News:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

Main Menu

On the recurrence of discussions

Started by The Johnny, June 09, 2012, 11:17:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Good Reverend Roger

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

I don't think you're evil, RWHN. I think you're a shitty person with bad principles, working as a puny cog in a system which perpetuates evil on your fellow human beings, and telling yourself that you have a great mission to Save the Kids.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Anna Mae Bollocks

Nixon called, RWHN. He says he all the stains came off the walls and he wants you to come see.
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 13, 2012, 12:53:58 AM
I don't think you're evil, RWHN. I think you're a shitty person with bad principles, working as a puny cog in a system which perpetuates evil on your fellow human beings, and telling yourself that you have a great mission to Save the Kids.

I think most people can rationalize away the rotten shit they associate themselves with.

For example, I can ignore some pretty rotten shit in the interests of keeping the lights on.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

AFK

Now, now, you can't let up on we Bad People.  Your kids might end up in Jesus Camp!
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

I'm such a Bad Person that now we have 10 guests viewing the Fucking Orange Eating Contest!  Only the Truly Bad can conjure up fell deeds of that nature.
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


E.O.T.

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 13, 2012, 01:35:55 AM
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.

GEEZ!

          have you eaten since that weird breakfast we had?
"a good fight justifies any cause"

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: E.O.T. on June 13, 2012, 01:52:55 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 13, 2012, 01:35:55 AM
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.

GEEZ!

          have you eaten since that weird breakfast we had?

I ate a meat.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


E.O.T.

Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 13, 2012, 02:01:08 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on June 13, 2012, 01:52:55 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 13, 2012, 01:35:55 AM
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.

GEEZ!

          have you eaten since that weird breakfast we had?

I ate a meat.

YEAH

          obviously. i guess i meant, other than rwhn (?)
"a good fight justifies any cause"

Salty

Quote from: E.O.T. on June 13, 2012, 02:26:45 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 13, 2012, 02:01:08 AM
Quote from: E.O.T. on June 13, 2012, 01:52:55 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on June 13, 2012, 01:35:55 AM
No need for caps, you're just a regular lower-case kind of guy. As much as you'd like to believe anyone thinks otherwise.

GEEZ!

          have you eaten since that weird breakfast we had?

I ate a meat.

YEAH

          obviously. i guess i meant, other than rwhn (?)
:lulz:
The world is a car and you're the crash test dummy.

Elder Iptuous

i'd just like to go on record saying that i agree with LMNOs post.  I may not agree with RWHN on the drug issues, but i respect him, and feel that the vitriol is unbecoming.

ON a more interesting note....
Is anyone knowledgeable on work done formally mapping common debates?

A quick google of 'debate map' gave a link to debategraph.org which is kinda neat on a cursory examination...
it seems that if there were central debate maps maintained, it would avoid rehashing points ad nauseum that have been put to rest.

Instead of starting each debate with basic premise and following well worn paths (that often lead to cul-de-sacs of stupid), you could start the conversation with a reference to the map and a claim that you offer an undocumented supporting argument to position #3721 (or whatever)
If someone brings up a point that has been covered, you simply have to point out where, and the arguments surrounding it could be seen in full at their disposal.  if they have something new to add, they can bring that up legitimately without having to trudge through the intermediate steps that simply make people upset and resistant before getting to new territory.


Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 13, 2012, 04:05:22 PM
i'd just like to go on record saying that i agree with LMNOs post.  I may not agree with RWHN on the drug issues, but i respect him, and feel that the vitriol is unbecoming.

Having spent the bulk of my life seeing good people dragged through legal nightmares over the controlled substance issue and seeing my kids get shoved into cop cars for such heinous acts as school tardies, I'm not concerned with what's "becoming" anymore. I don't particularly give a fuck how I look to anybody.

QuoteON a more interesting note....
Is anyone knowledgeable on work done formally mapping common debates?

A quick google of 'debate map' gave a link to debategraph.org which is kinda neat on a cursory examination...
it seems that if there were central debate maps maintained, it would avoid rehashing points ad nauseum that have been put to rest.

Instead of starting each debate with basic premise and following well worn paths (that often lead to cul-de-sacs of stupid), you could start the conversation with a reference to the map and a claim that you offer an undocumented supporting argument to position #3721 (or whatever)
If someone brings up a point that has been covered, you simply have to point out where, and the arguments surrounding it could be seen in full at their disposal.  if they have something new to add, they can bring that up legitimately without having to trudge through the intermediate steps that simply make people upset and resistant before getting to new territory.

Interesting in theory, but...rules?  :lol:
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Elder Iptuous on June 13, 2012, 04:05:22 PM
i'd just like to go on record saying that i agree with LMNOs post.  I may not agree with RWHN on the drug issues, but i respect him, and feel that the vitriol is unbecoming.

ON a more interesting note....
Is anyone knowledgeable on work done formally mapping common debates?

A quick google of 'debate map' gave a link to debategraph.org which is kinda neat on a cursory examination...
it seems that if there were central debate maps maintained, it would avoid rehashing points ad nauseum that have been put to rest.

Instead of starting each debate with basic premise and following well worn paths (that often lead to cul-de-sacs of stupid), you could start the conversation with a reference to the map and a claim that you offer an undocumented supporting argument to position #3721 (or whatever)
If someone brings up a point that has been covered, you simply have to point out where, and the arguments surrounding it could be seen in full at their disposal.  if they have something new to add, they can bring that up legitimately without having to trudge through the intermediate steps that simply make people upset and resistant before getting to new territory.

"Unbecoming"?  :lulz:

As, in, such uppityness is unbecoming for a lady?

Sorry, I'll get back in the kitchen now, massah.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


The Good Reverend Roger

Oh, dear.   :lulz:

I'm coverin' my head.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.