It might help to understand the operation of the site if you are aware of this. See ya.

;D

Where do you get these crazy ideas from?

Sense - Freediver says he smokes socially and drinks.  Are they allowed to do that?

Maybe he's been excommunicated (or whatever they do to rid themselves of dissenters).   ;)

OK I'll put you out of your misery. I am not  JW. Never have been, never will be. Just don't go assuming because I ignore crazy accusations that the accusation is correct. I usually just let people go on deluding themselves. It's interesting what people will lead themselves to believe. Plus, I don't usually answer personal questions and encourage the same in others.

you admitted you are a religeous crank- so what kind?

Oh dear ::) I did not admit that.

freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:28pm:

Plus, I don't usually answer personal questions and encourage the same in others.

Why be so guarded? It can really help in this kind of debate if you just wear it on your sleeve, kinda helps people to understand where you are coming from.

Unless of course you want to use this as a way to deceive people into thinking you are things that you are not?

Oh dear  I did not admit that. "



oh dear yes you DID.

wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 3:59pm:

freediver - on this you are right as I've just told zoso on the other thread. But you are still a religious crank.

and then



freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:00pm:

;D ...who just happens to be right

this was posted by   freediver immediately after sense' post-so you did say you were a religious crank!!!! In maths and science thread! :)

Is this an anti Jehovah's Witness thread? :-/

Or is it just some sort of personal attack on Freediver? :'(

I must say it really is a great political debate going on in this poitical thread in a political forum on a political website. ;)

Hi Everyone :D

Enviro - hahhahahaha
Best political comment I have seen for some time.

Obviously a very astute political observer.  ;)

enviro wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 8:10pm:

Is this an anti Jehovah's Witness thread? :-/ Or is it just some sort of personal attack on Freediver? :'( I must say it really is a great political debate going on in this poitical thread in a political forum on a political website. ;) Hi Everyone :D

 as if Enviro- the question was asked and you can see the thread title-who started the thread.

I was merely correcting freediver in his error. This was a correction, not an attack.

Zoso, it encourages stalkers and ad hominems.

enviro asks: "Is this an anti Jehovah's Witness thread?"

Yes.

Jehovah's Witnesses inflict harm and possible death upon their children - no blood transfusions.

But I go much further and say that all religious people, who raise their children to believe in religion, are harmful and should be punished. Indoctrinating a child to believe in God, hell, heaven and that the bible or Koran is true is harmful to the child. The hell bit traumatises them - possibly for ever. I get annoyed when children are referred to as Catholics or Muslims or any other religion. Children just cannot be any of these things. Children have no equal opportunities as long as these practices persist.

Sense, I agree.

At least with JW, Catholicism and Islam you get a choice to turn your back on God. What happens to the poor sod who has a Jewish mother? They are indoctrinated irrespective of what they or their parents believe!

The whole idea of being raised following any religion is at the heart of the brain washing process. Not many people change their religious stripes, as they feel their creator will smite thee!!

freediver wrote on Apr 17^th, 2007 at 12:59pm:

Zoso, it encourages stalkers and ad hominems.

And? Why can't you keep the debate on track *regardless*? If you can't rise above that stuff well...? Besides, as you yourself said, personal beliefs are inseparable from political beliefs...right?

Hiding that stuff means that you are able to falsely lead people down the wrong track, pretending you are something you are not. People will always try to guess at these things if you deny it from them, so that makes it quite easy to simply allow them to think you are something you are not.

Lets just say I think sharing your personal beliefs with people is the more honest thing to do, it is not hard to rise above when people attack you ad hominem, and indeed use it against them.

In addition to Zoso, if you really believe in something, you should be proud to exclaim that.

I was brought up Catholic, but am now agnostic. Can you be proud for not believing in anything?  :-?

AUShole wrote on Apr 17^th, 2007 at 6:45pm:

Can you be proud for not believing in anything?  :-?

Hell yes!

Indeed freediver, through your staunch refusal to tell us more about yourself, some (including myself) have simply made assumption based on your opinions and attacked you ad hominem all the same. I would go so far as to say that concealing yourself has encouraged such pointlessness.

