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.

 

This is about you, of course.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I wont try and convert you.

I know this is futile. You have chosen your belief already and right or wrong-it is now entrenched in you like fighters in a guerrilla war.
This believe shall be jealously guarded. To realize some part of it is wrong-nay to entertain the idea that some part of it COULD be wrong is anathema to you. For some reason you see it as meaning everything in your life was wrong. That every item in existence that you ever felt had meaning-is wrong.

This is unbearable and entirely an understandable hesitation.

I think it is fair to say that from the perspective of all participants: no matter how much evidence is presented-it will never be enough. There will always be something causing that evidence to tremble with doubt-to be false.

He said. She said. It said: Something that favors your beliefs will always be there to justify them and give solace against the onslaught of opposing views.

And so we sit here on this night. In an Internet forum full of beliefs. I have noticed that you-like myself: participate in threads that you either believe already with complete certainty-or hate with absolute passion and regards anyone who disagrees with the fact it is detestable: are stupid and wrong.

You have come here looking for a fight. To chose sides. To gather your banners-men to your side an charge to battle against those who are not like you. They are already massed on the opposing bank.

Why is it your first response is to attack and not to read fully and gather an articulated rational and adult response? I bet your knees quake with greater oscillations than someone with a nervous disorder. The knee jerks of righteous outrage have probably damaged your desk by now.

In order to learn one must first entertain the notion that they are wrong or that what they thought they know is incomplete. I know these ideas are alien. I have however read some of your threads and you are most definitely in need of some learning. You see: You seem to think that “Having an open mind” means others ignoring the facts and details and information-and adopting your preferences on what truth and beliefs are correct.

Having an open mind means a willingness to learn, it means knowing with certainty one might in fact be wrong and thus-always look for things that could correct them.

This is of course where I come in. You see, you should have an open mind and have the same beliefs I have. After all, can you prove me wrong?

I look forward to your change of heart.




posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


And what if say that I neither agree nor disagree with you, but learned something here just the same?

Where does that place me?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by deanGI5
 


One who does not agree, by definition of factual functions: is wrong of course.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
well said, but Huxley said it best...
See my signature
\/



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 



But is one who does not disagree, by definition of factual functions, really not agreeing?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
But your belief that all people in this forum should have an open mind is a very closed-minded belief. I would like to argue in favor of participating in these forums with a closed mind. A closed mind gives a person the power to press through obstacles and overcome dozens, thousands, millions, and even billions of naysayers. How can someone with an open mind possibly push forward a theory to acceptance which is against the common beliefs of an era?

How about the idea that particular ratios of closed-minded people and open-minded people interacting produces the very excitement which draws people to these forums? How about the idea that these forums would never have become popular and would not exist if a fairly large portion of the people in these forums weren't closed minded? It would be pretty boring to read legions of posts written by politely agreeing and disagreeing people, wouldn't it?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by deanGI5
 


Ah you misunderstand. You can disagree with facts to your hearts content. But given they are facts and its just your falsified beliefs that are contesting them: you are still wrong



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I've never seen any one argue on here. You must be special. I only ever see the MIB page man. Is that the banner men you are ranting about?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmAnAlien
 


I would dare say it should be the quality of debates that matters, not the quantity.
Too many "Me too" arguments and generally craptastic rebuttals make most interactions just sad.
I yearn for the quality to go up on everything. Tired of "I had a dream and you're all doomed" posts.. and "dont you think.." 5 line posts and "ZOMG the book I was indoctrinated with as a child says something obscure that vaguely matches something else obscure so we are all DOOMED!" posts..

*sigh



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Cliff notes:

Inability to tolerate ambiguity is a classic sign of low intelligence.

Thank you come again.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by siren8
 


People tend to give dissent in a hostile manner, less argument and more sound bites. However you were correct on one point: I am in fact special. My mother tells me that daily, sometimes she texts it too. There fore it is true.


