Is condescention necessary?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp LOL. Consistently clueless. Whatever Kame. You do keep me chuckling

Oh, you still had a point? I was lead to believe that you didn't, based on the fact that you didn't make one.

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. I used the word in the general sense of "how we know what we know."

I wrote a freshman term paper in 1974, on the topic of epistemology, addressing the relativity of objective knowledge to the environment in which it is gained......so I am vaguely familiar with the term.

I hate to rehash this again. Feel free to ignore all or part of the following. Kame's claim that I am an agnostic is based on a rather silly standard for determining what we do and don't know. In a nutshell, I don't believe in god because I have seen zero evidence for the existence of the vaguely defined creature. Kame claims that this is not sufficient. He claims that I must also in some manner prove that the concept does not exist. As I will not play this fool's game, I must therefore be an agnostic.

I was not aware the topic of God's existence included whether or not the concept of God existed.......are they not wholly separate things, one being the thing itself and the other being the concept, or "mental construct" of that thing?

Just my .02...

My point is that if one applies this epistemological standard, or in other words, the standard by which we decide what do and do not know, to day to day life, then virtually any decision or belief would be impossible.

Waaal, if we're talkin' about objective knowledge of something (God, the tooth fairy, or whatever) the fact of one's "decision" to incline one way or the other, has nothing to do with it. You can decide all day long, for example, that Sherman tanks do not exist.......just don't stand in front of one that's underway, unless you wish to resemble the fabled centipede with fallen arches.

If I am not mistaken (sorry, no guarantee), epistemologically, one would only be interested in how I "know" it, not whether it is indeed true.

In fact, thinking about it now, Des Cartes', "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) seems to put the actual being as a function of (and possibly secondary to?) his consideration of being.

But that's possibly because Des Cartes was speaking of subjective knowledge of his existence -- which may be something we must continually "prove" to ourselves, lest we wake up to find that it was all a dream.

I can attest to this from personal experience, since I once woke up in a hospital with my last memory being of sitting among friends, chatting in their living room.

For awhile there, I don't remember doing any "cogito"....did I cease to exist? Only subjectively, I think.....:)

Which is why I think that my difference with Kame is not one of logic but epistemolgy. By my standard of knowledge, I can only be an atheist. By his, I am an agnostic.

Strange to get into an argument over clearly defined terms.

Never done anything like that myself....:)

I consider myself an agnostic, because I have not seen or otherwise percieved what I would consider proof of the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being, and because I cannot deny that there is certainly enough order in nature and the universe to say that outside intervention is not entirely unlikely......but skeptic may be closer to the mark.

I may be mistaken (yes, it is possible), but I always thought that an atheist was one who actually denied the existence of such an entity, claiming that all is coincidence and happenstance and any seeming evidence to the contrary is just that: seeming evidence, constructed out of some primal need for an explanation of all things, even the inexplicable.

Oh course, he is very sure of his position in a manner that only a 14 year old can be.

What the hell difference does anyone's age make, if they can form a legible sentence and decipher the same?

I had read many of Kame's posts before coming across someone deriding him for his age (assuming that he really IS 14) awhile back. Frankly, I was disappointed in my own reaction to the news, in that I allowed the information to form a new filter through which to view his consequent posts.

I am equally disappointed that others apparently not only let it color their opinion of the poster, but also feel a need to continually use it as a verbal bludgeon, blatantly displaying their own bigotry as a cover for the frustration of not being able to bully one of fewer years into abject submission to their position; preferring it seems, to lash out in frustration than to simply ignore that which is distasteful or silly.

Watch me, I never do that.



As you were.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Oh, you still had a point? I was lead to believe that you didn't, based on the fact that you didn't make one.

As I said Kame. You keep me amused.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: RickSp As I said Kame. You keep me amused.

I accurately described the difference between "evidence" and "proof", and explained how it's evidence that applies to one's theological stance. The correct response to this isn't "Haha you're funny" - because that doesn't constitute a point. Your continued posting is therefore pointless.

[Jack]

If he claims to be an atheist, he's either a weak atheist or a strong atheist.

This will be my final contribution to this thread (if I don't stop now, I may get an infraction); It's one thing to debate your POV and your beliefs. It's quite another to try to tell someone else who or what they are. It's rude, presumptive and yes, even condescending. Those three things, when applied skillfully by a true wordsmith, can be entertaining as well as enlightening. In the hands of someone thrashing around for approval, they're demeaning.