Besides, its just the internets! :)

We all think so and we all appreciate this forum you have setup.
It is good to use and well regulated.

You know us humans, we just are inquisitive.

No man is an island.


To start the ball rolling.

I am an alcoholic.

Well Im a chocoholic- but i am currently on the wagon.

I took a tafe course in keeping it real..IE: abstaining

And? Why can't you keep the debate on track *regardless*?

I can, by not making it about me. If I allow it to be about me, then it would not be on track. You cannot keep a topic on track 'regardless' of it being off track.

Besides, as you yourself said, personal beliefs are inseparable from political beliefs...right?

Right, I believe that evolution is not a scientific theory for example. If I for example used religious beliefs to back up claims about social policy, then it would be reasonable to ask what they were, as it would be on topic and I would have brought them into the discussion.

Hiding that stuff means that you are able to falsely lead people down the wrong track

No it isn't. Trying to bring in irrelevant issues is taking people down the wrong track. You are basing your argument on a preconcieved notion that I am misleading people. If I were, you would be able to point out the falsehoods in my argument without knowing my motivation for them. You can't, so you are trying to sidetrack people with conspiracy theories.

People will always try to guess at these things if you deny it from them, so that makes it quite easy to simply allow them to think you are something you are not

It is still irrelevant to the argument.

Lets just say I think sharing your personal beliefs with people is the more honest thing to do, it is not hard to rise above when people attack you ad hominem, and indeed use it against them.

Only if it is relevant. There is nothing dishonest about maintaining your privacy online. In fact, I am quite honest about it. It is none of your business. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

I would go so far as to say that concealing yourself has encouraged such pointlessness.

Trust me, I know this from exsperience. Sharing irrelevant personal information encourages the pontlessness. Give them an inch, and they take a mile - that is what I have discovered.

Sprint, be careful going down that path.

I have given everyone quite a few inches, and nothing has come of it? Trump and AN tried to attack me for being a hippy but I pointed out the irrelevance of that argument and it stopped there, that is what I am talking about when I say it is up to you to make sure the argument stays on track.

Sprint, I'm also a muso - I play guitar, I love working on cars and used to drink too much too, but have recently cut back due to the first hint of a beer gut :)

But you are not me. You do not push controversial issues frequently like I do. I have had death threats. I have had harassing phone calls in the middle of the night from psychotic wierdos. The lesson I learned is not to let it be about me. People get upset about ideas, but they get angry with people.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 9:09am:

But you are not me. You do not push controversial issues frequently like I do. I have had death threats. I have had harassing phone calls in the middle of the night from psychotic wierdos. The lesson I learned is not to let it be about me. People get upset about ideas, but they get angry with people.

Maybe you need to think a little more about why your ideas are upsetting people so much freediver, perhaps it is not your ideas so much as it is your complete unwillingness to modify them in the face of contrary arguments?

You are right, you are not me, but I have had people threaten me and yes I do propose controversial ideas, for instance I support the decriminalisation of all drugs. Maybe you are drawing these threats and anger because of you, not you ideas? I know you certainly managed to get my blood boiling through the way you are so arrogant and dismissive to everyone, not because of your ideas. People get angry with people because of their behaviour, not their ideas, being someone who has historically pushed many more controversial ideas than you have here, I have learned all to well how important it is to treat others with due respect, and through this I have learned to soften my views dramatically because only through respect for my opponents was I truly able to see the strength in their own views.

Sometimes you give an inch, people take a mile, most of the time you give an inch, people give two back.

It is because I promote them despite whatever criticism I get. I tend to avoid 'preaching to the choir' and will promote an idea among those people most likely to oppose it. And because I don't give up easily. These are not problems in themselves. In politics and activism, if you aren't creating a fuss then you probably aren't achieving much. People often criticise my method, but they are usually unable to pin it down to anything specific I do, apart from what I mentioned above.

