Discussion about discussion

More
30 Apr 2019 16:23 #337869 by Carlos.Martinez3

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I dont see any conversation here as being owned by anyone, no matter who the OP is, in the public forum. I see it as equivalent to presenting a subject for public consumption. At the point its presented it becomes all of ours. This is consent that the conversation will take a life of its own. And yet it is the responsibility of the OP to either be offended or not at that point. To use the more lewd example - its equivalent to a female laying down spreading her legs and giving consent but then complaining that the experience was not what she wanted later.


Quantity vs quality hu?

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 16:27 #337870 by Carlos.Martinez3

ZealotX wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:

ren wrote: Moderators do not offer the equivalent of a guided debate. I have suggested this before, but to be fair, if political debates teach us anything, it is that no truth will come out of such debates.



From my little extent of tv time - political debates are NOT discussion but sides presented. There’s no debate- it’s who’s better for the spot - truly the egos best moment to shine - PICK ME I’m better here’s why. Not much debate when the two sides have no intention of sway in a public setting.


well they aren't just sides.

If the debate is between members of the same party then one is trying to highlight their own approach and experience vs others. Another candidate may have more or less time to rebut what's being said but they're "being political" so their not trying appear overly aggressive. In fact there is much to learn from this approach since we here are "same team". They might say something like "what my esteemed colleague failed to mention is that..." and then they insert their rebuttal. Even though they disagree they don't have to come off disagreeable. That's the key. I like to find something that I do agree with so I can tell the person and validate their viewpoint to the extent that I can. This usually makes people less guarded and more open to hearing my viewpoint where it differs. Because I'm not saying YOU'RE WRONG! or implying they're stupid. By recognizing common ground I can somewhat control and keep the conversation more positive.

In a political debate of opposite parties the expectation is different. Opposing parties often have opposing views. One may believe in climate change, for example, and the other might outright deny it. One might believe in helping the poor and middle class and the other might believe in trickle down economics because they believe the rich provide the vast majority of jobs and economic stimulus. At this point they're debating, not only these ideas, but each other's understanding of them. And this is a key point and why many arguments get personal. An idea is an idea is an idea. However, people's understanding of an idea is personal by its very nature. Therefore, if someone is questioning the idea as to how the other person even came up with it then it is likely to quickly become personal as the understanding of the idea is now being challenged and not simply the idea itself. Now the person isn't just debating their own idea but their and the other person's thinking and understanding. I've done this intentionally in the past because the other person did the same to me so I know how easily things can escalate and devolve. And some people insult others without calling that person names because essentially they're insulting that person's intelligence. In politics you usually have to be very wary and careful of this which is why it may not seem like such a debate. Their tactics simply help prevent the debate from becoming a useless exchange of insults which benefits no one.


In politics, I’ve never witnessed debates where politicians change their minds during or as of a result of a debate - so I’m never really sure of it as a debate. It’s a very one sided type of thing to me. Just my own opinion. (Fitting as subject the holds -smiley face- small pun intended ) I do wish there was more debate than argument in the world. What’s the difference in argument and debate and discussion? Some see none, some see lots?

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 16:37 #337871 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic Discussion about discussion

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: I think in discussions and especially here , there can be a ::: peaceful or honorable way to do things:::decently and in order, if we choose to do it like that. We don’t have to but I think as Jedi - in our discussions there CAN be a little think added to things. Again then it’s all to the person and how they choose to do it.



I hardily agree. Furthermore, I'd like to submit this idea for official consideration.

I think likening debate to light saber combat should be adopted as part of our Jedi culture. Truly. There is enough to learn in debating to ascend from someone who may be debating for the first time to someone who is a master, like Socrates. There are different styles just like forms and stances in lightsaber combat. Some people will have a more aggressive straight to the point style while others may be keen to draw out the truth from their opponents own mouth. Some people may wait for a contradiction like a counter attack. You can also thrust and parry with ideas and questions. You can respond to new arguments as they come our you can compose a strategy in advance in order to win.

And this would be even better under its own ("Jedi Dojo" ?)forum because then that way everyone knows that's where such debates happen and by posting there you are inviting someone to "duel" with you on that particular idea. I would even have a subcategory for sparring and one for "to the death" to signify how far each can go. "to the death" would have no moderation whatsoever, but I think the OP should only have to engage one opponent at a time.

