A Question on Communication

When replying to someone in a thread about most of any kind of topic, what do you find is your initial aim?

Are you here more for the sport of actual debating?

Are you here more for the spirit of just expressing what you've learned?

Do you care more about correcting ignorance in other people when discussing things?

What do you think our approach should be when we discuss topics (particularly the more heated and sensitive ones) with others?

I try not to have intentions approaching the forums. Sometimes I just read. Some times I compare and reply differences and similarities. I do enjoy the occasional debate also.

I guess it would depend on the situation. Mostly, I like to reply so I can try to understand their reasoning behind their words and such. I friendly debate is good and well but we all know those can go south QUICK. If you go in with an open mind and and open heart, and even if you may not agree with what the person said, you should always show them respect.

I mostly lurk some of these threads since I'm not big on getting into debates and such, but if I feel like my opinion could help/mean something, then I drop in (like here!)

Depends on the thread, probably a few types of threads. For example Google liked to classify internet searches into 3 broad categories; navigational, informational, and transactional :side:

Generally speaking, I'd say 'exploration' of the topic itself, my own thoughts and others thoughts.

There isnt "one answer to rule them all" but for the most part, every topic is a mental puzzle; a riddle to solve, question to answer, an idea to stretch to its most likely conclusion. And (for me) the aim is to explore and investigate the puzzle/question/idea until ive gotten as close to "the truth" of it as i am capable of getting.

It depends on how I feel about the topic and on what would suit my desires at the time.

Sometimes I feel like just sharing my opinions. Sometimes I feel like a debate. Sometimes I don't post and just read what others have written. Etc.

When replying to someone in a thread about most of any kind of topic, what do you find is your initial aim?

Are you here more for the sport of actual debating?
Are you here more for the spirit of just expressing what you've learned?
Do you care more about correcting ignorance in other people when discussing things?

I probably do not enter a conversation with much of an agenda, but I like to think that I can contribute to showing a different side to a point. I like being challenged, so I try to offer the same, though I am often aware that not everyone desires a challenge. All examples you state probably work their way into my posts quite easily.

What do you think our approach should be when we discuss topics (particularly the more heated and sensitive ones) with others?

I value an honest approach, even if it is not delicately stated nor shows "empathy" for my feelings on the topic. As long as name calling is set aside, I see it as a huge favor when someone can shatter my views or jar me out of a funk. I realize not all people like this, so I try to adapt my style according to the person I'm addressing, but it's not easy.

Why do you ask, Proteus?

Proteus wrote: When replying to someone in a thread about most of any kind of topic, what do you find is your initial aim?

Are you here more for the sport of actual debating?

Are you here more for the spirit of just expressing what you've learned?

Do you care more about correcting ignorance in other people when discussing things?

What do you think our approach should be when we discuss topics (particularly the more heated and sensitive ones) with others?

I don't usually speak of initial aim, as that seems to intend some kind of change of practice. When I approach threads I approach it as what I feel any Jedi should. We are here to share knowledge, and to seek knowledge where knowledge may not yet be defined. Debates will happen as a consequence to that. A key part to bringing knowledge from ignorance is perspectives, to truly understand a thing you need as many perspectives as possible, but also to provide your own, and to keep an open mind as a form of mutual respect for others who give their perspectives if you expect them to listen to yours. Debates happen, but I'm there to share what I know when there is something I feel needs shared if no one else has the same perspective. I'm not out to debate just for the sake of debating or to force anyone to think in any such way. I say my piece, correct myself if I need to explain things further, debate if there is a reasonable debate going on, or if there are people debating on false information. Then move along to the next one.

I try to approach my interactions here in the Krishnamurti notion that every thought, question, or topic needs endless/never-ending/eternal consideration.

Every reply to every interaction we ever have should not be the last reply. A settled question is a closed door that ignores the fluid nature of a question itself.

We should not be seeking answers to questions, but just looking to give it more thought. Always.

So lets take two people discussing their views. Person A and person B.

Person A expresses views that are accepting, open, and considering of Person B's views even given that they are not exactly the same.

Person B replies with not only views but direct statements that literally condemn Person A's views, showing no signs of any possibility of their own view being incomplete, imperfect, or even slightly inaccurate, and instead, insists that Person A's position is deluded, dangerous, and outright misguided.

Person A went into the discussion to share a belief in a neutral manner, devoid of judging person B's views or personal state.
Person B replied to the discussion with statements that contain notions against Person A to tell Person A he is wrong and deluded, using information that is no more proven or historically supported than Person A's.

What would you say is the state of this discussion?