Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground. (God, believe, philosophy)

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by allah truth

right..but that was fun haha....and there is some sense of war in debate..as to use thoughts facts ideas wordings as wepons to support your position...and because it is your posistion you would want to defend it...but ofcourse using the term war is an exaduration to say the least

I'd rather call it sparring, and it definitely can be fun. It is not about winning or losing anywayz, but about finding the weak links in your own arguments.
And whenever you find a weak link in your 'armour' it will only make you stronger anyway.

[SmerkyGrl]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by SmerkyGrl True.
War is nothing but a conflict taken to the extreme.
But whenever arguments turn into wars the truth always is the 1st casualty.

To some people the argument becomes a war (=personal), because that is often how truth works.
You either accept the truth, or you deny it.
But when the truth hits on a personal level many people can't seem to get past their emotional feeling or their intellectual defence mechanism.

I have to disagree. The truth is never the first casualty. Rather, the first insult is the first casualty in my opinion.

One can present the truth in many ways: civilly or in the manner of an uneducated, rowdy imbecile.

For instance, you can state "There is a God. I'm sorry you don't believe it but there is and in time you will realize this"

Or you can state, as some people have so gracefully put, "All atheists are uneducated and they are only trying to hide from their insecurities because they're afraid THEIR LIFE WILL BE NOTHING once they realize God exists and they were wrong. "

I am inclined to think the first method is much more effective, less inflammatory, and resembles a valid, perhaps even truthful argument from someone who values intellectual discourse.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by SmerkyGrl

I have to disagree. The truth is never the first casualty. Rather, the first insult is the first casualty in my opinion.

The truth is.
No matter what I say or do will change this fact. Many people already feel insulted by this simple statement.
I have no control in how people interpret my words or how easily they feel insulted.
There are people who already feel slighted just because someone has the audacity to have another opinion than the ones they have.

[coberst]

You are correct. There are many attitudes toward argumentation. I do however think that the common view is that if we are having an argument we are engaged in a verbal altercation. If I tell some one that I had an argument with Dave most people will think that we ‘had words’.

Our common linguistic metaphors give us insight into our inner reality. When someone says he shot down my argument this gives us reason to think that there is some connection that our inner workings are telling us. When I recognize that affection is warmth there is some reason for this metaphor. The book "Philosophy in the Flesh" and Metaphors we live by" both by Lakoff and Johnson builds a whole new paradigm for cognitive science from this.

[SmerkyGrl]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by SmerkyGrlThe truth is.
No matter what I say or do will change this fact. Many people already feel insulted by this simple statement.
I have no control in how people interpret my words or how easily they feel insulted.
There are people who already feel slighted just because someone has the audacity to have another opinion than the ones they have.

I have faith that most adults are adult enough to maintain self control, even in a tense environment with opposing opinions. Of course, there are always exceptions.

[Tricky D]

I have faith that most adults are adult enough to maintain self control, even in a tense environment with opposing opinions. Of course, there are always exceptions.

I also have faith, but although I always hope for the best I always expect the worst. This way I can never can be caught off-guard.
Ever.
And let us not forget, we are talking about humanity. It certainly is true that there are intelligent individuals, but humanity as a whole is rather stupid.
I mean don't get me started about mob mentality.

[june 7th]

Originally Posted by coberst

Argument is war; thus forum becomes battle ground.

It seems to me that the forum members who participate in a thread approach the experience invigorated with much the same attitude as does a boxer entering the ring or a soldier going into battle.

Metaphor entailments (to transmit or to accompany) we live by:
He attacked my argument.
I have never beaten this guy in an argument.
If you do not agree with my statement then take your best shot.
I shot down each of his arguments.

We approach a forum response much like we approach a physical contest. We have a gut feeling about some things because our sense of correctness comes from our bodies. Our “gut feeling” often informs us as to the ‘correctness’ of some phenomenon. This gut feeling is an attitude; it is one of many types of attitudes. What can we say about this attitude, this gut feeling?

“Metaphors we live by”, a book about cognitive science coauthored by Lakoff and Johnson, says a great deal about this attitude. Conceptual metaphor theory, the underlying theory of cognitive science contained in this book, explains how our knowledge is ‘grounded’ in the precise manner in which we optimally interact with the world.

