. So why does this keep happening?
~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

This is one of the oldest and most irritating of logical fallacies. People just need to be more vocal about calling each other on ad hominem.

Also, I see a ludicrous amount of what is known as 'straw men' constructed and beat to death on these boards. Someone (I'm too lazy to find out who) has in their sig a quote along the lines of "Reread my post and respond to what I actually said, not what you imagine I said" or somesuch. People need to stop reading between the lines and putting words in other people's mouths, and just argue against what was actually said.

Cheers,

James Bierly

EDIT: Lol. The sig I mentioned in the above post belongs to none other than this thread's starter, Lore...

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]I particularly agree with what Sol-Blade said; I roll my eyes whenever I see members (and again, it's only a few people who do this!) dissecting each other's posts ad nauseam. It drives me freaking crazy, and drives me away from the threads in question. Just learn to let it go. :rolleyes:

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

[color=green]I personally enjoy debate threads in particular, and am probably guilty of dissecting posts in the manner you described. Frankly, that's why I enjoy the Lounge. It's a lot of fun to argue and see what/how others think in regards to issues of varying importance.

I like the Lounge the way it is.[/color]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]I personally enjoy debate threads in particular, and am probably guilty of dissecting posts in the manner you described. Frankly, that's why I enjoy the Lounge. It's a lot of fun to argue and see what/how others think in regards to issues of varying importance.

I like the Lounge the way it is.[/color][/QUOTE]

Hardly. If everyone was as reasonable as you, DeathBug and many other admirable debaters, I wouldn't be whining and moaning about all this. It's a certain type of post-vivisection that I have a problem with--you know, when a member picks apart a reply and points to various lines as being indicative of something fatally wrong with the writer's upbringing, life choices, mental state, etc. By all means, you should feel welcome to demolish a poor argument. It's when people behave as though they must demolish the one doing the arguing that I grow irritated. Xander Harris probably did a better job of explaining my gripe than I did. :)

~Dagger~

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Hardly. If everyone was as reasonable as you, DeathBug and many other admirable debaters, I wouldn't be whining and moaning about all this. It's a certain type of post-vivisection that I have a problem with--you know, when a member picks apart a reply and points to various lines as being indicative of something fatally wrong with the writer's upbringing, life choices, mental state, etc. By all means, you should feel welcome to demolish a poor argument. It's when people behave as though they must demolish the one doing the arguing that I grow irritated. Xander Harris probably did a better job of explaining my gripe than I did. :)

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]
Dagger, I understand your point, and I do see where you're coming from, but you would be quite surprised just how much psychology (and the human psyche) affects life. I'm going to make a bold statement, but I think it holds true universally.

Every single opinion, viewpoint, Ideology, worldview, perceptive stance, position, etc, are all strongly, [i]strongly[/i] influenced by the psychological make-up of the individual.

There is almost nothing in the world that isn't influenced by psychology...perhaps the hard sciences, but on OB, the psychoanalysis rarely is brought into a discussion concerning the hard sciences, only the soft sciences (or social sciences, depending on what term you use).

There's really no getting around the fact that we are driven by our psychological make-ups, and that's why bringing in psychoanalysis is often useful in determining how efficient a worldview is, or how efficient that worldview can ever be.

I'll use The Terminator as an example. If you were discussing various thematic elements of the films with someone who absolutely hates the entire Trilogy, you're not going to have a good discussion, and if you don't understand why you're not having a good discussion, then you'll never gain any ground at all.

Conversely, if the two discussing Terminator are both fond of the films, or at the very least, appreciative of them, then your discussion is going to be engaging and enlightening.

My QT: The Films thread from a while back is yet another example of this. When those involved in the discussion aren't incredibly slanted in one way or another, able to discuss something more or less objectively, the discussion is going to be fantastic (which it was in that QT: The Films ^_^).

A person's psychological make-up damn near dictates how that person is going to act, view the world, respond to the world, and talk about the world.

If the person wants to see the world as a violent and cruel place, just a soulless machine, their worldview and posts will reflect that desire.

If the person wants to escape reality and live in their mind, essentially (Solipsism), their worldview and posts will reflect that desire.

