Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

WP Categories of people

Page 4 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Is WP categorizable?
Yes, I have categories in mind already. 34%  34%  [ 12 ]
No, the people here are unusually similar or unusually different. 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
I consider categories to be illegitimate to impose on people. 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
No, categories by their nature are arbitrary/fallible, and thus are meaningless. 14%  14%  [ 5 ]
Maybe and/or I don't know 17%  17%  [ 6 ]
I want to see the results 26%  26%  [ 9 ]
Total votes : 35

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

19 Feb 2009, 8:12 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Magnus you havent worked me out yet, let me help. I believe in the truthful teaching of history as a tool to help present and future decisions, I believe in science over superstition, I believe the resources of the planet should be used for the good of all humanity, I believe in finding causes for actions and trying to help people have a better life. I do not believe in vengeance, war, the present system of justice and religions that expect me to behave in accordance with their beliefs.

Translation: You're a pinko commie bastard. :wink:


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

19 Feb 2009, 8:33 am

there are 2 main categories.
that is "them" and "me".

beyond that, i have loose ideas of how this forum is.

in the math section, i realized quickly that if i were to post there, i would have to argue people to the ground, as most of them are conceited intellectuals that are fighting for the "throne". if i post there, i get arguments and rebuttals and derision from people who rape wikipedia and everything else they can trawl for information that they can fire off to keep them in the "seat of power".
i am not interested to go there or contribute to it anymore as i know i have an ability, but i would have to fight with arguments of my own to talk to the "lords of intelligence".
i am not prepared to go fact hunting on the net to vie with anyone.

i use the "most recent post" function so i am not aware of many other sub fora.
---------
there are many people who i read that seem to use any thread they can to infer they are good looking or otherwise desirable. they post replies filled with inference that they must be smart or gorgeous.
there are many vain people here.
-----

i am ignored by this forum mainly and i have the feeling i am not like anyone here, so it is basically me talking to them if i can. they never talk back.
the same as it is in the NT world.
-----

there are intellectual snobs that will not read my posts because i have an uneducated way of talking. but i still have a view of the world. it is as valid as theirs (albeit a simplistic version), but i have no philosophical literature to "back me up".
----
there are 5 nice people who's posts i like to read.
----

and i categorize myself as a bystander who sometimes comments.

this place is too big and heavy for me ever to be able to be noticed.
that is comforting in a way



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

19 Feb 2009, 9:26 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
I think there's too much favoritism on here.


QFT. People's categorizations reflect their own biases.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

19 Feb 2009, 9:46 am

Magnus wrote:
I think the delusionists lean more toward spiritual speculation rather than focus on religious references.


This is, after all, the Philosophy forum, so which of us isn't delusional? I mean, this is the place where intelligent people commonly debate whether matter and time exist, so it would seem there is plenty of room for everyone to fit into the delusional category, at least in philosophical terms.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 19 Feb 2009, 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

19 Feb 2009, 10:00 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
I believe in the truthful teaching of history as a tool to help present and future decisions, I believe in science over superstition, I believe the resources of the planet should be used for the good of all humanity, I believe in finding causes for actions and trying to help people have a better life.


Welcome to my category. :) Who'd a thunk it?

DentArthurDent wrote:
I do not believe in vengeance, war...


Isn't that like me saying, "I don't believe in pain or death."?
Pain and death still exist, and some pains are necessary to endure in order to avoid greater, future pains.
But as to whether I'm "for" pain, of course I am not. I was reminded of this fact during my recent gallbladder ordeal.
I'm still left with its circumstantial necessity, though.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,196
Location: Houston, Texas

19 Feb 2009, 11:06 am

NobelCynic wrote:
The very existence of this topic, in this forum, is categorizing people into PPR regulars and others. Ragtime used to post here all the time, and still does occasionally, however he is no longer considered to be a regular because he stopped evangelizing, perhaps having learned that he was only giving people an opportunity to mock his God.

Is there a reason to categorize people other than to assign attributes to them that you have no evidence of in themselves with logic running along the lines of:
1) Christians believe such and such
2) You are a Christian
3) You believe such and such?

Categorizing leads to sterotyping which leads to prejudice. Before asking the question "can we?", perhaps we should ask "do we want to?".


Very well put. It's like Christians are stereotyped as racist, homophobic, intolerant, etc.

And it's like when people think of Christian history, they think of things like...

1. The televangelist scandals in the 1980s.

2. The Catholic church sex abuse scandal.

3. Eric Rudolph's terror sprees (the abortion clinic bombings in Alabama, the Atlanta Olympic bombing, etc.).

4. Anything involving Westboro Baptist Church.

5. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming 9/11 on the abortionists, gays, etc.

6. The various cults (Jonestown, Branch Davidians, etc.).



anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,682
Location: Europe

19 Feb 2009, 2:31 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Dokken wrote:
I don't really post in here. There isn't much variety in here. Just seems the same questions are asked in different ways, over and over.

I think the same thing about the other forums actually. Like, mostly just the same or similar things popping up over and over again, but that's life, right?