Actually, lately I've had more people compliment me on my 'method' in the heated debates.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 1:30pm:

It is because I promote them despite whatever criticism I get. I tend to avoid 'preaching to the choir' and will promote an idea among those people most likely to oppose it. And because I don't give up easily. These are not problems in themselves. In politics and activism, if you aren't creating a fuss then you probably aren't achieving much. People often criticise my method, but they are usually unable to pin it down to anything specific I do, apart from what I mentioned above.

There is a difference between promoting your ideas and ignoring sense and reason. This is the difference between argument and debate. 'Promoting your ideas despite what criticism you get' sounds tome like you are just not willing to listen to rebuttal, other people can and do have just as valid points of view as you have. There is strength in the middle ground.

True, in politics or activism if you do not stir up a fuss you might not be achieving something, but if all you stir up is negative fuss, you are doing the opposite of achieving something, your positive results must always outweigh your negative results if you are to achieve anything, and I often don't see a lot of support for your ideas?

I can pinpoint one thing that absolutely boils my blood about debating with you - you staunchly refuse to accept other parties may be right to a degree at least, you will argue and change your arguments in subtle ways just to keep the debate raging, seemingly (from your admission) just to make sure you are always promoting your ideas. When you encounter a strong point that goes against your view, you refuse to acknowledge it, instead selecting some weaker and less relevant phrase and attacking it, diverting the debate. I will frequently bend to superior arguments and concede that indeed my opponent has a valid point, the tactics of argument for arguments sake are usually discarded when we grow up. It is possible to accept that someone is making a strong argument, and simply disagree, it shows strength in character to be able to admit to the weaknesses in your own arguments.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 1:30pm:

Actually, lately I've had more people compliment me on my 'method' in the heated debates.

Most likely because I have been swearing and carrying on, acting like a right clown...but I do that when I see red, the question is, why did I see red?

Frustration. It wasn't here that I was thinking of. It was on another forum.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 1:55pm:

Frustration. It wasn't here that I was thinking of. It was on another forum.

Frustration at your arrogance, not your ideas. Everyone has ideas, I couldn't care less what they are so long as they don't threaten my freedoms by manifesting themselves as law. The truth is you pissed me off freediver and not our ideas.

you staunchly refuse to accept other parties may be right to a degree at least

Saying someone is partially right is just an excuse for not being able to demonstrate why they are completely wrong.

you will argue and change your arguments in subtle ways just to keep the debate raging

No, to make the argument better. Your first attempt at expressing yourself is always a bit clumsy.

When you encounter a strong point that goes against your view, you refuse to acknowledge it

Wrong, the stronger the point, the more effort I make to counter it.

selecting some weaker and less relevant phrase and attacking it, diverting the debate

You obviously start by attacking the weakest point in your oponents argument. Your opponent then modifies their argumnent so it doesn't rely on such weak points. That's jsut how it works.

I will frequently bend to superior arguments and concede that indeed my opponent has a valid point

I am not wrong very often. Remember that a lot of the big issues you see here I have been debating for a long time in various circles. I wouldn't be pushing something if it had big holes in it. It would be too easy for someone like you to just follow me and just point it out repeatedly.

the tactics of argument for arguments sake are usually discarded when we grow up

The tactics of argument for arguments sake are no different to the ones used when an argument has a purpose. That is why students do practice debates. Not to waste their time, but to build the skills they will need later in life.

It is possible to accept that someone is making a strong argument, and simply disagree, it shows strength in character to be able to admit to the weaknesses in your own arguments.

No it doesn't. It shows that you are too lazy to get to the bottom of the disagreement. It usually comes down to a difference in competing values, in which case there isn't much more to do - you can't go attacking someone's set of values, or in the evolution case in definition, in which case you argue the various merits of the definitions. The idea that people should agree to disagree is inidicative of the shallowness of many online debates, where people simply give up if they can't easily resolve a disagreement.

Politics online:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1176680937

The truth is you pissed me off freediver and not our ideas.

My skill at promoting them pissed you off. But that was not my intention. The same skills that pissed you off were the ones that got you to initially concede I was right.