[Kamehameha34]

Did I play Beethoven's fifth on your nerve?

You supplied what ideas you subscribed to. All I did was connect the dots. If you don't like the label your beliefs lead to, then get over your pointless grudge with groupings of letters.

[ZNFYRH]

As an outsider/recent insider to this forum, I have to say that I find it deplorable that a member who starts a thread addressing the fact that he is the target of condescension has been, 99% of the time, the one to initiate derogatory or otherwise disrespectful conduct.

It's comparable to someone complaining about always being in fist fights, then turning around and punching the meanest-looking person near them. I believe that most people initiate discourse with a new person with an initial amount of civility and only become irate when they are slighted.

In the case of this forum, some of the "older" members have something of a home field advantage. A visitor that starts pissing on the faces of established members is disrupting a community.

Just an outside observation.

[Kamehameha34]

Can you show me an example of myself initiating a conflict so I can point out the aggression before it?

[ZNFYRH]

Posts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and then 13 of this thread are a precise example.

Someone pointed out the reason why you are treated the way you are, mentioning both post structure and content, and then you replied with a one-line comment that was not constructive.

When others tried to clarify for you, you were negative again. And finally, in post 13, you wrote about pointing out fallacious thinking. Not only does that show a superiority complex (or inferiority, depending on which school of psychology you follow) but is problematic because there are those who are trying to answer your initial question of why you are treated with disrespect.

The answer is that you initiate it.

I approach these forums as though I am in school and the others here are my teachers. They can all tell me something new, and if they don't I should try to learn from how they perceive information. I've noticed, in just a few threads, that you talk down to people that are 2, 3, or 4 times your senior.

When people have more time on this planet than you and you treat them with obvious disrespect (especially those in positions of authority on this forum), you reap what you sow.

[dilligras]

[off topic]

Quote by: dilligras n fact, thinking about it now, Des Cartes', "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) seems to put the actual being as a function of (and possibly secondary to?) his consideration of being. But that's possibly because Des Cartes was speaking of subjective knowledge of his existence -- which may be something we must continually "prove" to ourselves, lest we wake up to find that it was all a dream. I can attest to this from personal experience, since I once woke up in a hospital with my last memory being of sitting among friends, chatting in their living room. For awhile there, I don't remember doing any "cogito"....did I cease to exist? Only subjectively, I think.....

I was just ruminating over this a bit further, and in considering the above question of my existence during the time I cannot remember, I suppose it's the same during the period we sleep without dreaming or other mental activity involving thought processes (and their attendant proof of one's existence, or being).

Since we all have seen others asleep, and others have attested to having seen us asleep, we know from the evidence of our own eyes as well as their testimony that we exist, as they do, when we are asleep -- even when we are not dreaming. Knowing this, can one not also infer the existence of one's own thinking during a period without consequent memory?

In other words, one could then say, "I was, therefore I thought", or, for the pinheads of academia, "sum, ergo cogito." [/off topic]

BTW Kameameaculpa, I realize that since one should practice what one preaches that I am perhaps not the best choice to be pointing this out (and that the medium doesn't easily allow for it's apparent manifestation), but to the degree that one may muster all his forces of self restraint, there is some great body of evidence that the old saw about, "the less I say, the smarter I sound." is based on the experience of pretty much the whole of humanity.

I would alter it only slightly, to reflect my own experience that "the longer I think about it before replying, the less likely I am to proffer some ill-considered evidence of my own inanity".

In other words, the fast, kneejerk reparte' is not always the best way to ensure saving one the regret of displaying one's inadvertent shortcomings for all the world to see........again.

Might as well hit yer thumb with a hammer......


As you were.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You chastise me for thinking I didn't "yet again, get it", then respond with that?

Yup.... because:

Once you start redefining words to contradict their referenced meanings, you seperate yourself from the common English language.

...... ^ Of that quote there, proves you didn't get it.... you wern't listening, or you are just blind. I explained in simple terms what I was trying to get across to you, and you go off about "redefining wors to contradict their reference" I clearly told you this was not what I was talking about, I explained what I was trying to tell you, and you jump back onto "redefining wors to contradict their reference"

Are you just purposely ignoring what people say to piss them off for your own shits and giggles, or do you just not understand?

