It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Participating in LOGICAL Discussions on ATS

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Most, if not all of us have been guilty at some point of replying to a comment with a knee-jerk reaction, going about it in a subjective manner and letting emotions get in the way.

Daily life, which for me includes going on ATS, involves emotionally-charged topics and situations. It will always happen in threads that include sensitive topics (most of them), but I'm getting sick of posters jumping on someone, disagreeing or replying with short answers in a condescending manner, such as "No. You're wrong. End of story." etc.

This happened to me 3 times this morning, and all 3 of which involved scenarios where I said something factual, or objective, and people perceived it as if I was a proponent of the injustice. When in actuality, I also recognize the issue as an injustice, but was explaining how one could defend their actions in a court of law based on the facts of the situation.

ANYWAY - I needed to make this thread to try asking that we r.e.a.d. the post carefully, and look at the context, the wording, etc. before jumping on someone. Ask them to clarify if need be, but being rude, short-sighted, and over-reacting is only going to take away from the a fruitful conversation. Thank you ATS!
edit on 27-10-2015 by FamCore because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Amen, ATS needs a troll hunting team



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: slapjacks

I do think there is some "turnover", with new members coming and going, and (no offense to any younger members) some may be on the younger end of the spectrum, but the frequency and the volume of these posts is ridiculous



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

You're asking for the shallow minded to suddenly behave with deeper aplomb…

Lots of luck. If they've upset you they're happy.

link to image



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
With some people, no amount of logic and reason is enough.

If they don't like your logic, they will demand links. When you provide links, they will then claim your source is invalid for any number of reasons (Faux News!). You provide other sources and they will come up with other excuses.

At some point, you just have to decide to stop the circle jerk and move on. Can't take it personally.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

a reply to: Edumakated

It can't hurt to have a little reminder buzz through the ATS Live Page, now can it?
It just reminds me of 2nd or 3rd grade when me and my buddies had crushes on the same girl, even though she didn't like any of us. Talk about frustrating LOL



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Most people on this site are unaware of how a logical debate is supposed to proceed.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

It's called common sense-however it is easy to understand but hard to use.

We are all capable of illogical thought, especially when some of us wear their hearts on their sleeves and are passionate about a subject. But then again if someone asks a silly question, they will get a silly response.

I've gotta say that remarks that resort to juvenile shorthand insults doesn't have a place in this day in age. I like a good old fashioned argument like many of us do, not one that starts with 'U R A...'



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I've come to the conclusion that common sense is the LAST thing you want to rely on in a logical debate. Common sense has a tendency to blind your eyes from the conclusion the evidence is presenting says. Follow the evidence, not your feelings. In fact, in a logical debate I consider the the phrase "use your common sense" as a euphemism for "listen to MY confirmation bias".
edit on 27-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Some laws don't abide by common sense, yet we still follow them.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Common sense sometimes cannot be supported by data. Data doesn't always tell the whole story. While I prefer data to no data, I don't let myself get caught up in it either because it sometimes can lead you to wrong conclusions. Let me give you an example. Coca-Cola had reams of data, high priced consultants, marketing research firms, and all kinds of support that said hey, let's create New Coke. Common sense said nothing was wrong with the old Coke, but hey we've got data saying otherwise. We all know the rest of the story. I'm sure some underling brand manager said this makes no sense and someone else said "but we've got data".

Sometimes you have to use your intuition...



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Yah, like school children, sometimes.

This one sums it up pretty well, too.

link to image



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

What does following a law have to do with having a logical debate?



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Actually the failure of New Coke can be laid at Coca-Cola NOT looking at their data thoroughly enough. If they had, they would have noticed a problem. Here, I'll let Wikipedia explain what I mean (see a link!). New Coke


Coca-Cola's most senior executives commissioned a secret effort named "Project Kansas" — headed by marketing vice president Sergio Zyman and Brian Dyson, president of Coca-Cola USA – to test and perfect the new flavor for Coke itself. It took its name from a famous photo of that state's renowned journalist William Allen White drinking a Coke; the image[4] had been used extensively in its advertising and hung on several executives' walls.[5] The company's marketing department again went out into the field, this time armed with samples of the possible new drink for taste tests, surveys, and focus groups.