I agree with AG, this forum plus the Adult forum are the only ones that are at least slightly unpredictable.

now, if we could only get rid of the mods....

:wink:


_________________
not a bug - a feature.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Feb 2009, 3:04 pm

anna-banana wrote:
now, if we could only get rid of the mods....

:wink:


Welcome to FlameWar City!
Where the fighting never ends!



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Feb 2009, 3:10 pm

Nothing like a bit of passion to enliven an argument. It helps if you're original and inventive.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Feb 2009, 3:18 pm

Sand wrote:
Nothing like a bit of passion to enliven an argument. It helps if you're original and inventive.


A person can have and show a plenitude of passion without being an arrogant jerk though.
Rules against personal attacks should be upheld, though not legalistically.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Feb 2009, 3:30 pm

To bring this back on topic though, here is another categorization scheme:

  1. Flamers
    1. rude
    2. super-rude
  2. Spammers
    1. annoying
    2. irritating
    3. obnoxious
  3. Deriders
    1. insinuative
    2. sarcastic
    3. mocking
  4. Original Posters
    1. actually original
    2. copiers
  5. Tangentalists
    1. on purpose
    2. by accident
    3. bored
  6. Commenters
    1. thoughtful
    2. half awake
  7. Debators
    1. respectful
    2. rude
  8. Moderators
    1. active
    2. overactive
    3. passive
    4. asleep
    5. drunk



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 3:50 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Welcome to FlameWar City!
Where the fighting never ends!

:viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :viking: :hockey: :viking: :viking: :viking:

Fighting? What fighting?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 3:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
To bring this back on topic though, here is another categorization scheme:

  1. Flamers
    1. rude
    2. super-rude
  2. Spammers
    1. annoying
    2. irritating
    3. obnoxious
  3. Deriders
    1. insinuative
    2. sarcastic
    3. mocking
  4. Original Posters
    1. actually original
    2. copiers
  5. Tangentalists
    1. on purpose
    2. by accident
    3. bored
  6. Commenters
    1. thoughtful
    2. half awake
  7. Debators
    1. respectful
    2. rude
  8. Moderators
    1. active
    2. overactive
    3. passive
    4. asleep
    5. drunk

Interesting.... not only have I found a way to list things, but this is good and indepth.



claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

19 Feb 2009, 5:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Interesting.... not only have I found a way to list things, but this is good and indepth.
I kind of like this one too. People's views on P, P, or even R do not really influence how I view them. To sort by posting style makes a little more sense to me.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 5:57 pm

claire333 wrote:
I kind of like this one too. People's views on P, P, or even R do not really influence how I view them. To sort by posting style makes a little more sense to me.

I actually sort by views, because that influences the probability of me having to argue them, and the kinds of arguments I would get into with them. Posting style, from what I see, usually does not reach an abnormal extreme between people. Some people post shorter posts, others post longer posts, some are meaner and more sarcastic, some are less mean and sarcastic(I was going to say nice, but who am I fooling?), but the real issue is what is said I think.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Feb 2009, 6:47 pm

With inclusion of GreenBlue's Philosophical list, here is a combined version

WP Poster Classification

.

Category I: Religion

  1. Christian
    1. Catholic
      • Roman
      • Greek
      • Russian
      • Anglican
    2. Protestant
      • Presbyterian
      • Lutheran
      • Methodist
      • Baptist
      • Messianic
      • other
  2. Jewish
    1. Orthodox
    2. Conservative
    3. Reformed
    4. Conservadox
  3. Muslim
    1. Shi'ite
    2. Sunni
    3. other
  4. Asian/Indian batch
  5. African batch
  6. South Pacific batch
  7. North/South American Indian batch
  8. Atheists
    1. crusading
    2. passive
    3. passive-aggressive
  9. Agnostics
    1. closed
    2. open

Category II: Philosophy
  • Epistemology
    1. Philosophical skepticism
    2. Fallibilism
    3. Reliabilism
  • Morality
    1. Relativism
    2. Solipsism
    3. Absolutism
    4. Nihilism
  • Politics
    1. Conservativism
    2. Liberalism
    3. Centrism
    4. Libertarianism
    5. Socialism
    6. Democratic-Socialism
    7. Anarchism
    8. Monarchism
    9. Communism
    10. Facism
    11. Theocratism
    12. Totalitarianism
    13. Oligarcism
    14. Elitism
    15. Republicism
    16. Imperialism
  • Free-will related
    1. Determinism
    2. Calvinism
    3. Armenianism
    4. Libertarianism
    5. Compatibilism

Category III: Posting Manner
  1. Flamers
    1. rude
    2. super-rude
  2. Spammers
    1. annoying
    2. irritating
    3. obnoxious
  3. Deriders
    1. insinuative
    2. sarcastic
    3. mocking
  4. Original Posters
    1. actually original
    2. copiers
  5. Tangentalists
    1. on purpose
    2. by accident
    3. bored
  6. Commenters
    1. thoughtful
    2. half awake
  7. Debators
    1. respectful
    2. rude
  8. Moderators
    1. active
    2. overactive
    3. passive
    4. asleep
    5. drunk