My perception of posters (page 4)

AllTimeJeff

An interesting angle.... Thanks Lee.

For what this is worth, when I first left JW's, I debated. A lot. I think it was Little Toe if memory serves, a Christian, who got into it with me when I was at my most anti Christian.

I have changed. But I often think of that little debate, and the many I delved into on political matters here on JWN, and how ultimately, they were for me. Did I win? Was I trying to win? Actually, I just wanted to make a point. And I needed to express myself, even if it was immature at times.....

But in those debates, I got to see in writing people with different points of view, who disagreed with me, and it caused me to think differently through the years. And I would like to think that others have a different perspective thanks to my limited points of view.

I think if one takes as their motive the ability to understand others, then a debate, even if you are comative (but respectful) can be healthy.

If you just want to be a d*ck, that's another matter. But I think if you read individual threads, you can get sort of get people's drift. I actually assume most people who are comative are in some pain.

In any case, this is my meandering way of saying that while we probably resemble some of what we are, I feel safe in assuming that most of us aren't like how we post on this, or other boards.

Anonymous posting can make one braver then they would be in real life. So I don't take most too seriously, beyond what their stated beliefs are.

My perception of posters doesn't matter, because while I accept and acknowledge that this and other boards that one chooses to involve themselves in are a part of life, they in no way resemble real life, and as such, to read too much into anyone's posts beyond the opinions expressed is self defeating.

beksbks

Darn I was hoping to read a list something like this:

poster xyzzz: butthead extraodinaire

Poster xyzzz2: don't leave sharp objects out when you are around them

Poster xyzzz3: does Chuck Manson have internet accesss?

Me too!

cyberjesus

CAliber: I think you are gorgeous

funnyface

WHEW!!!! sweat sweat !!!thought I was going to get a tongue lashing from you all

cognizant dissident

I agree with most everything in your post Lady Lee.

However, I'm not sure what can be done about it as each of has our own personal perceptions which are layered over with a lifetime of personal experiences that have contributed to the biases of our perspectives. The meaning that we perceive in the messages we receive is our own. Sometimes it meshes with the intention of the sender of the message, sometimes it doesn't.

We can attempt to take personal bias out of our discussions and argue solely on the merit of the logic of the statements. Learning the logical fallacies and disciplining ourselves not to use them, and learning the scientific method of analysis which attempts to eliminate personal bias in information collecting can be of great use in this regard. But until someone can figure out a way to weed out human ego from the equation, I don't think we will ever be 100 percent successful in arguing different positions solely on their merit alone.

I've been told I'm argumentative by enough people to concede there must be truth in it. I've examined myself to see what the "hook" is that lures me in every time. In truth, it's not "every time" because there are literally thousands of threads I never comment on. In real life, I tend to always accommodate the other person's preference. Most stuff seems too small to make an issue of to me.

So, I've examined which topics hook me every time and what it is about them that hooks me. I've noticed two over-riding themes for myself. One is "unfairness". If I think a person is being unfairly characterized based upon the known facts, I will get "hooked". If I think an issue is important because it has the potential to be harmful or helpful in some way, and the issue is being skewed in a way that I believe is unbalanced or unfair, then again, I will get hooked.

I realize that "unfair" and "unbalanced" are also meanings I have constructed over the years too and are not some ultimate "truth". The topics that I think are important are also unique to me and arise out of my experiences as does the meaning "important". In my quest to fight for what I think is "important" and "fair", I will often dig in my heels and I'm not always the epitome of kindness and tact. (Hard to believe, I know!)

That being said, I don't believe that arguing is a bad thing. For me arguing is a bit of an intellectual exercise. It is a way to expose all sides of an issue so the best decisions can be made, instead of just going along with the status quo. Many people are very comfortable with the status quo and literally "hate" those who challenge their opinions just because they hate to be moved out of their comfort zone and they hate to be challenged in any way. Those are the people who will usually end up making it personal. For them it is personal. Sometimes their very ego identity is resting on winning the argument and that is powerful survival mechanism when triggered. No one wants to die, including ego.