In order to respond to those types of posts, you need to be able to realize just what kind of worldview is in play, and what the psychological make-up is that drives that worldview in order to be able to effectively counter both the superficial points and the deeper meanings underneath. Know what I mean?

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Siren]Dagger, I understand your point, and I do see where you're coming from, but you would be quite surprised just how much psychology (and the human psyche) affects life. I'm going to make a bold statement, but I think it holds true universally.

Every single opinion, viewpoint, Ideology, worldview, perceptive stance, position, etc, are all strongly, [i]strongly[/i] influenced by the psychological make-up of the individual.

There is almost nothing in the world that isn't influenced by psychology...perhaps the hard sciences, but on OB, the psychoanalysis rarely is brought into a discussion concerning the hard sciences, only the soft sciences (or social sciences, depending on what term you use).

There's really no getting around the fact that we are driven by our psychological make-ups, and that's why bringing in psychoanalysis is often useful in determining how efficient a worldview is, or how efficient that worldview can ever be.

I'll use The Terminator as an example. If you were discussing various thematic elements of the films with someone who absolutely hates the entire Trilogy, you're not going to have a good discussion, and if you don't understand why you're not having a good discussion, then you'll never gain any ground at all.

Conversely, if the two discussing Terminator are both fond of the films, or at the very least, appreciative of them, then your discussion is going to be engaging and enlightening.

My QT: The Films thread from a while back is yet another example of this. When those involved in the discussion aren't incredibly slanted in one way or another, able to discuss something more or less objectively, the discussion is going to be fantastic (which it was in that QT: The Films ^_^).

A person's psychological make-up damn near dictates how that person is going to act, view the world, respond to the world, and talk about the world.

If the person wants to see the world as a violent and cruel place, just a soulless machine, their worldview and posts will reflect that desire.

If the person wants to escape reality and live in their mind, essentially (Solipsism), their worldview and posts will reflect that desire.

In order to respond to those types of posts, you need to be able to realize just what kind of worldview is in play, and what the psychological make-up is that drives that worldview in order to be able to effectively counter both the superficial points and the deeper meanings underneath. Know what I mean?[/QUOTE]

No. Psychological makeup has nothing to do with whether or not someone's position is correct. If a delusional man sees a green pen, and says look, a green pen, and you look and see that the pen is indeed green, do you conclude that the pen is not green because the crazy man thought so?

Does the mental state of a person color their arguements? Of course. But that has no bearing on whether or not their arguement is true. Truth is something that exists independant of the people talking about it and trying to understand it.

From wikipedia.org

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority.

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.

Usage
An ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.

Conversely, not all ad hominem attacks are insulting. "Paula says it is impossible to murder a man, but this is false because Paula never loses her temper."

[edit]
Validity
Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy.

Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments.

A committed perjury when he said Q
We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed
therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected
[edit]
Subtypes
Three traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.

[edit]
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.

An example: "Jack is wrong when he says there is no God because he is a convicted felon."

[edit]
Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.

"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.

It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

[edit]
Ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims that the claimant is making or because the claim is about actions the claimant has engaged in, too.

"You say airplanes fly because of physics, but this is false because you said earlier airplanes fly because of magic."
"You cannot accuse me of libel because what you do is libel as well."

The tu quoque form is often a specific kind of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

[edit]
Taxonomy
The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is often but not necessarily an appeal to emotion. Argumentum ad hominem includes poisoning the well.

I'm not saying that the psychological makeup of a person should never be taken into account. Note in the article I've provided that evidence can be doubted on account of a person's mental state. Before I see the green pen for myself, I can doubt that it is green because the person telling me this is crazy. There are occasionally times on the boards where evidence (particuarly in the area of 'personal experiences') can and should be doubted based on what one knows of a person. However, when they provide other evidence and logically valid arguements, one cannot discredit them on the basis of psychology. One needs to instead deal with their arguements.

This might have been all you were trying to say, Siren, in which case I apologize in advance. This was not meant solely as a response to you. I think this is a good article for all the people on the boards to see, since fallacious thinking seems to be prevelant lately.