Also, remember that focussing on whether your opponent agrees with you on anything kind of misses the point. You both learn something, you both improve your ability to communicate your views, both in general and the particular views being discussed. Most importantly, any audience will make up their own mind, and are usually fairly good at ignoring the unimportant things like who agrees with what.

I agree with freediver that forums are better if we stay anonymous and withhold information about ourselves.
However, I've pushed at freediver on the religious aspects for a very simple and fundamental reason. I noticed the evolution and christianity articles when I first came across this site. I quickly formed the idea that the site has been established with the SOLE purpose of spreading some christian doctrine/dogma/church. I formed the view that the various forums were just hooks. If it is a religious site then that should be revealed. It's not illegal. If it is a religious site then it would be wrong to pretend that it isn't.
I still think it's main purpose is religious. The evolution is not science argument is only ever supported by the religious.

You see, you just confirmed everything I have said about you in every response you have here. You are arrogant and ignorant. The world is not full of absolutes, in fact there is no such thing. There is weakness in all arguments, accepting this is a matter of maturity, it does not amount to 'giving up' or lazyness.

Freediver your skill in argument has much to be desired, clearly you are hot headed and arrogant, you refuse to back down in the face of any criticism by your own admission, this is not skill, anyone can do this. The bigger man can always accept when he is wrong. I never admitted you were right, I conceded that you bested me in debate, and that I could not add to my argument without first increasing my knowledge, when I did this and came back to you with scientific evidence contrary to your opinion, you simply dismissed it is irrelevant, then set out to make me look the fool, no matter how subtly you went about it, that was your intention.


Quote:

Also, remember that focussing on whether your opponent agrees with you on anything kind of misses the point.

Democratic systems are about finding the middle ground, focusing on where you agree with your oponent is the most important part of finding that middle ground.


Quote:

You both learn something, you both improve your ability to communicate your views, both in general and the particular views being discussed.

Only by respecting one another and accepting that both views are correct from their respective positions. Everything is true when taken from the right point of view, read some of Gandhi's writings on the definition of truth, he claims it is a relative thing, and this is what I believe.

The evolution is not science argument is only ever supported by the religious.

I have not seen anyone else support it, except in agreeing with me when I have said it. Even the similar statements made by the pope were not saying it was unscientific.

you refuse to back down in the face of any criticism by your own admission, this is not skill, anyone can do this

It's not that I refuse to, it's that there is no need to.

when I did this and came back to you with scientific evidence contrary to your opinion, you simply dismissed it is irrelevant

No I didn't. I explained why it was irrelevant.

then set out to make me look the fool, no matter how subtly you went about it, that was your intention

Do not claim to know my intention. That is how you end up looking the fool.

Democratic systems are about finding the middle ground, focusing on where you agree with your oponent is the most important part of finding that middle ground.

This is not a vote, this is deliberation. Democracy is not actually all about compromise. It is actually about the will of the majority overriding the will of the minority.

Only by respecting one another and accepting that both views are correct from their respective positions.

I respect you. However, you do not have to accept that your opponents argument is internally consistent. Pointing out those inconsistencies is often the easiest way to show that they are wrong.

Everything is true when taken from the right point of view, read some of Gandhi's writings on the definition of truth, he claims it is a relative thing, and this is what I believe.

If someone contradicts themselves they are wrong, regardless of their point of view.

Quote:

I have not seen anyone else support it, except in agreeing with me when I have said it. Even the similar statements made by the pope were not saying it was unscientific.

I have found sources that make more or less the exact same argument as you do, they are pretty much only religious in nature. You are only making a case by redefining science into your own terms, ones that nobody else accepts, because otherwise scientists would agree with you.


Quote:

you refuse to back down in the face of any criticism by your own admission, this is not skill, anyone can do this It's not that I refuse to, it's that there is no need to.

Ahh, my point exactly ;D

It is not possible for you to be able to see that you are doing it, because that would entail an admission that you are wrong in the first place.


Quote:

No I didn't. I explained why it was irrelevant.

Bullsh!t you did, did you even read the links I posted?


Quote:

I respect you. However, you do not have to accept that your opponents argument is internally consistent. Pointing out those inconsistencies is often the easiest way to show that they are wrong.