“The essence of metaphor is understanding one kind of thing in terms of another…The metaphor is not merely in the words we use—it is in the very concept of an argument. The language of argument is not poetic, fanciful, or rhetorical: it is literal. We talk about arguments that way because we conceive of them in that way—and we act according to the way we conceive of things.”—Lakoff and Johnson

Let us say that in early childhood I had my first fight with my brother. There was hitting, shoving, crying, screaming, and anger. Neural structure was placed in a mental space that contained the characteristics of this first combat, this was combat #1. Six months later I have a fight with the neighbor kid and we do all the routine thing kids do when fighting.

This is where metaphor theory does its thing. This theory proposes that the characteristics contained in the mental space, combat #1, are automatically mapped into the mental space that is becoming combat #2. The contents of combat #1 become a primary metaphor and the characteristics form the fundamental structure of mental space combat #2.

This example applies to all the experiences a person has. The primary experience is structured into a mental space and thereafter when a similar experience is happening the primary experience becomes the primary metaphor for the next like experience. This primary metaphor becomes the foundation for a concept whether the concept is concrete experience or abstract experience.

What I am saying is that for some reason the Internet discussion forum member considers engaging in a forum thread is a competition, it is a combat, and the primary combat metaphor is mapped into the mental space of this forum experience and thus the forum experience takes on the combat type experience. It seems to that is why lots of forum activity gets very combative.

Is it any wonder that the adrenalin starts pumping as soon as we start reading the responses to our post?

Do you feel like you are in a battle with me after reading my claims?

Is this why most replies are negative?

I agree.

(How's that for a cognitive schema?)

There is no question that from the time we are very, very young, that cognitive schemas are formed in our psyches. They largely determine how we will feel, respond, and react to any given event. When we experience something, whether it be something we read on a forum, or a real life experience, automatic thoughts and feelings are triggered. As such, one will act/react based upon that which is largely automatic and unnoticed within one's thinking. We all form automatic assumptions based upon those unconscious schemas.

However, cognitive schemas can be changed; our thought process(es) can be restructured, along with our accompanying emotions. Underneath every cognitive schema there exists some form of underlying emotion. -No doubt a fairly primitive one. Since the whole process in and of itself is something that we are usually not all that aware of (in it's being automatic) I can't help but wonder to what extent it tends to "redefine" our concepts and notions of "free will."

Not all cognitive process/schema is arguementative, however. We form assumptions based upon those primitive schemas all the time...

And oftentimes they can lead to good, and positive end results!

Take gentle care.

[coberst]

I think that part of the problem is that too many of us have only an accept button and a reject button.

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

[Oakback]

Originally Posted by june 7th

I agree.

(How's that for a cognitive schema?)

There is no question that from the time we are very, very young, that cognitive schemas are formed in our psyches. They largely determine how we will feel, respond, and react to any given event. When we experience something, whether it be something we read on a forum, or a real life experience, automatic thoughts and feelings are triggered. As such, one will act/react based upon that which is largely automatic and unnoticed within one's thinking. We all form automatic assumptions based upon those unconscious schemas.

However, cognitive schemas can be changed; our thought process(es) can be restructured, along with our accompanying emotions. Underneath every cognitive schema there exists some form of underlying emotion. -No doubt a fairly primitive one. Since the whole process in and of itself is something that we are usually not all that aware of (in it's being automatic) I can't help but wonder to what extent it tends to "redefine" our concepts and notions of "free will."

Not all cognitive process/schema is arguementative, however. We form assumptions based upon those primitive schemas all the time...

And oftentimes they can lead to good, and positive end results!

Take gentle care.

Hmm... I like what you just said, it makes me feel good, but I question the absolute truth of it . Soooo..... Hmmm...now I'm getting a little frustrated, and ...well...frankly I'm starting to get upset...no, I'm really mad now! But that's not right....hmmm....calming down now. Feel the love again...?
Now I fell like a sucker...dummy! But that's ok, God still loves me........

Never mind... I thought I had my multiple schema disorder under control.

[ParkTwain]

In human existence, there will always be some degree of conflict because (1) there is a competition for resources, and (2) there are many parts of reality about which all humans are ignorant or about which some humans are more ignorant that others. However, the extent and severity of human conflicts can be mitigated by basing all interactions on principles, truths, and practices about which there is practically no conflict. And there ARE such principles, truths, and practices! The history of successful international and internecine negotiations shows that this is true.

I think it is a more helpful approach to dealing with groups and group decisions (including politics) is to emphasize the areas of knowledge and human experience about which there are few conflicts or disagreements and build on THOSE to improve the conditions of all people. Persons or groups who choose to EMPHASIZE THE DIFFERENCES between people should be shunned if not ostracized; they are impeding the improvement of the human condition.