Have a good one,

James Bierly

[Brasil]

[quote name='Xander Harris']No. Psychological makeup has nothing to do with whether or not someone's position is correct. If a delusional man sees a green pen, and says look, a green pen, and you look and see that the pen is indeed green, do you conclude that the pen is not green because the crazy man thought so?[/quote]Have I ever been focusing on whether there is a green pen here? No, I have not. I've been focusing on a specific worldview and how the slant and emotional predisposition weakens the credibility of said worldview.

[quote]I honestly am a bit dumbfounded that you are attempting to defend the concept of Ad Hominem arguements. You have thousands of years of philosophers against you.

From wikipedia.org

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Positive arguments to the person are discussed under appeal to authority.

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.

Usage
An ad hominem fallacy consists of saying that someone's argument is wrong purely because of something about the person rather than about the argument itself. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.

Conversely, not all ad hominem attacks are insulting. "Paula says it is impossible to murder a man, but this is false because Paula never loses her temper."

[edit]
Validity
Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy.

Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments.

A committed perjury when he said Q
We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed
therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected
[edit]
Subtypes
Three traditionally identified varieties include ad hominem abusive, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque.

[edit]
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves merely (and often unfairly) insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that--usually, anyway--insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions.

An example: "Jack is wrong when he says there is no God because he is a convicted felon."

[edit]
Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way.

"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.

It is important to note that the above argument is not irrational, although it is not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

[edit]
Ad hominem tu quoque
Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a claim is dismissed either because it is inconsistent with other claims that the claimant is making or because the claim is about actions the claimant has engaged in, too.

"You say airplanes fly because of physics, but this is false because you said earlier airplanes fly because of magic."
"You cannot accuse me of libel because what you do is libel as well."

The tu quoque form is often a specific kind of the two wrongs make a right fallacy.

[edit]
Taxonomy
The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is often but not necessarily an appeal to emotion. Argumentum ad hominem includes poisoning the well.[/QUOTE]I quote J.S. Mill, "The uncultivated cannot be competent judges of cultivation."

If you have someone who has a twisted or less than a firm grasp of what a situation is, how can you expect them to offer any reasonable input, and how can you expect to treat their input as having a reasonable and substantial basis? I don't think you can, honestly, and I think you actually need to evaluate that 4,000 years a bit more closely, because Freud wasn't the weirdo that many people try to color him as.

Come to think of it, if Freud is widely hailed as the father of modern psychology, and his theories about the Id, Superego, and Ego, and dreams and so forth (the subconscious/slant influencing behavior), are being utilized more and more, and finding success as patients are able to overcome their fears and such, I think that punches a major hole in the entire argument against Ad Hominem. Psychoanalysis is no joke, lol.

[quote]Does the mental state of a person color their arguements? Of course. But that has no bearing on whether or not what they are saying is true. [b]Truth is something that exists independant of the people talking about it and trying to understand it[/b].[/quote]Can the entire world live in peace? Just a simple question. I'd be interested to hear what your answer is. ~_^

EDIT: No worries about the reply, lol. No harm done. It's all good. My point is that if someone is clearly working off of an unrealistic state of mind, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt, and closely examine what they're saying, and why they're saying it, because chances are...they're not living in something we like to call reality, haha.

[Xander Harris]

[quote name='Siren']Have I ever been focusing on whether there is a green pen here? No, I have not. I've been focusing on a specific worldview and how the slant and emotional predisposition weakens the credibility of said worldview.[/quote]

It's called a hypothetical example. Of course I was not talking about a green pen. Substitute in an idea or worldview of your choice (i.e. God exists) in place of the green pen.

[quote name='Siren'] I quote J.S. Mill, "The uncultivated cannot be competent judges of cultivation."[/quote]

Let's assume for a moment that this is true, and apply it to the OB. Who is the judge of cultivation, you?