Jedi could visit each one to learn different debate styles and tactics and use some of those same skills outside the dojo in order to have more meaningful and better discussions. They could observe how some people might have a sharper wit, others a more eloquent style, etc. and this could be something that people can really learn from. Most of us don't have the opportunity spar offline so why not create a "safe space" for sparring or even sanctioning an arena for battles without moderation? As long as things are were they belong and everyone has a place then I think we're more likely to find what we're looking for without offending the wrong people and the people who don't want moderation could have it. It would be a win win.

(and instead of physically fighting wars perhaps one day Jedi from this very site could debate the ideas that start wars. I know that may be overselling it a little but think about it.)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Neaj Pa Bol, Carlos.Martinez3

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 16:40 #337872 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I dont see any conversation here as being owned by anyone, no matter who the OP is, in the public forum. I see it as equivalent to presenting a subject for public consumption. At the point its presented it becomes all of ours. This is consent that the conversation will take a life of its own. And yet it is the responsibility of the OP to either be offended or not at that point. To use the more lewd example - its equivalent to a female laying down spreading her legs and giving consent but then complaining that the experience was not what she wanted later.


Quantity vs quality hu?


Not at all. Why do you say that?

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 16:59 #337875 by Carlos.Martinez3

ZealotX wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: I think in discussions and especially here , there can be a ::: peaceful or honorable way to do things:::decently and in order, if we choose to do it like that. We don’t have to but I think as Jedi - in our discussions there CAN be a little think added to things. Again then it’s all to the person and how they choose to do it.





I hardily agree. Furthermore, I'd like to submit this idea for official consideration.

I think likening debate to light saber combat should be adopted as part of our Jedi culture. Truly. There is enough to learn in debating to ascend from someone who may be debating for the first time to someone who is a master, like Socrates. There are different styles just like forms and stances in lightsaber combat. Some people will have a more aggressive straight to the point style while others may be keen to draw out the truth from their opponents own mouth. Some people may wait for a contradiction like a counter attack. You can also thrust and parry with ideas and questions. You can respond to new arguments as they come our you can compose a strategy in advance in order to win.

And this would be even better under its own ("Jedi Dojo" ?)forum because then that way everyone knows that's where such debates happen and by posting there you are inviting someone to "duel" with you on that particular idea. I would even have a subcategory for sparring and one for "to the death" to signify how far each can go. "to the death" would have no moderation whatsoever, but I think the OP should only have to engage one opponent at a time.

Jedi could visit each one to learn different debate styles and tactics and use some of those same skills outside the dojo in order to have more meaningful and better discussions. They could observe how some people might have a sharper wit, others a more eloquent style, etc. and this could be something that people can really learn from. Most of us don't have the opportunity spar offline so why not create a "safe space" for sparring or even sanctioning an arena for battles without moderation? As long as things are were they belong and everyone has a place then I think we're more likely to find what we're looking for without offending the wrong people and the people who don't want moderation could have it. It would be a win win.

(and instead of physically fighting wars perhaps one day Jedi from this very site could debate the ideas that start wars. I know that may be overselling it a little but think about it.)


This is on that train of flow-I see that - where your going with that. That would be neat for me to learn to “fence” from the clergy and “hack” from the Sith. Just a example for this discussion sake not saying all are not hackers or graceful- due to label- not what I’m sayin at all- Hardest part is that each of us are a balance or CAN be a balance of all our own styles. But I do see what you mean. Good stuff to think about - if you wanna learn Zen - find a Zen master and those who study. Want compassion in your flow find those who give it- it’s like the old saying - encompasses yourself with those you want influencing you. Defiantly somthing to think about. You don’t learn to fence from a Jujitsu instructor. He will knock you down every time. (joke)

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 17:01 #337876 by ren
Replied by ren on topic Discussion about discussion


To me this is the same as telling a woman to cover herself to keep men from lusting after her and possibly forcing themselves upon her.


To me asking someone to cover themselves up to prevent upset is the same as asking someone not to speak to prevent upset. Except of course speech is a more or less internationally protected right, whereas clothing choices are not.



I'm going to link to this thread (which was also locked) simply as a teachable moment.
www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-...hat-you-want?start=0  

Even though no name was mentioned you'll see that the person who fit the shoe in question immediately responded because it was taken personally.


This thread is indeed a teachable moment. The person who took it personally didn't even fit the shoe. People take things personally because they want to, consciously or not. In the end, there are 7 billion people on earth. Whatever thought you have, you can be sure someone else has had before too.... And that at least one of the 7 billion others finds it upsetting in some way.