I can define "human" as "having wings" - then I wouldn't be human, according to my definition. But someone can reference the definition of "human", and show that I'm incorrect. The fact that I blatantly deny the English definition means that my redefinition of the term means nothing.

^ Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about...... once again, you spit out some referece to definition examples that do not relate at all to the topic at hand or what I was talking about, which to me, and many others who talk to you, comes off as "YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT"

You maybe correct in your definitions and your examples you post at times..... but if they don't relate to the topic at hand or what was asked to you, it is irrelevent, pointless, and makes you appear that you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not trying to attack you on this.... I'm just trying to beat this through your head..... but I think I'm gonna need to rent a jackhammer for that project.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ZNFYRH As an outsider/recent insider to this forum, I have to say that I find it deplorable that a member who starts a thread addressing the fact that he is the target of condescension has been, 99% of the time, the one to initiate derogatory or otherwise disrespectful conduct. It's comparable to someone complaining about always being in fist fights, then turning around and punching the meanest-looking person near them. I believe that most people initiate discourse with a new person with an initial amount of civility and only become irate when they are slighted. In the case of this forum, some of the "older" members have something of a home field advantage. A visitor that starts pissing on the faces of established members is disrupting a community. Just an outside observation.

And it is correct.

Not to pick on Kam here..... but this thread is about him, so there ya go.....

I'm younger than you.

"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

Is condescention necessary?

Each one of these threads, among others, were started by Kam, starting a debate with basically himself in the center of the example, looking as though he is wanting to be targeted so people can challenge his methods..... then people give him what he wants, they point out where he may and may not be wrong, and he does what he did above to me.... ie: explaining something that doesn't relate and coming off as if he didn't understand what was being discussed..... further fueling the argument against himself, all the while he doesn't understand why people don't get him, while those people don't understand him.......

at this point, most of us do understand Kam.... at least I do so far.....

Kam.... you're currently out of your league. You're out of your league and you like to try and prove you're not. The more you try to prove you're not, the more you prove that you are. You appear to take three steps instead of one or two.... loosing yourself in translation..... something is not connecting.

[ZNFYRH]

More accurately, Praxius, is that while he doesn't understand the real reason people disagree with him, he presumes to know the reason they do. Given those threads you linked, he assumes the reason is any of the following:

1. The person dismisses him because of his age.
2. The person isn't using his own definitions of words that are otherwise defined by reputable sources.
3. The person is out to get him.

I've noticed that instead of paying attention to what a person has to say, he simply brushes it off with any of the three reasons above and insults the person. I even saw in one thread where he made a rude comment directed towards a (now banned) member of Volconvo who was wounded in combat (allegedly).

Which brings me to another reason people condescend. I know if I got along with a person and I saw someone insult them that way, I would be rather rude to the offender. Certain "low blows" just earn someone negative reaction.

I've read the 20 most recent threads in each section, as well as every blog, and I've come to internalize the comments about effective communication in one of the blogs here, as well as some of the inferences made about decent behavior, good posting guidelines, and other such things.

On a much more personal level, I can't help thinking that a reason someone has to act negatively here is because they are treated the same way in their real life. Seeing the rudeness makes me pity that person that they feel that completely insulting a stranger is the only way to relieve the pain they are experiencing.

[Kamehameha34]

...... ^ Of that quote there, proves you didn't get it.... you wern't listening, or you are just blind. I explained in simple terms what I was trying to get across to you, and you go off about "redefining wors to contradict their reference" I clearly told you this was not what I was talking about, I explained what I was trying to tell you, and you jump back onto "redefining wors to contradict their reference"

Let's look at what that was in response to:

You are using words too big for your britches at this point in your life. You understand some of the definitions, but you don't understand some of their overall meanings...... why? Because some of what you are talking about, you have not yet had life experience relating to them to understand them completely. You feel that you understand most, so therefore you understand all, and this is where your errors occur.

You're unable to connect simple dots. My arguments appear tangential because they make logically valid leaps that you can't follow. The above example is the epitome of your false accusations.

Posts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, and then 13 of this thread are a precise example.

By just glancing at those examples, I can tell you're contextually ignorant. He'd failed to prove his position in a debate - and he harassed me for a while about how "right" he was.

Kam.... you're currently out of your league. You're out of your league and you like to try and prove you're not. The more you try to prove you're not, the more you prove that you are. You appear to take three steps instead of one or two.... loosing yourself in translation..... something is not connecting.

