Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#21382 - 01/18/04 01:56 AM Re: Debate vs discussion [Re: reprobate]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:

Three thousand years of Western philosophy and theoretical science would tend to speak against this point.




I admit it was like that in the past. That does't mean there is no other ways to communicate ideas between humans. Debates which are just used to communicate ideas between a group of person which share a common interest are usually not constructive because their are no goals to achieve and no finality. Most of the time, this is only to evaluate your amount of knowledges on a subject with other individuals. You might feel intelligent, but you've done nothing concrete and the things you learn in a debate might probably be learnt faster alone if you put the effort. The second form of debate is when there is something at stake. Work debates, political debates, couple debate, there is something to be decided which involves many persons. Work debate sometimes involve a moderator. This is the form I was thinking about when I wrote this post. A polemic is more an open mental fight. A debate is usually more diplomatic. An intelligent discussion is more effective. Which is really diffucult to acheive when you are intelligent, I conceit. One problem is the way with communicate ideas, which is essentially by oral. The mouth is much slower than the brain. I've heard something like 500 words/minute for the brain compared with 100 words/minute for the mouth. And most people cannot talk at this speed.

Top
#21383 - 01/18/04 02:04 AM Re: A simple quote. Food for thought. [Re: Bill_M]
Anonymous
Unregistered


You usually impress me with your keen memory

Top
#21384 - 01/18/04 03:02 AM Re: Debate vs discussion
Felstorm Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 10/27/03
Posts: 1474
Loc: Minnesota.
There is something I feel must be said.

Satanism has a set dogma. And what good is dogma if it changed or debtated to death on a whim? You can "debate" Satanism all fucking day and just talk yourself in circles for hours and hours and hours, and get absolutely nowhere. (Well perhaps the Temple of Set.) Because that is what debate is, debate is having an argument for argument's sake. Discussion begins with a line of dialogue and ends definatively with answers and edification. Debates are inherantly hostile, and aimed at tearing down or re-forming your opinion of something to match someone elses opinion. Reading some on Dawkins' meme-theory has alot to do with this.

For those that feel the incessant compulsion to constanty poke and find fault with what was laid out by the CoS and in the TSB are shit disturbing masochists. They will never be content with what they find, because they are not Satanists to begin with. They have such an open mind that it is counter-productive. Ideas go in but fall out just as quick because their cranium is devoid of anything for those ideas to stick to.

The Satanist will look at TSB and CoS policy and say "This works for me" and that is final, no more questioning is needed because they know they got the "real deal". Anton Lavey worked very hard to put everything a Satanist needs into the books he wrote. Debate on Satanic policy and dogma often leads to sour grapes attacks, and antics akin to monkeys throwing poo. These sour grapes attacks are obvious for what they are. Moderators delete them.

Creationists and Evolutionists debate. Protestants and Catholics debate. Republicans and Democrats debate. The United Nations debates. See how far they get accomplishing their goals? Debate is all based upon opinion and consensus. And opinions are never wrong, especially if they are your own. An opinion may be formulated upon facts or fallacies or any number of combinations of the two. But it is a fruitless waste of energy to debate non-issues, which is usualy what these "debates on Satanism" boil down to.

From my observations "consensus" from the body of followers is not how Church of Satan policy and dogma is decided upon and laid out. CoS is not the Unitarian Church.

It is my observation that the people that ask the most questions often lack the effort and curiosity to answer those questions for themselves.
_________________________
"Many people would sooner die than think - in fact, they do so." ~ Bertrand Russell

"“Let the future tell the truth, and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; the future, for which I have really worked, is mine.” ~ Nikola Tesla

Are You One of Us?

The Glorious Infernal Empire

Top
#21385 - 01/18/04 09:10 AM Re: Debate vs discussion
reprobate Offline

CoS Warlock

Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 7140
Loc: Canada
Quote:

Debates which are just used to communicate ideas between a group of person which share a common interest are usually not constructive because their are no goals to achieve and no finality. Most of the time, this is only to evaluate your amount of knowledges on a subject with other individuals. You might feel intelligent, but you've done nothing concrete and the things you learn in a debate might probably be learnt faster alone if you put the effort. The second form of debate is when there is something at stake. Work debates, political debates, couple debate, there is something to be decided which involves many persons. Work debate sometimes involve a moderator. This is the form I was thinking about when I wrote this post. A polemic is more an open mental fight. A debate is usually more diplomatic. An intelligent discussion is more effective. Which is really diffucult to acheive when you are intelligent, I conceit.




Again, I submit that you don't have a clear conception of what a "debate" is or ever was.

The point of a debate is not, and never was, to "win". The point of a debate has always been to convince -- either to convince your partner, or to convince an audience. You allude obliquely to this aspect of debates with your distinction between a moderated "work debate" and a debate between people who share interests but not projects. A public and moderated debate only has "winning" as its superficial objective; at core, it really aims to convince an audience. But in a private debate, the aim is no less to convince.

Private debates can quickly reach a loggerheads, where one or both parties realize nobody's going to convince anyone of anything. To procede beyond this point is counterproductive, and often devolves into polemic. But to suggest that persuading other people of your views isn't "constructive" or isn't doing something is absurd. It's the essence of politics, the art that changes history.

(Polemic can be diplomatic; the key in telling the difference between a debate and a diplomatic polemic, is to determine whether the parties are offering their arguments through clenched teeth, or whether they actually think what they say will have a stopping influence on their sparring partner.)
_________________________
reprobate

Top
#21386 - 01/18/04 01:25 PM Re: Debate vs discussion [Re: reprobate]
Rev_Malebranche Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 4136
Loc: Oregon
Very charitable of you to explain this.

To further demonstrate what it means to "make the effort", I had to look up "at loggerheads" in the dictionary.

That's a great little expression. And kind of sexy, too.

...Or maybe I've just been researching Tom of Finland all week and I have visions of lumberjacks dancing in my head .

Words can be so much fun. The English language is rich with layers of meaning.

Top
#21387 - 01/18/04 05:45 PM Re: Debate vs discussion [Re: Sammael]
Scratch Offline


Registered: 09/30/03
Posts: 207
Loc: Austin, TX
True. Hell, that's what makes it entertaining sometimes!
_________________________
"Stupid people do stupid things... smart people outsmart each other... then themselves." --DDevil-SOAD

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2


Forum Stats
12201 Members
73 Forums
43985 Topics
406071 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements