LOL Perhaps, that's for the better...

MT, Redy, and all the rest of the active posters in this thread, I commend you all! I know how difficult it is dealing with abstract argument and philosophical banter. I could definitely feel the tensions rise and fall as I spent the last almost 2 hours (omg really?) reading all the posts.
I am posting because I am truly impressed with the level of information and thought and dialog exchanged. I am one of those people who likes knowing a little about everything. It gets me in and out of trouble sometimes but I mostly find it engaging just to absorb whatever comes my way (academically). This is problematic for teachers because their line (reference linear) of thinking confuses me. Their methodology is slow and cumbersome. I am not ungrateful by any means but I need a greater flow rate of information when I am in the learning mode, paradoxically, there are certain subjects that require so much of my attention I need the slower pace to effectively assimilate the subject matter. I share this because I hope to make a point that regardless of what level of knowledge a person is at or what methods they use to learn we need to identify the speed limits of our learning and teaching curves. Whether debating, educating, learning, arguing whatever we process it all uniquely. I learned much reading through this but I also saw interesting ebbs and flows of communication styles and methods. I think I can fundamentally agree on this, that regardless of our evolutionary progress we are inexorably emotional beings. That fact is a common speed limit to our learning, teaching, etc curves. One could argue that it is upon the base of emotion that all other intellectual facets are built on. (maybe another thread) Whether we aspire to learn something new or further our understanding of what we already know we need each other to refine that knowledge, keep it current and relevant, and push us to learn more. Logic, in a way, is model for that larger aspect of our selves, through the constant whittling and reduction of non-relevant, non-valid information we progress our understanding of our selves and of our place in the universe. But we do so as a whole, for as there can be merit in almost any argument there is merit in this, we fair better working together than alone. We succeed when everyone builds and no one tears down; it takes many to create but only one to destroy.

I guess that's why we're here. Thanks javajunky. Wish we could all share a cup of jo sometime.

However, let me assure you of the fact:
There's absolutely no co-operation among posters!
Most of us are here for the same reason, i.e. displaying and polishing our views and opinions regarding various subjects!

* The only reason we might appear social and mutually polite is because "personal attacks" are prohibited by the management! Therefore, we're often forced into being mutually respectful...

Nevertheless, if you're familiar with the "Instant Messenger" lingo, which is allowed here (i.e. IDK: I Dont Know, PLS: Please, LOL: laughing Out Loud, BTW: By The Way, etc.), there are some expressions that indicate the conversation might become much more abrasive, for example:
WTF: What The F..k, PITA: Pain In The A$$, etc. (i.e. the whole spectrum of emotions...)

Nevertheless, rather than letting the situation escalate to mutual insults, most of ppl (:People) would seek an arbitration with the community, i.e. discussing the topig at the Forums. (or, as a last resort, there's also an option of reporting the rude poster to the official moderator...-- but rarely does anybody resort to that -- though IDK!)

I think you're much too Emotional, LOL -- getting impressed with the siming tranquility and the intellectuality of the posts.
(personally, I believe some members draw their logic out of their behinds... (and I, usually, fly off the handle quite quickly, though I've received a couple of warnings from the moderators).

However, in general, your (:You're) absolutely right!!!

P.S. BTW, did you notice how masterfully generation_baby flirted with you: she said she wants to enjoy a cup of jo (i.e. you)!!!

Oh Oh Oh!...sometimes things are exactly as they are stated, but I would be an idiot to deny that underlying allusion. Even I cannot deny that subconscious leaning, to phrase artfully in such a way, "beating around the bush?" OH (that's oh h-e-double hockey sticks to you) Maybe I should be relegated to the Midnight Confessions post. I don't know. by the way, it's just as easy to type out by the way, and what the freak, and what have you. so why must we flounder with all these alliterations?

LOL, Obviously, mygenerationbaby, I was just teasing Javajunky1980 about your flirting with him...

Regarding the "Instant Messenger" lingo, that's just a convenience tool, a short-hand, if you wish. Certainly, if you find it easier tiping the phrase "Laughin Out Loud" over and over again -- aside of many other repetative (or even prohibited) phrases, then more power to ya! LOL!!!

TC! {:Take Care}

That's OK. I don't take offense to any of these threads. If I did I would crumble like a cookie. OK CLAC...if you will. Still, I think it's easier to say hahahhahaha. And it doesn't have to be translated. I find it difficult to have to decipher all these codes while reading. It's just a game people play. Doesn't really make it any easier for anybody, right? JS

Thats not nice

oh NO -- he's back!!!

mygeneratiobaby:
Sure thing, MGB, whatever makes you happy! (that's just a convenience tool for the unmentionables..)
I rarely resort to that shorthand style of communication, except of rare occasions... hahahahahahaha! It takes away the whole beauty of communication! LOL

(Dah dah dah dun de dah dun de dah...star wars/ dark vador music...)

JK, how conviniet, that piece was already in my head before I read your post.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!!

Welcome back, Jason, I am glad you started this thread.

The point of argumentation is to organize premises in such a way as to show that one set of premises much reach a particular conclusion. If and only if the premises are true. None of it has to be cynical or filled with inside attacks. That's when argumentation becomes fighting, or bickering, which is the part of arguing that can make it useless as Jason pointed out. Probably Jason started this thread for a good reason. Sometimes people on here just like to throw mud. Or they take things too personally. Here is a prime example of lashing out that can muck up the works. I once wrote in here something about how we were having such a fun discussion until someone started accusing people of not being sensitive to their feelings, while being insensitive themselves. I was joking around, Nobody wants to play anymore. And she answered Good, don't play then!

