REMINDER: Read and take to heart

Post Reply New Topic

I don't expect anything, I hope for a healthy level of cynicism and skepticism though.

I don't expect anything, I hope for a healthy level of cynicism and skepticism though.

You hope for cynicism? Hm.

I am sure that tells you something about how cynical I am.

As someone who has spent a couple of years in the army where every third word of emphasis would have its vowels excised in this forum the use of "street language" in discussion has no effect on me whatsoever and merely is a variation of speech with no emotional connotation and is commonplace everywhere else in literature, the films, on the stage etc.. But perhaps I am too adult for this place, I cannot say.

Insofar as flaming is concerned there are real problems. As someone who sees the violent brutal excesses of religion everywhere in the world I am an ardent atheist and am shocked by otherwise intelligent compassionate humans defending beliefs that have no basis in reality and are essentially based on outright lies accepted by duped ignorant masses to control their moral and economic activity in the interest of scoundrels. This probably seems extreme to some people but the horrors invoke extreme reaction. Whatever arguments I have used to attempt to infuse logic and intelligence into my comments have been totally useless. But to pronounce that some beliefs are groundless and silly without inferring that believers themselves are intensely stupid is impossible. You cannot separate the belief from the believer without implying insult and perhaps assuming flaming. Flaming does not disturb me since the act directed at me merely classifies the flamer as one who has lost intelligent control and has become a rather amusing clown. I have to respect someone to take them seriously.

I have found Chever intelligent and interesting although he disparages my opinions frequently but with good reason. I am horrified at his joy in looking forward to the demise of human race in favor of machines as I still see a good deal of possibilities in my species and am not particularly delighted with machines as being any more successful in the long run since they must conform to the basic regulations of the universe in the same way as organic life.

In my opinion the participants in this forum should be permitted to behave as they see fit without interference from coercive supervision and as long as interesting discussion take place, whatever the language, it should be permitted. People too sensitive to participate without their opinions being forcibly confronted should, if their sensibilities are easily offended, merely withdraw until they have matured sufficiently and toughened up enough to enjoy rough play.

I voted keep it the way it is. Sure there is a some flaming sometimes between protagonists but it doesn't usually seem too outrageous or to persist for long, and when people do flame they tend to look like idiots to the other forum members so there is a certain amount of peer pressure to use skilful debate and logic with arguments rather than name calling.

I guess that people can't be too thin skinned to take part in PPR discussions anyway because at stake are their most passionate beliefs and when others point out flaws in their beliefs it is going to hurt! PPR isn't arguing whether Pepsi or Coca Cola is better; PPR is dealing with fundamental topics close to people's hearts so it is going to get heated.

After taking part for a while it soon becomes clear that some members argue from an entrenched belief system with no logical foundation and personally I avoid those members, discussions with them are a waste of time and serve no purpose - rather like the Jehovah's Witnesses that knock on my door sometimes, no amount of discussion is going to change anyone's belief system so the logical thing to do is agree to differ and then politely shut the door in their face

I'd be interested to know where the Mods draw the line between heated discussion and flaming. I don't think I've ever deliberately insulted anyone on WP - ever - but Mods may think differently. If they clamp down too hard on discussions in PPR it will probably be the death of the forum. I've seen over-moderation kill online forums. Too many posts deleted or members threatened or banned and the remaining people lose interest and stop posting, before you know it the forum is dead and the only people posting are newcomers, stepping into a near empty forum saying "hello" before becoming bored and not coming back again.

At the moment PPR is thriving. Please don't kill it.

Sand makes a very good point about street language. I myself am guilty of the occasional curse word in everyday speech and have even interjected a couple in my own posts. Even though it is against the rules, I see this also occurring in other forums on the site, but I do no think this is the point the moderators are trying to make. But really, even though I sometimes curse; I do not curse at work. At work, I am able to express my thoughts and argue without one single curse word. Why do you think that is?

I also do not think this is an issue of not being able to take the heat in the kitchen. I think many members here, like myself, enjoy seeing both sides of the coin and have no problem with with people who happen to disagree with their beliefs. I do think it is possible to separate the belief from the believer when giving your own point of view or picking apart the views of another. I think those who might avoid this forum do not avoid it because their views are attacked. I think they avoid it because they do not like being told they are a moron. I think the arguement, 'You do not agree with me, therefore you have no brains' is not conducive to 'adult' converation.

ARE YOU ABOUT TO CALL ME AN [edited by sinsboldy]?



What are these 'basic regulations of the Universe'?

Oh yeah! Well... YOUR MOM!! !

Organic life evolved by providing the environmental filter with a spectrum of possibilities for survival and the environment wiped out all that did not fit the environment of that time. Whatever was left again went through the environmental filter after providing a new spectrum of variation of the survivors. That's the process and it doesn't matter if it's organic or inorganic organisms. The process is the same. The environmental filter keeps changing though time. So life forms keep surviving and dying depending upon the forces of creative destruction. There is progress only in the matter of being able to survive multiple filter variations but eventually conditions become too extreme for any form over multiple changes.

Sand, you can put it more laconically than that: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Sod's Law, 'nuff said. No offence meant.

Example please



Apparently, you don't know what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is. Look up its real definition and note that, unlike humans, I don't find systems that use their environment to do continue to do work inherently objectionable.

Sod's Law is made-up.

Any existing form of life is an example. Once it survives successfully variations though replication "mistakes" provide a new spectrum of forms that confront environmental changes which act as a filter to wipe out inappropriate changes and the process begins again. In the case of robotic development the utility of the robot designed to a purpose is merely an added factor in the filtration process. But if the robot is to perform in its specific environment (on or off the Earth) it must confront environmental factors just like any other life form.

I was under the mistaken impression you were human. This provides a novel insight as to why you were so enthusiastic over the demise of humanity.

Guess what?

Time's up.

I said the beginning of December, but the thing that had been holding me back is now gone.

This is the dawn of a new era.

DUN dun DUNNNNNNNNNN!

A reminder that while PPR is host to many controversial and heated discussions, with many impassioned and well-reasoned opinions, that slurs and insults are unnecessary to make one's point and are against the site rules.


M.