Making an argument that ultimately changes a persons view on their beliefs entails changing the frame of reference from which they viewed their beliefs, this does not mean that under their previous point of view their belief was not true. Indeed by pointing out inconsistencies in peoples arguments you are only expanding their understanding, not changing the fact that with limited understanding their views are still truth. Nobody makes an inconsistent argument if they are aware of their inconsistencies, by pointing them out you are expanding and changing their viewpoint, this does not mean their inconsistent belief is not true in a mindset that cannot recognise the inconsistencies.


Quote:

If someone contradicts themselves they are wrong, regardless of their point of view.

Heh, you seem to think that if someone contradicts YOU they are wrong. ;)

I have found sources that make more or less the exact same argument as you do, they are pretty much only religious in nature.

Please link to them. People have said that to me before, but it always turned out to be wrong in some fundamental way.

You are only making a case by redefining science into your own terms, ones that nobody else accepts, because otherwise scientists would agree with you.

Scientists do agree with me.

Bullsh!t you did, did you even read the links I posted?

No. I assumed that if they were indeed relevant, you would contradict me. Usually someone's inability to put the evidence into their own words is a strong indication that it doesn't exist or doesn't back up their case. You cannot expect people to read whatever you want them to read if you cannot explain how it is relevant or even quote a relevant part. That's what lawyers do to bury information.

Making an argument that ultimately changes a persons view on their beliefs entails changing the frame of reference from which they viewed their beliefs, this does not mean that under their previous point of view their belief was not true.

It means their frame of reference was wrong. Not all errors require a change in reference.

Indeed by pointing out inconsistencies in peoples arguments you are only expanding their understanding

Fine by me.

Heh, you seem to think that if someone contradicts YOU they are wrong.

I can only go by experience.

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2007 at 3:44pm:

I have found sources that make more or less the exact same argument as you do, they are pretty much only religious in nature. Please link to them. People have said that to me before, but it always turned out to be wrong in some fundamental way.

True, the particular article I am thinking of claimed that natural selection was not scientific either, so it is not strictly the same as your arguments.
Use google scholar or ebscohost to find them yourself you lazy bastard ;)


Quote:

You are only making a case by redefining science into your own terms, ones that nobody else accepts, because otherwise scientists would agree with you. Scientists do agree with me.

Sources?


Quote:

Bullsh!t you did, did you even read the links I posted? No. I assumed that if they were indeed relevant, you would contradict me. Usually someone's inability to put the evidence into their own words is a strong indication that it doesn't exist or doesn't back up their case. You cannot expect people to read whatever you want them to read if you cannot explain how it is relevant or even quote a relevant part. That's what lawyers do to bury information.

Ahh but I did, you claim no empirical study can exist to test evolution, I linked to and quoted a number of empirical studies that have tested and supported predictions of evolutionary theory. You simply dismissed them since "these cannot exist..." and didn't read my sources by your own admission.

Now are you really sure that you are going to say to me that you are perfectly right but unwilling to research the topic?


Quote:

Making an argument that ultimately changes a persons view on their beliefs entails changing the frame of reference from which they viewed their beliefs, this does not mean that under their previous point of view their belief was not true. It means their frame of reference was wrong. Not all errors require a change in reference.

Not wrong, different, you need to drop your ideas of what is right, wrong, superior inferior and accept a neutral position.


Quote:

Heh, you seem to think that if someone contradicts YOU they are wrong. I can only go by experience.

What was that I said about arrogance and ignorance?

I linked to and quoted a number of empirical studies that have tested and supported predictions of evolutionary theory.

I explained how they were not a valid experimental test.

Now are you really sure that you are going to say to me that you are perfectly right but unwilling to research the topic?

I have researched the topic. I have been given thousands of hours of reading by people who disagree with me, but they couldn't explain how it proved me wrong. Many people tend to assume that if you would jsut read the same thing they have read you would agree with them, and when you don't they try to get you to read everything they have read. But that trivialises the issue. If you really could prove me wrong with those links, you wouldn't stil be arguing with me and you would have explained how they proved me wrong.