The results of the taste tests were strong – the sweeter mixture overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi. Then tasters were asked if they would buy and drink it if it were Coca-Cola. Most said yes, they would, although it would take some getting used to. A small minority, about 10–12%, felt angry and alienated at the very thought, saying that they might stop drinking Coke altogether. Their presence in focus groups tended to skew results in a more negative direction as they exerted indirect peer pressure on other participants.[6]

The surveys, which were given more significance by standard marketing procedures of the era, were less negative and were key in convincing management to move forward with a change in the formula for 1985, to coincide with the drink's centenary. But the focus groups had provided a clue as to how the change would play out in a public context, a data point that the company downplayed but which was to prove important later.[7]


It also appears that ego played a part in pushing out this product.


Early in his career with Coca-Cola, Goizueta had been in charge of the company's Bahamian subsidiary. In that capacity, he had improved sales by tweaking the drink's flavor slightly, so he was receptive to the idea that changes to the taste of Coke could lead to increased profits. He believed it would be "New Coke or no Coke",[8] and the change must take place openly.[6] He insisted that the containers carry the "New!" label, which gave the drink its popular name.[9]


Here's a thought experiment. Do you think New Coke would have been as disastrous if it wasn't marketed as a replacement for Coke and was instead marketed as an additional product along the Coca-Cola brand?


Sometimes you have to use your intuition...


I'd rather not rely on intuition since intuition can be reliant on unproven assumptions that society holds as true just because it "feels" right.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I've come to the conclusion that common sense is the LAST thing you want to rely on in a logical debate. Common sense has a tendency to blind your eyes from the conclusion the evidence is presenting says. Follow the evidence, not your feelings. In fact, in a logical debate I consider the the phrase "use your common sense" as a euphemism for "listen to MY confirmation bias".


I equate common sense more to empirical proof. We might not necessarily know why 'it' behaves the way it does but we do know 'it' repeatedly and consistently does behave the way it does.

Data can be manipulated, interpreted and misrepresented. Sometimes out of necessity and sometimes out of bias. I'm NOT saying it should be disregarded. But neither should common sense.
edit on 10/27/2015 by newWorldSamurai because: grammer



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore



This happened to me 3 times this morning, and all 3 of which involved scenarios where I said something factual, or objective, and people perceived it as if I was a proponent of the injustice. When in actuality, I also recognize the issue as an injustice, but was explaining how one could defend their actions in a court of law based on the facts of the situation.


Orwell sums this methodology up nicely in his essay "Through a Glass, Rosily".



The recent article by Tribune’s Vienna correspondent provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticizes A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don’t criticize: or at least criticize “constructively,” which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.


Through a Glass, Rosily

Always be suspicious of the language.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: newWorldSamurai

When I refer to "data" I refer to empirical or objective evidence. Common sense is neither of those things. Common sense is just your head telling you how you think things work usually based on common beliefs held by the population at large.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: newWorldSamurai




I equate common sense more to empirical proof. We might not necessarily know why 'it' behaves the way it does but we do know 'it' repeatedly and consistently does behave the way it does.


This leads to the philosophical dispute between empiricism and rationalism. The rationalists, following in the shoes of Descartes, claim that common sense is some sort of bias or superstition, whereas the empiricists equate it to the use of the common senses. The modern usage is more the rationalist outlook. Descartes, though brilliant, was wrong about many things, and this was one of them.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Can you put that into layman's terms for me? The A and B illustration escapes my grasp for some reason. Is he saying that, in order to get the maximum reaction, a journalist's highest duty is "the suppression and distortion of known facts"?, with the sole purpose of getting a reaction, not sharing valuable information?
edit on 27-10-2015 by FamCore because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

In the case of Orwell, the journalist was accused of aiding the Nazis by criticizing the Communists. In your case, you were perceived as a proponent of injustice, because I assume you criticized something that was perceived as justice, even though you were simply relating facts.

What he is saying is that if this faulty argument was pushed to his limits, it could be argued that the highest duty of a journalist was to suppress facts, which we know is absurd.
edit on 27-10-2015 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join