If someone is telling you they believe in Santa Claus your job is not to debate them on the existence of Santa Claus. Yes, you may disagree just like every other person on the forum. However, if that's their personal belief then it isn't just an idea. It's personal. If someone calls your mother names and says "hey, why are you upset? I wasn't talking about you so don't take it personal." that's stupid. It is personal because that's your mom.


If someone hears any word about anything they have a right to debate it. Granted, not a duty. To go back to your women example, the ones that put it all on display must accept that people will see it. If they don't want any reactions, positive or negative, they should keep it hidden away. That's what I do with things I want to keep to myself. I don't share them with others. Whether it's material or immaterial.

I'll add that you are the first person I ever hear refer to their mother as a possession. I wouldn't get upset, as first of all it would likely be the effect of an undisclosed cause, and would secondly probably laugh whilst encouraging them to say it to her face.

Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 17:06 #337877 by Carlos.Martinez3

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I dont see any conversation here as being owned by anyone, no matter who the OP is, in the public forum. I see it as equivalent to presenting a subject for public consumption. At the point its presented it becomes all of ours. This is consent that the conversation will take a life of its own. And yet it is the responsibility of the OP to either be offended or not at that point. To use the more lewd example - its equivalent to a female laying down spreading her legs and giving consent but then complaining that the experience was not what she wanted later.


Quantity vs quality hu?


Not at all. Why do you say that?



In a open forum setting is there —- a responsibility the OP has ? Things they “should “ be doing or have a responsibility to do? I know of threads started and never followed up and yet the chat still goes on. Years - later — they continue after the OP is long gone or archived subjects re birthed. Old lessons given years again now re taught. So - is the opinion of the OP moot when offense or request becomes present? Can it be respected ? Is that a choice and who can make it ? If it is made - the decision to respect it -in this setting can’t some one just post some where else and ask for its continued ness? (bad grammar I know)

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 17:12 #337878 by Carlos.Martinez3
At Ren
If someone is telling you they believe in Santa Claus your job is not to debate them on the existence of Santa Claus.

What if ... that is the cause or the creed or the idea of some? What if IT IS their duty to act as such. One can claim compassion and encourage one another then one can claim to have none and discourage. Doesn’t free will in discussion have the right to choose to be on - off - jerk - not jerk? What then , when you meet those who have their right to chose and act as such?

Contact The Clergy
Pastor of Temple of the Jedi Order
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The Block
Build, not tear down.
Nosce te ipsum / Cerca trova

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 17:42 #337879 by Kyrin Wyldstar

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:

In a open forum setting is there —- a responsibility the OP has ? Things they “should “ be doing or have a responsibility to do? I know of threads started and never followed up and yet the chat still goes on. Years - later — they continue after the OP is long gone or archived subjects re birthed. Old lessons given years again now re taught. So - is the opinion of the OP moot when offense or request becomes present? Can it be respected ? Is that a choice and who can make it ? If it is made - the decision to respect it -in this setting can’t some one just post some where else and ask for its continued ness? (bad grammar I know)


The only responsibility I see the OP as having is following the rules of the forum. Once a subject is put into the wild it is no longer owned by the OP but the the active members of the forum and that means through all time. The OP may take responsibility for the opinions they express but they are not responsible for, nor do they own, the discussion about the subject itself.

This guns for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.
My Journals: Kyrin-Wyldstar

Associate Degree of Divinity - Earned July, 2017
Apprenticed to: Alan, Senan, Mendalicious
Tribute to Senan: My Friend
The following user(s) said Thank You: Carlos.Martinez3

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
30 Apr 2019 18:17 #337881 by ZealotX
Replied by ZealotX on topic Discussion about discussion

ren wrote:


To me this is the same as telling a woman to cover herself to keep men from lusting after her and possibly forcing themselves upon her.


To me asking someone to cover themselves up to prevent upset is the same as asking someone not to speak to prevent upset. Except of course speech is a more or less internationally protected right, whereas clothing choices are not.



I'm going to link to this thread (which was also locked) simply as a teachable moment.
www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-...hat-you-want?start=0  

Even though no name was mentioned you'll see that the person who fit the shoe in question immediately responded because it was taken personally.


