Cyprus-Forum.com

[Londonrake]

Borrowed:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/150- ... ket-newtab

.

[erolz66]

Borrowed:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/150- ... ket-newtab

.

This assumes the point of argument is to change some one else's mind. I personally worked out for myself over 30 years ago that I argue not to change any one else's mind but simply to understand my own better.

[CrookedRiverGuy]

Borrowed:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/150- ... ket-newtab

Absoultely not! THERE WERE NO INTERNET 150 YEARS AGO

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!!

Snap704.jpg

[Londonrake]

Borrowed:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/150- ... ket-newtab

.

This assumes the point of argument is to change some one else's mind. I personally worked out for myself over 30 years ago that I argue not to change any one else's mind but simply to understand my own better.

Good luck with that one.

[erolz66]

Borrowed:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/150- ... ket-newtab

.

This assumes the point of argument is to change some one else's mind. I personally worked out for myself over 30 years ago that I argue not to change any one else's mind but simply to understand my own better.

Good luck with that one.

Well if you yourself were able to understand that better then you might not have to bother posting 'TLDR' replies to my posts as much as you have historically

I suggest you try not assuming that just because you might have an objective of changing other people's minds when you post, that therefore has to be my or everyone else's objective.

I am not in the business of changing minds. If I were I would appeal to emotion in others using sound bites and slogans. I am in the business of understanding and first and foremost myself which is why I use logic and rationality and am willing to expend disproportionate time and effort doing so relative to those just using slogans and sounds bites appealing to emotion.

[Londonrake]

Ohh, lighten up FFS.

It isn't specifically about you. It's a general philosophical observation - from a very long time ago - on whether or not a platform such as the internet is suitable for resolving differences of opinion on issues.

[erolz66]

Ohh, lighten up FFS.

It isn't specifically about you. It's a general philosophical observation - from a very long time ago - on whether or not a platform such as the internet is suitable for resolving differences of opinion on issues.

Yes it is about the philosophy of what is the point in argument. Something I sorted out in my head in my early 20's. I understand that you like the idea that 'there is no point because you can not change some one else's mind' and that this fit's your personal frivolous style of posting here, telling others to lighten up and TLDR and the like. Do forgive me for daring to offer and alternative view point to the one you would have liked to have heard. Maybe you should try and serious up a bit for a change ? Some claim it is as good as a rest.

[Londonrake]

Ohh, lighten up FFS.

It isn't specifically about you. It's a general philosophical observation - from a very long time ago - on whether or not a platform such as the internet is suitable for resolving differences of opinion on issues.

Yes it is about the philosophy of what is the point in argument. Something I sorted out in my head in my early 20's. I understand that you like the idea that 'there is no point because you can not change some one else's mind' and that this fit's your personal frivolous style of posting here, telling others to lighten up and TLDR and the like. Do forgive me for daring to offer and alternative view point to the one you would have liked to have heard. Maybe you should try and serious up a bit for a change ? Some claim it is as good as a rest.

No, it isn’t. Clearly, you haven’t bothered to read it. Too long? It’s about how mediums such as the internet, devoid of the substance of physical presence, will invariably lead to a lack of resolution where opinions differ. In my experience that’s a fact.

Perhaps, as an example, how’s your protracted discussion on C-19 with Tim and CG doing? How do you think it’s going to end (apart from your bludgeoning them to death with reams of posts as usual that is)? Do you think that’s atypical? Can you point to many similar threads where people started with such differing views that have concluded with an agreement?

I posted the link because I thought, particularly given its age, it was an interesting insight into what most I believe would acknowledge as a Social Media phenomena. Arguments are very rarely resolved on forums. Do you disagree and think they are? Reasonable questions I think.

I said earlier that you will argue with absolutely anyone, about absolutely anything and usually absolutely interminably. Perhaps here’s a small but typical example.

[erolz66]

Perhaps, as an example, how’s your protracted discussion on C-19 with Tim and CG doing? How do you think it’s going to end (apart from your bludgeoning them to death with reams of posts as usual that is)? Do you think that’s atypical? Can you point to many similar threads where people started with such differing views that have concluded with an agreement?

It has not concluded with any agreement. I did not and do not expect it to. That is MY point. What is has done is give me a better, clearer understanding of my position and why I hold such and as collateral given me a better understanding of aspects of Tim and CG than I had before. That was my objective and has been my objective in such discussion since my early 20's. I am not looking to achieve agreement via a forum like this, I have know such is pointless for decades now.

What the John Stuart Mill quote explains is that you can not argue with another person when their view is rooted in feeling by using a preponderating weight of logical / rational argument against them. Nothing to do with the medium that the argument might be conducted via. I know this. I have known this for decades. If my objective was to change others views I would not behave as I do here. It is not my objective. Never has been. Is that so hard to understand ?

Arguments are very rarely resolved on forums. Do you disagree and think they are? Reasonable questions I think.

I think that arguments are very rarely resolved on forums like this and social media generally BECAUSE so many of the people are arguing opinion strongly rooted in feelings rather than because of the medium per se. It is not imo the medium that that is the issue per se. Certain medium do encourage arguing opinions of feeling for sure but they do not require such. The same mediums when used by people not arguing opinions rooted in feeling can be a great and effective way of reaching agreement. Ironically this is at the core of my differences with someone like CG over covid-19. His opinion is rooted in feeling as far as I am concerned as shown by the evidence that he had a fully formed opinion before there was any data available at all. Knowing this I know there can be no reaching agreement with him here in this forum with me arguing the way that I do. That however does not mean there can be no VALUE for me in such arguments. Quite the opposite. There is great value for me in arguing with him in such ways knowing that there can be and will be no agreement with him. The value is that in the process of doing this I am able to ever refine, test, review and understand what I think about covid and issues around it and why I think what I do with a clarity that could not exist without such a process.

In the near 20 years here my personal views on the Cyprob have changed, evolved, developed and become increasingly clear and solid in my head. This is as a result of countless circular pointless bludgeoning arguments with reams and reams of posts (which actually means effort and research). I could not have reached the position in my head I am now at re the Cyprob without such. I am clearer as to what my views are, why they are my views and how to express them to others than I was before such 'pointless' arguments.

I said earlier that you will argue with absolutely anyone, about absolutely anything and usually absolutely interminably. Perhaps here’s a small but typical example.

yes this is an example. I will argue with absolutely anyone, about absolutely anything and usually absolutely interminably if I believe doing so is an effective means for me to understand better. Collateral damage like what you may end of thinking of me is irrelevant to me vs the reward of that better understanding. It is because I behave in such ways, I think, that I more often than average reach better conclusions that others that are not prepared to put in the same levels of effort for the reward of better understanding but just argue their opinions deeply rooted in feeling. I understand better because that is my objective and I am willing to put effort in to reach it

[Paphitis]

Borrowed:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/150- ... ket-newtab

.

This assumes the point of argument is to change some one else's mind. I personally worked out for myself over 30 years ago that I argue not to change any one else's mind but simply to understand my own better.

Good luck with that one.