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

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).   

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

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

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?

Quote:



and then


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


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

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

Obviously a very astute political observer. 

Zoso, it encourages stalkers and ad hominems.

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!!

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? 

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!

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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:

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.

Quote:

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:

Ahh, my point exactly

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:

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

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. 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:

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

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

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:

Sources?

Quote:

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:

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

Quote:

What was that I said about arrogance and ignorance?

Quote:


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:


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

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. 

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.

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

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

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


Was FD a gay porn actor?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Oct 20^th, 2020 at 12:02am:

Will.

*schlapps the grapps!

Quote:


What's the problem with that?