posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:25 AM
Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
Would you be making the same argument that it's not OK to make "negative value-based comments about the validity of someones work" if he was
talking about a Cult Group like Heaven's Gate? Sometimes it's necessary to make "negative value-based comments about the validity of [someone's]
work"....that's what debate is all about...that's what these boards are all about. I WANT people to debate my own work...If I never consider
other's may view a specific subject differently than I do, then I will never grow in my own understanding...the only people who don't welcome such
debate are those that know that their own work can not stand up to logical debate....in other words people who have something to hide....whether they
are hiding some sort of agenda, or simply are themselves wishing to hide their head in a self made hole of delusions and ignorance.
Some things to do not bend to Logical Discussion/Argument, no matter how much we may prefer they do. Of course to a logical argumentist.. someone who
prides themselves in their superior forms of argument... this will be thought of as very wrong.
If we have no parallel grounds for observation then we are like the OP offering only their personal Opinion as Fact. It is these statements made as
Fact that I responded too.
The second although more important aspect of this discussion is to ascertain the OP's motivation for wanting to chop-down this person he refers to. I
think that is the key factor here.
What if's do not apply. I see it here all the time with various assertions, which are usually a vastly different set of circumstances to the one
first being discussed.
The things science cannot sense and quantify are many and varied in the experience of humanity. And this is because science is still only in it's
infant stage being around for only a few hundred years. Over that small timeframe many theories and Beliefs held dear have been overturned as science
gets more able to perceive what it previously could not. Hence we would be fools to think science is capable of explaining everything as it is right
I am not supporting the women mentioned in the first post.. so we can understand my approach is only with statements made as fact.. the "not real",
etc. It simply shows the OP has no equal grounds to perceive from and thus falls short of fact... unless you also accept the limitations as being the
whole picture and form a similar opinion... of which you are entitled to.
Yes.. I want people to discuss my own work too... but there are so few who have any idea let alone real experience of it themselves to be able to form
anything other than a very limited personal opinion. How can they possibly debate it adequately without any experience of it?
And therein lay my whole point to my initial response.