What was that I said about arrogance and ignorance?

Being right all the time does not necessarily mean you are arrogant.

Quote:

If you really could prove me wrong with those links, you wouldn't stil be arguing with me and you would have explained how they proved me wrong.

This is why I have more or less dropped the subject, you are wrong, it just popped up again here while we were debating your 'skills'.


Quote:

Being right all the time does not necessarily mean you are arrogant.

When those words come from the horses mouth? Oh yes it does!

;D ;D ;D ;D

;D Score: Freediver 1, Zozo 0

For Gods sake, who cares what religion freediver is?

There's more important thing to worry about.

For example: Islam and Multiculturalism and how to get rid of them.  ;D

I agree with DT - who cares?

Personally apart from a few christian threads a while ago, I have seen very little mention of religion that is until Sense brought the subject up AGAIN.  There appears to be nothng religious about Ozpolitics as it covers a wide range of subjects.

It looks like a personal attack on Freediver and it isn't warranted or justified.

mantra - just to put the record straight - the subject was revived by Zoso and Shithouse-Rat in big way long after I'd dropped it. I just rejoined to give them support. I'll not raise it again. In fact, I'd be happy for freediver to delete this whole thread.

A very interesting debate and all have great points. Keep in mind we are all different in how we express our views and we are all stubborn when it comes to being attacked on our age old beliefs.

Zoso has argued extremely well and he is right in many areas particularly when he states that Freediver never backs down and admits that he is wrong. Keep in mind the reader can see this and it lowers their opinion of the overal argument that tarnishes the respect of freediver.

I have had many debates with freediver and it didn't take me long to work out that he is set in his ways and beliefs. I now very rarely enter a debate with him because nobody wants to talk to a brick wall. I've debated everything from water to nuclear with him and I find that even when he has no argument he will just repeat a previous comment that had already been nullified.

Freediver's mission is to keep the debate alive. The only way to do this is to not agree with anyone but also give good argument. At some point the debate must finnish. Try not to get the last word in if you have no real argument left.

As for giving out personal information well, that's a personal choice. ;)

Everyone knows that religion and politics go hand in hand so Sense can write anything he likes. As for this site being a religious dominated site, I actually thought, initially, it was an arm of the APP. It doesn't really worry me because I just come straight into the forum and don't even look at the home page. I am more interested in other peoples opinions than pushing my own.

Sometimes I think SprintCyclist is also Freediver, or atleast a family member or friend. He only seems to materialise when freedivers in trouble and his comments are over patronising towards freediver and this site. I could be wrong, actually I hope I am. Hows the bike riding going freediver? Been run over yet?
;D ;D ;D

Hi enviro,

No, I'm not freediver.

Yes, I like this site,  freediver made it, I appreciate the effort he has made.

many topics I dont enter into, they just don't rattle my cage.

zoso does arue well.  

take care

FreeDiver is an enigma.
Oceanz_Blue knew how to sort him out though, back in the day.
Zoso got befuddled though.

>>>proudly brought to you by Necromancy Inc

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/NecessaryIgnorantGalapagosdove-size_restricted.gif

:o

Was that FD at my front door? Were his feelings hurt when I cried out in a falsetto, "Nobody home!"

A very amusing Topic back in the day when FD was raw and uncut.  ;D

Jasin wrote on Oct 19^th, 2020 at 10:10pm:

...  when FD was raw and uncut.  ;D

Was FD a gay porn actor?

Jasin wrote on Oct 19^th, 2020 at 10:10pm:

A very amusing Topic back in the day when FD was raw and uncut.  ;D

Allahu Akbar - I well be with you in one minute!!!

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 12:02am:

Jasin wrote on Oct 19th, 2020 at 10:10pm: A very amusing Topic back in the day when FD was raw and uncut.  ;D Allahu Akbar - I well be with you in one minute!!!

Will.


*schlapps the grapps!

Is Polite_Gandalf the reincarnation of Zoso?

wrote on Apr 16^th, 2007 at 4:08pm:

It might help to understand the operation of the site if you are aware of this. See ya.

What's the problem with that?