Not sure if related, but oddly funny right now:

edit on 30-6-2011 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Where is your proof that there is in fact a single right/wrong or truth/untruth for any argument? Maybe truth is dependent upon perspective. Maybe there is no truth or no falsehood, right or wrong. Maybe there are no facts? Maybe a "fact" is simply a position that an individual has declared to be inarguable by using the word "fact", but which, in fact, remains arguable since there is no right and wrong?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmAnAlien
 


"There is no right or wrong" Itself attempts to establish a fact and therefore collapses into itself like a michael bay movie.

If it is possible to separate anything into separate values then "Fact exists". That is to say, something which is demonstrably and incontestably true. In this regards, one can rail against it and deny it in as many ways as they like. It is still true-and they are still wrong.

Descartes was a moran.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Explanation: Oh bugger! I just lost


Personal Disclosure: The only way to win is not to play in the 1st place. Its a TRAP!


To win here.. you'd have to ignore the thread completely! Deny Ignorance! This threads OP is promoting it!

P.S. S&F! WINNING!



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Hrm... "Deny Ignorance."

There is the cliche saying that "Ignorance is bliss" does this mean that to "Deny Ignorance" one is taking the ascetic role of denying happiness or existing in misery?

Why deny ignorance? I say that the certain people who shall remain nameless could be right in cramming their ignorance down everyones throat and demanding it is true, that insistence of correctness will eventually make it correct, and if it doesn't well, it was still the right thing to do.

Can I get an amen?

Pascal is a moran too.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by IAmAnAlien
 


"There is no right or wrong" Itself attempts to establish a fact and therefore collapses into itself like a michael bay movie.

If it is possible to separate anything into separate values then "Fact exists". That is to say, something which is demonstrably and incontestably true. In this regards, one can rail against it and deny it in as many ways as they like. It is still true-and they are still wrong.

Descartes was a moran.


The question is not, essentially, whether a fact exists or not. The question is "what is a fact". A "fact" could very well be, "a term that is meant to end all argument by declaring something to be a root and unchallengeable truth". In this sense, a "fact" would be similar to a "law of nature". Yet "laws" or "facts" are human constructs with no essential truth outside of particular conditions. When viewed from outside those conditions, a new "fact" emerges.

I hope you spelled "moron" wrong on purpose, lol.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmAnAlien
 


Your argument certainly seemed to imply that 'facts' were subjective on the objective of the arguer resulting in malleability. I contest that they are pieces of data that are true in any situation relevant to their.. uhm... confined paramaters *looks up more buzz words* as facts set the paradigm of what is being discussed and yeah.....
Here is something to back up my spelling:

Know your meme



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by IAmAnAlien
 


Your argument certainly seemed to imply that 'facts' were subjective on the objective of the arguer resulting in malleability. I contest that they are pieces of data that are true in any situation relevant to their.. uhm... confined paramaters *looks up more buzz words* as facts set the paradigm of what is being discussed and yeah.....
Here is something to back up my spelling:

Know your meme



But I thought you were arguing against people who took to trying to mock people rather than argue people using facts. Yet I clearly detect a mock * buzzwords * in your reply to me. Does this suggest that I am winning since you were forced to resort to mocking to try to make your point? It seems kind of like you are doing the same thing that you complain about other people doing.

Contesting that "facts" are true irrelevant of their parameters is not the same thing as proving that "facts" are true irrelevant of their parameters. Contesting is simply declaring something to be true. Where is the proof?
edit on 30-6-2011 by IAmAnAlien because: missing word



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmAnAlien
 


Requesting proof holds an inherent agreement that facts exist. Ergo I win.

I am doubting however that this thread is understood thus far



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
But aren't winning and losing entirely subjective? Maybe I wanted to lose. If I wanted to lose, and you won, then I win and you lose. But wait, you can't have a winner without a loser, or both terms become meaningless rhetoric. I am suggesting that the word "fact" is political rhetoric, and philosophy is a science used to support particular social positions.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join