So it may seem to someone with a small capacity for logical deduction. I'm still waiting for these so called "groundless leaps".

I even saw in one thread where he made a rude comment directed towards a (now banned) member of Volconvo who was wounded in combat (allegedly).

That member had refused to mutually ignore me, and continued to harass me.

[Kamehameha34]

Oh, and god forbid if someone were to back up their accusation with quotes. If you're going to go off into a tangient about my posting style, without referencing, all it takes is a simple denial on my part to refute it if you don't quote me.

[ZNFYRH]

I acknowledge that you took the time to respond, Kamehameha. I will ask you a question and then I will make a very clear point that should settle this matter completely.

First...

Quote by: Kamehameha That member had refused to mutually ignore me, and continued to harass me.

If you had ignored the member, you would not have been harassed. Also, it takes two to fight. My question is to ask you why you didn't maintain the ignore or simply choose not to provoke further response?

Second...

Quote by: Kamehameha By just glancing at those examples, I can tell you're contextually ignorant. He'd failed to prove his position in a debate - and he harassed me for a while about how "right" he was.

That comment alone demonstrates that you lack respect for others.

Regardless of other threads, just looking at that first dozen or so posts shows that the person, while aggressive, did not condescend to you first. In fact, now that I look again, he/she elaborated on why he/she chose to correct your spelling. A moderator actually stepped in to voice a clarification. You chose to be disrespectful.

The other reason I say you lack respect for others is in how you chose to respond to me. I would wonder how you would fare if a random adult commented on your behavior and you called them contextually ignorant. Do you speak to adults that way when they are standing in front of you?

Apparently, I made the mistake of stating something you disagreed with. When you asked me for an example and received one, your first sentence in response was condescending.

So to answer your question...

Quote by: Kamehameha Can you show me an example of myself initiating a conflict so I can point out the aggression before it?

I direct you to...

Quote by: Kamehameha I can tell you're contextually ignorant.

I would suggest that if you want to prove that you're capable of mature discourse, you conduct yourself in a manner that your audience considers mature, not your peers.

[Kamehameha34]

If you had ignored the member, you would not have been harassed. Also, it takes two to fight. My question is to ask you why you didn't maintain the ignore or simply choose not to provoke further response?

I don't leaving things unanswered. People may neglect to respond to a point of mine because the said member responded to it - failing to realize that I'm effectively left without anything to refute.

The other reason I say you lack respect for others is in how you chose to respond to me. I would wonder how you would fare if a random adult commented on your behavior and you called them contextually ignorant. Do you speak to adults that way when they are standing in front of you?

I don't get the stigma on the word "ignorant". It's a word, meaning "lacking knowledge". All I said was that you lacked contextual knowledge. Blunt language does not constitute condescension.

Regardless of other threads, just looking at that first dozen or so posts shows that the person, while aggressive, did not condescend to you first.

You need to differentiate between someone telling you you're wrong because they think you're stupid and wrong because you don't understand.

Oh, you think it isn't condescending to feel you have the right to declare you're opponent's position as false without sufficient elaboration?

[Praxius]

Kam, I could go through a list of quotes by you, but they spread out from over pages and pages of threads, it would take too long. Each situation has been noted and pointed out in each thread that is an example, by not only myself but others I have read... to bring them back here and spam more of the same to run around in circles as you take those arguments to hi-jack this thread to express the same answers as before (Which still wouldn't relate to the topic at hand) would be pointless and would just escalate the rhetoric that is currently going on now, which I am trying to avoid.

Examples could easily be found in the links I supplied above.

But it's pointless at this time. Your attitude in writing now, still shows that nothing is getting through to you, even in general conversation. Any further discusion on this matter is like eating a week old turd..... I smelled it before and now I'm starting to taste it.

My bottom line on this..... You make threads that relate to you and people not understanding you.... then when people try to explain to you why they do.... instead of taking what they have to say, you go on the defensive and you try and refute what they are trying to explain....... in the end, nothing is solved and you're back to where you started with a bit more exercise for your fingers from typing.

That's all I'm saying on the matter, and I'm done..... you didn't win the argument, and neither did I..... there isn't an argument to begin with..... I'm just leaving this black hole of typing.... I'll respond to you in a few more years, when you can articulate what you're trying to say.

[Jack]

Thread closed at request of topic starter.