Premise: people prefer to argue in a constructive way
Premise: insults and accusations are not constructive
Conclusion: People are more likely to join an arguement that is not getting tangled up in negative emotions

Premise: An ARGUMENT is the discussion of various reasons involving disagreement.

Premise: People prefer to argue -- Letting their views be known -- rather than simply confirming the views of others!!!

Conclusion: People are more likely to join an arguement that is worth getting involved into, i.e. deriving the gist of the matter...
(rather than just passively noding their heads in agreement with the "obvious"!)

I agree. You dont have to insult to argue. Rhetoric is an fine example of how arguments can be personal, while still being logical. Alot of people throw the word logic around carelessly, and it makes me wounder if they know the definition. I have seen over and over again person X saying person N is illogical because they dont understand the nature of the argument or just dont agree. Heres a rule of thumb for any refutation. It MUST be objective and unbiased.
(that means, try and convince your self that YOU are wrong and see what you come up with.) Logic is nothing more than inference, Something can be true and illogical, something can be logical and invalid, false, or incomplete.
My point is, and the reason for the op, is that argumentation can be constructive. If you cant argue without calling names, being rude or obnoxious, or if you are not willing to see the other side, you wont get too far. I dont know about any of you but I argue to learn, or to get somewhere, I have a goal.
Thanks for your reply, what do you think?

jasonpfaff:

In that case, why do you complain about the teaching methods???
Good students never set their own rules, they observe and listen -- rather than apealing to "teachers" changing their mode of teaching!

You see, this particular "On-Line course" is being "taught" by many "teachers" of various academic backgrounds. Thus, you cannot expect a uniformity of the teaching methods, insisting upon the universal adherence by every friggin "teacher"!

_____________Sorry, but that's just the way it is:
Some are here to teach;
Some are here to lecture;
Some are here to LISTEN TO THEMSELVES;
Very few are here to actually learn anything (or to get somewhere)!!!

Perhaps, "learn" is a wrong term -- most folks might be here to quench the curiosity, and (who knows) maybe run into a relative "soul"...

Thus, unless you can "swim with the sharks", you better stick to the "shallow waters" for a while! (i.e. Ask questions [and hope for gatting them answered], but -- for the sake of not provoking any sarcastic replies -- refrain from making any declarations!)

" In that case, why do you complain about the teaching methods???
Good students never set their own rules, they observe and listen -- rather than apealing to "teachers" changing their mode of teaching!"

Hmmmm.... funny Jane there was a guy named Einstein who didnt like the way any of his teachers taught... How do you think he turned out?

Any teacher who goes as low as many in here have has no bussiness teaching and needs to get out of the pool period. If you cant teach with out insulting than obviously you cant teach!!!

I on the other hand am smart enough, driven enough, and thirsty enough to not just accept your teaching as the best way, when I know there is in fact a better way out there. period.

Jane the best students, the best anybodys, always make their own rules. They dont just sit quiet and let people tell them the best way. ( see objective thinking Jane)

So far the only thing I have learned from you, the only thin I CHOSE TO LEARN from you is how effective sarcasm can be. See, I can pull out some good in any situation ( =

Congratulations, Jason, you seem to be learning something...
However:


Many/all of the teachers in here don't even suspect they've been bestowed with such a responsibility! The best you can do is avoid their "lectures" (i.e. posts), or they will ostracize you! period.

Your being , isn't a requirement for participating in "classes". period.
Participation is strictly voluntary -- if you don't like it, you're free to leave the "class"! But in no event can you set the rules of "teaching!!! (you can only raise your objections with the site moderators, if you feel you've been insulted!!!)


Your's is the attitude of all poor students:
* Hitler has killed all of the teachers who've failed him!

* Eistein -- through his theories -- has humiliated some of the teachers who've failed him...

* Thus, you have a choice! Select the most appropriate...
---> Though, until you're in a position of exercising your choice. you better play by the rules set by those "teachers"!!!
AND BE VERY POLITE ABOUT IT!!! -- SOME PEOPLE ARE DOING YOU A BIG FAVOR JUST BY TALKING TO YOU* * *

YOU VIOLATE THE RULES OF SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS BY TRYING TO IMPOSE YOU OWN SET OF RULES!!!

HEY, JASONPFEINSTEIN, JUST WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE

Well, to be totally confounding...of all of what you've been arguing about, some of it is true and of some of that that is true, all of that part is most undoubtably true. However, none of it is perfect. Because of the human element. Humans are widely varied. Humans are emotional. It has been said based on various psych studies that approx. 90% of our decisions are based on emotions. If something isn't presented at just the right speed, with just the right amount of clarification, with just the right amount of information, and or just the right amount of personal touch, a teacher. or a debater can lose one or more of his audience members. That doesn't mean the teacher or the student are "BAD". The whole thing is an art. In as much as cooking or painting... There's no pleasing them all. So, you go with the Golden Rule and see who goes with your flow, right?

P.S. Telling people to get out of the kitchen and off your thread is just plain rude.

i don't agree with your statements- Logic is functional only and oly if you reason. if i agee or disagree i have reason to believe not not to belive, So, lets not forget that everything is relative.