This thread is indeed a teachable moment. The person who took it personally didn't even fit the shoe. People take things personally because they want to, consciously or not. In the end, there are 7 billion people on earth. Whatever thought you have, you can be sure someone else has had before too.... And that at least one of the 7 billion others finds it upsetting in some way.



If someone is telling you they believe in Santa Claus your job is not to debate them on the existence of Santa Claus. Yes, you may disagree just like every other person on the forum. However, if that's their personal belief then it isn't just an idea. It's personal. If someone calls your mother names and says "hey, why are you upset? I wasn't talking about you so don't take it personal." that's stupid. It is personal because that's your mom.


If someone hears any word about anything they have a right to debate it. Granted, not a duty. To go back to your women example, the ones that put it all on display must accept that people will see it. If they don't want any reactions, positive or negative, they should keep it hidden away. That's what I do with things I want to keep to myself. I don't share them with others. Whether it's material or immaterial.

I'll add that you are the first person I ever hear refer to their mother as a possession. I wouldn't get upset, as first of all it would likely be the effect of an undisclosed cause, and would secondly probably laugh whilst encouraging them to say it to her face.

To me asking someone to cover themselves up to prevent upset is the same as asking someone not to speak to prevent upset. Except of course speech is a more or less internationally protected right, whereas clothing choices are not.


first, often speech is NOT a protected right. And even in the US not all speech is protected under the law. However, what I'm finding it hard to follow is your logic about speaking "to prevent upset". I find this to be an impossible supposition. I have to ask if you meant it the way it reads grammatically because it sounds like there is something you can say to prevent someone from offending you. And as far as clothing choices, what established law tells people how to dress save from the prohibition about impersonating uniformed officers? Unless you're in Kim Jong country or under the rule of some extremist cleric most people are free to dress however they want. And typically in places you can't then you definitely cannot say whatever you want either.

The person who took it personally didn't even fit the shoe.


Not sure if we're talking about the same shoe. The one I'm referring to is simply the identity of the person to which the OP was having a prior conversation with. That person identitied themselves as such; thus fitting the shoe. My reference to shoe was not a reference to any acusation; intended or otherwise.

If someone hears any word about anything they have a right to debate it. Granted, not a duty. To go back to your women example, the ones that put it all on display must accept that people will see it. If they don't want any reactions, positive or negative, they should keep it hidden away. That's what I do with things I want to keep to myself. I don't share them with others. Whether it's material or immaterial.


I respectfully disagree. There is no such thing as a "right to debate". If you disagree with me there is no requirement that I debate you and if it I'm not required to participate then it isn't a debate. It's more of a diatribe. You can get on a soapbox but no one has to listen. Back to women, there are still cultures where women are topless. So what then? If you assign some kind of innate fault to a person based on the actions/reactions of others that doesn't put responsibility where it belongs; on the person committing the action. It's not illegal to look. It is illegal to touch. There's a line. It is the duty of everyone not to cross it. If a woman invites you to touch then it's okay. If you touch just because you can see it then that's not okay. In conversation people shouldn't have to fear sharing if they live in a community that holds a particular standard. In the culture with topless women the men aren't overly sexualizing them and acting inappropriately because it's normalized. Now if the culture is one of fear/guilt then people will feel more of a need to protect themselves. For all those upholding the virtues of not stopping conversations for some idealistic good, it should be considered "not good" to hide such things in order to avoid scrutiny, especially when others are allowed to walk into such scrutiny without warning. But again, if a woman is dressed... let's say with her cleavage showing... she can accept that people may look. She does not have to accept that people will touch. One should be able to have an expectation that their community will, at least to some extent, respect their personal space. If that's not the case then that city is like the fabled Sodom and Gomorrah.

I'll add that you are the first person I ever hear refer to their mother as a possession.


I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by this. Am I the first person you've ever heard say "my mother"? Surly not.
The definition of 'my' is belonging to or associated with the speaker.

www.ef.edu/english-resources/english-gra.../forming-possessive/
The possessive form is used with nouns referring to people, groups of people, countries, and animals. It shows a relationship of belonging between one thing and another. To form the possessive, add apostrophe + s to the noun. If the noun is plural, or already ends in s, just add an apostrophe after the s.

The definition of possession is the state of having, owning, or controlling something. I "have" a mother = I "possess" a mother. Although this sounds much more formal the meaning is the same. Since possessions are not automatically objects I'm confused why you would see a problem in my usage and/or grammar.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.