[quote name='Siren'] If you have someone who has a twisted or less than a firm grasp of what a situation is, how can you expect them to offer any reasonable input, and how can you expect to treat their input as having a reasonable and substantial basis? I don't think you can, honestly, and I think you actually need to evaluate that 4,000 years a bit more closely, because Freud wasn't the weirdo that many people try to color him as.[/quote]

How can you conclude that all their input is necessarily wrong? Go back to my green pen analogy. Simply because someone is crazy does not mean their ideas are wrong. Certainly it can color your interpretation of what they have to say. Certainly you should take what they say with a grain of salt. But you must also provide a REASON why their argument is wrong, beyond "well, you're mentally unstable!" If you cannot provide a logical reason why their argument is wrong beyond this, then you have not conclusively proved that they are wrong, and have not won the argument (Note that we have, for argumentative purposes, taken the ad hominem to it's extreme, by talking about crazy people. I don't think anyone on these boards is insane)

Freud's ideas would be very useful for determining if someone is mentally ill. Since we've already concluded that this fictional person is mentally unstable, Freud really has little bearing on this discussion.

Certainly you aren't saying that a mentally unstable person is incapable of perceiving anything true? If that is true, how do they manage to so much as feed themselves? And if they are at the point where they can't even do that, then the odds they will be engaging in philosophical discussion to begin with are just about zero.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Siren]Come to think of it, if Freud is widely hailed as the father of modern psychology, and his theories about the Id, Superego, and Ego, and dreams and so forth (the subconscious/slant influencing behavior), are being utilized more and more, and finding success as patients are able to overcome their fears and such, I think that punches a major hole in the entire argument against Ad Hominem. Psychoanalysis is no joke, lol.
[/QUOTE]

All these theories deal with why people believe what they believe and why they think and act the way that they do. This has little to nothing to do with whether or not what they believe is true. For instance, I may believe that the Earth is round. I may have been told this by a lunatic, a less than credible source. The fact that I am unjustified in my belief that the Earth is round, since I have faulty evidence, does not change the fact that the Earth is round.

[quote name='Siren'] Can the entire world live in peace? Just a simple question. I'd be interested to hear what your answer is. ~_^[/quote]

My answer is that world peace is not logically impossible, but it is at the moment causally prohibited. Also, this would make a great topic for a thread in the lounge. You should go start one.

[quote name='Siren'] [EDIT: No worries about the reply, lol. No harm done. It's all good. My point is that if someone is clearly working off of an unrealistic state of mind, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt, and closely examine what they're saying, and why they're saying it, because chances are...they're not living in something we like to call reality, haha.[/quote]

I'm not arguing against that. I'm simply arguing against using psycho-analysis as your SOLE argument against a person. Reading this, I wonder if perhaps we actually agree on this, but are simply coming at it from two different directions and are simply arguing over terminology. Am I right?

Ja Mata,

James Bierly

[Adahn]

[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I don't think Xander Harris has stressed how misleading psychoanalysis can be on a message board. There are few parallels between what I post on OB and how I speak and act in RL. It's been said that a large part of communication is made up of gestures, voice tones, and such, rather than the actual words. Here, all we have are words, and these words are probably not formed in the way the writer speaks. I can look back on what I've written, change things, and work forward in my thought process from what I've just written. This changes things dramatically, and unless you are specifically trained in psychoanalyzing people from just their written word (which I think would be immensely difficult, if not impossible), any comments based upon that flawed analysis can be taken with a grain of salt.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]It has also been stressed that certain people aren't living in reality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the human perception of reality is a dynamic thing. To state that one knows reality would be a claim to omniscience. You'd have to know how everything works on earth, in the stars, and beyond. Just 500 years ago, the world was flat. Everyone believed it, and so it was real. If anyone said it was round, he was branded as being unrealistic and laughed at. We now praise those people who challenged reality in denying what 'everyone knew was real', and we laugh at those who insisted the world was flat.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't claim to be omniscient, or anywhere close, but I do enjoy questioning what 'everybody knows'. I think there's more to be known about reality than we can imagine, and in these past 500 years, we've only moved an inch on the spectrum of reality that could stretch for miles.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm sorry if I went a little off-topic here, but I do think questioning psychoanalysis and reality perception are pertinent to what's being discussed.[/color][/size][/font]