For them I say, "Too bad!" Everyone needs to learn that their ego can take a hit and they can survive. Everyone needs to examine themselves. Everyone could use a good paradigm shifting now and again, whether they like it or not.

I like what you say about not taking our perceptions of other posters from thread to thread. I try very hard to do this and treat each thread as a fresh subject on its own merits. However, since posters, including myself, tend to take their posting styles, egos, and personal biases with them from thread to thread its really hard for me not to "react" to them in the same manner. You can see the dilemma.

Everyone could try a nice 24 hour cooling period before they submit their posts. I suspect the forum would die a quick death though. Conflict sustains discussion forums. Conflict is essential to a good story, any writer will tell you that. No conflict to resolve, no movie or book. Just everyone going about their own business and minding their own business.

A couple of years ago, a few posters from this forum were invited to take part in a private discussion forum for like minded "thinkers". I was one of them. I greatly admired and respected every other poster who was in the little club. After about a week, we all got bored of agreeing with each other and came back to JWD. We agreed on pretty much everything and had nothing to discuss.

Violia

Discussion is one thing but taunting and mocking is another. I don't agree with everyone but hey, who died and made me King? I think we should debate all we want and discuss all we want, but if the folks who believe in Aliens/demons/ ghosts etc want to believe that, let them talk among themselves. Who are they hurting? One poster is an atheist and one believes in God. Discussion is great but bullying the folks who believe in God is wrong just b/c it is your personal belief that God cannot exist.

As was said, NO ONE knows what happens after death so why should I care if you believe you will be with Jesus, or reincarnated or live on a paradise earth or cease to exist at all? It is fun and interesting to speculate and debate but abusive to call names and taunt those who disagree with us.

I don't need posters screened or sanitized for my protection. I don't need protection from the conspiracy theories or Dems or conservatives, or someone who believes God is directed them to post here.

I can read and don't want my information filtered, no matter how well meanig you feel you are.

tec

A great post, Lady Lee, thank you.

I can read and don't want my information filtered, no matter how well meanig you feel you are.

Yes, thank you, Viola! Well said!!!!

Cog, I personally hate arguing. Discussion is good. I think respect makes the difference. Its not hard to differentiate between a person who respects you and your right to your belief/perhaps even the belief itself (or non-belief), while also disagreeing with that belief - and a person who doesn't respect you BECAUSE of your belief. Its easy to discuss differences of belief and opinion with the first person, nearly impossible to keep a discussion from turning into an argument with the second type of person.

Those are my perceptions.

Tammy

cognizant dissident

Tec: I use the word argument in the broad sense.

My dictionary has two definitions for arguing, one is to exchange views or opinions, especially angrily. The synonyms for that definition are fight, quarrel, bicker, row, etc

The second definition is to maintain by reasoning. The synonyms for that are assert, claim, contend, hold, maintain, reason.

I don't like the first type of arguing either. I see no problem with the second though, as that is how we often learn new ideas, by arguing the alternatives. The problem is that people often start out with number two but deteriorate into number one.

I think the first person to lose their temper or deteriorate into name calling and personal insults loses the argument (or at least a measure of credibility and respect). However, I've noticed that many, many people on this forum, are still very much like JW's in that they take it very personally if you disagree with their argument (position) and will call the disagreeing in and of itself, bashing or insulting. Like JW's, they have a bit of a persecution complex, but it only goes one way. They have no sensitivity for when they are doing it to others.

That is the unfairness that gets my goat every single time.

tec

Cog, I agree with what you're saying about argument vs. bickering/fighting, so we're on the same page... and for the most part also with this:

I think the first person to lose their temper or deteriorate into name calling and personal insults loses the argument (or at least a measure of credibility and respect).

The only time I disagree is when the loss of temper, etc, has been deliberately goaded out of them. Sometimes the goader just think that goes unnoticed.

Tammy

My perception of posters

Share this