The Problem with Otaku Lounge

[Brasil]

[quote name='Xander Harris']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]
We'll use "God exists" later on.

[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]
Judge, jury, and executioner, baby. ~_^

Joking aside, I think the jury is actually a useful example. If you're on trial, who would you rather have on the jury? People whose opinions are going to convict you before the case is even presented, or people who are going to be able to view the case objectively, and make an informed and rational decision based on facts instead of personal convictions?

[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.

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]
The bleeding heart Liberal Pacifist believes that living in the imagination (i.e., a false reality) is better than living in the real world, simply because the real world has pain and violence in it. I would never, ever support Escapism--actually, I should hope no one would. The Pacifist wants desperately to escape reality, and concocts a fantasy, more or less, so they can remove themselves from that which is troubling to them...run away from their problems, essentially. They then preach this fantasy as the answer, as what can make the world harmonious, as what is the savior, etc.

First and foremost, we know for a fact that Escapism, in all of its various forms, is a bad idea, because it--by its very definition--does not focus on reality, and in order to be productive, both mentally and physically, one cannot live in a fantasy. One must live in the now. Agree?

Second, because one is arguing Escapism, and desiring to live in a fantasy with elves and so forth, is their stance on the world going to be accurate? Do their psychological make-up and predispositions allow that?

[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]
I think it's fairly safe to say that as long as there humans, there will always be humans engaged in warfare with each other. I mean, it's in our nature to destroy ourselves. If I feel like it, I'll make a thread.

[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?[/QUOTE]
More or less. I'm all for giving peace a chance, but I'm not about to go hyperfocusing on it and letting it rule my life, you know? "The necessity and inevitability of war." Most of the time, I do debunk the superficial points, but it's often worthwhile to also go into the driving force and motivation behind a point.

It's actually why Judgment Day can never be prevented in Terminator. ~_^

And just so I don't again get accused of high-jacking a thread...let's continue this one through PM, heh. [size=1][color=purple]Ah, I was just going to ask you to do so. Thanks. ^_~ -Lore[/size][/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1]I was about to say, "speaking of heated arguments, point-by-point dissection and thread hi-jacking..."

But anyway, I digress now, lol. In regards to 'straw-men' , which Xander Harris brought up, I don't think that is much of an issue...because, typically, quotes in signatures [especially of members] are there to be humourous. Lore's one is humorous, as the protagonist [the infamous, Lone Wolf...] tells people to read what he wrote, [i]but to not read what he didn't[/i]. Which is funny, and certainly quotable.

In the end though, that is the accepted norm here. Heated debates, mostly-intelligent arguments, and basically a fun place. I love it.[/size]

[James]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]I was about to say, "speaking of heated arguments, point-by-point dissection and thread hi-jacking..."
[/size][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Just to pick up on that point, I don't think that there is anything negative about point-by-point dissection. I'd say it's actually the opposite.

I'll give you an example.

When Cloricus was here (note: [i]was[/i]), he had a habit of quoting a very small portion of a post and responding, or responding without a quote.

That in itself isn't so problematic (if you actually say what you're responding to, in terms of the points you're refuting or whatever, then that's fine). The problem is that I can engage in a multi-faceted discussion with someone -- I can take the time to address multiple points -- and the other person might ignore [i]everything[/i] and respond to only one point.

Obviously, we aren't going to create rules to govern that, as each person will respond as they choose to, within some very basic guidelines. However, I have always felt that if someone responds to me carefully and with specific quotes, they are paying me some respect -- they are respecting me enough not to just dismiss me and ignore my statements, but to actually acknowledge them and take the time to respond.

So, if someone responds to me that way in a debate, I tend to view it as a mark of respect. And I respect them by taking my time and doing the same thing.

It's really just an etiquette thing I suppose. Obviously, it can sometimes be needless (as in, dissecting every word rather than each general point), but that's not something we can really stop, other than to suggest that it might be a little rude. lol[/color]

[TheShinje]

I don't really see a problem with Otaku Lounge.

It has it's moments, for sure, but the really neat thing about them, is the threads they are in, can be overpassed! If I'm not liking the direction to which a thread is going, I'll simply stop posting, if I'm clearly not getting my point across, I stop posting.

If it's a really interesing and engaging debate, I'll stick around.

As for content, as James pointed out, it's up to us as a membership to provide the discussion, and quality therefore lies in the memberships hands.


There is no problem except that which you make.

[KarmaOfChaos]

[color=deeppink][size=1]I agree with James on the whole "multi-point" discussion thing. I like it when posts are picked apart and addressed on each level, as long as you aren't attacking the person, or doing something spiteful like quoting little bits and pieces and making useless, sarcastic commentary on it that doesn't further the thread what-so-ever.

Also, I don't think it's a problem when a thread has a couple tangents, especially debates, as long as they're not spam or insults. I think it's a sign that intelligent thought is taking place, that you can read something and get more than just ideas on the topic at hand out of it. I can see where it becomes a problem if the topic completely changes, but sometimes, when the topic shifts a bit, the discussion ends up talking something even more interesting and thought-provoking.

But yea. I only occasionally have problems with OL. Like when people post about how horrible their life is. I have no patience for self-pity. If you've genuinely got a problem, and you are actually looking for advice and reading all the responses with an [i]open mind[/i], that's fine, but if you just want to whine and complain, then get off of my messageboard.

Final conclusion: spam = no. discussion = yes.

-Karma

PS: I like the quirky threads like "bad habits". They're interesting and I don't think they're spammy. ^.^[/size][/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote name='James']Just to pick up on that point, I don't think that there is anything negative about point-by-point dissection. I'd say it's actually the opposite.[/quote]

Heh. I wasn't suggesting any negative connotations about it: Just referring to the people who were.

I do agree with you, that breaking down a person's post to fully analyse various areas of it is useful, and often interesting, producing better discussion. However, it is when someone will only take a small part of a whole post, or take miniscule pieces of text and blatantly misconstrue them that I get irritated. I won't say I haven't been guilty of doing that to people, but sometimes it is justified. Maybe not all the times that I have done it, but generally. However it is the constant repetition of such acts that lowers the quality, turning discussion into witty, funny, but ultimately useless and vicious one-liners.

Geez. Here I am, and it sounds like I am bagging OL! Seriously though, that is part of the deal. If you don't like it, avoid contentious threads. Or, don't read other people's replies, lol.[/size]