andyofborg Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 How could he start a forum in his pocket? he has big pockets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 he has big pockets He must have more pockets than a snooker table and bigger pockets than Gordon Brown when he gave the bankers all our money to spend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 I always think I'm right (since I wouldn't be posting something I already knew to be false.) Sometimes I turn out not to be. Sometimes I manage to correct other people's erroneous beliefs. Most often, if it's a complex subject such as politics or religion, most people don't concern themselves even with basic logic, let alone reasoned argument, so it's impossible for anyone to ever convince anyone else who is right or wrong. Is religion such a complex subject to debate? Or is it just one of those subjects that will get you kicked out of the apple pie gang if you say anything controversial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Is religion such a complex subject to debate? At its simplest, no; the question "Does God exist" is a simple and straightforward one. But when you start getting into discussions of whether religion has benefited the world, or precise details of how a given religious work should be interpreted, it can become very complex indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 At its simplest, no; the question "Does God exist" is a simple and straightforward one. But when you start getting into discussions of whether religion has benefited the world, or precise details of how a given religious work should be interpreted, it can become very complex indeed.In answer to the first example- No!, and in answer to the second- No!, and in answer to the latter- there is no correct interpretation as it's always open to interpretation due to being highly subjective. What 's so difficult about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 What is it that defines someone being wrong or right on public forums such as this? Peoples' perceptions define what is right or wrong in their eyes. Personal perceptions can be influenced by other peoples' views, which is what happens every day. Public opinion and information are what win wars and every day is a war made up of people confronting you or trying to get something from you, (usually money.) Oh and BTW, nobody ever wins an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Is religion such a complex subject to debate? Or is it just one of those subjects that will get you kicked out of the apple pie gang if you say anything controversial? But you have to be in it to be kicked out of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 In answer to the first example- No!, and in answer to the second- No!, and in answer to the latter- there is no correct interpretation as it's always open to interpretation due to being highly subjective. What 's so difficult about that? It's easy to give a simple answer. It's not easy to prove, or even to convince, that your answer is correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted September 12, 2011 Author Share Posted September 12, 2011 Peoples' perceptions define what is right or wrong in their eyes. Personal perceptions can be influenced by other peoples' views, which is what happens every day. Public opinion and information are what win wars and every day is a war made up of people confronting you or trying to get something from you, (usually money.) Oh and BTW, nobody ever wins an argument. Sometimes what you're arguing about can be of secondary importance to just wanting win the argument. This happens quite often on here, 'I do it too, I'm not pointing the finger'. Some discussions are just impossible as they can't give a definitive yes or no answer to whether this argument is right or that argument is wrong. Take the tread I was contributing to this afternoon. We were debating why Niqabs (not the wearer) are generally thought to pose less of a risk to public safety and department store or corporate security than a balaclava or motorcycle helmet. The opinion was about 60/40 in favour of the Niqab posing less risk because it isn't or ever has been strongly associated with criminal activity whereas the other two have, which was claimed to be the reason why people and the police generally tend to consider it inappropriate to wear balaclava's, hoodies, goggle jackets or motorcycle helmets in certain establishments and environments. I argued that neither one posed any lesser risk than the other as the crimes committed yesteryear cannot dictate what is likely to happen tomorrow, but they were steadfast in their position, and I remain so in mine. But what I find most peculiar is the same people have argued till they were blue in the face that women have the right to dress like a whore without anyone prejudging her or comparing the way she dresses to that of a hooker despite the fact she wearing clothes that people generally tend to associate with prostitution. Which incidentally happens to be a criminal act. How bizzare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 Sometimes what you're arguing about can be of secondary importance to just wanting win the argument. This happens quite often on here, 'I do it too, I'm not pointing the finger'. Some discussions are just impossible as they can't give a definitive yes or no answer to whether this argument is right or that argument is wrong. Take the tread I was contributing to this afternoon. We were debating why Niqabs (not the wearer) are generally thought to pose less of a risk to public safety and department store or corporate security than a balaclava or motorcycle helmet. The opinion was about 60/40 in favour of the Niqab posing less risk because it isn't or ever has been strongly associated with criminal activity whereas the other two have, which was claimed to be the reason why people and the police generally tend to consider it inappropriate to wear balaclava's, hoodies, goggle jackets or motorcycle helmets in certain establishments and environments. I argued that neither one posed any lesser risk than another as the crimes committed yesteryear cannot dictate what is likely to happen tomorrow, but they were steadfast in their position, and I remain so in mine. But what I find most peculiar is the same people have argued till they were blue in the face that women has the right to dress like a whore without anyone prejudging her or comparing the way she dresses to that of a hooker despite the fact she wearing clothes that people generally tend to associate with prostitution. Which incidentally happens to be a criminal act. How bizzare. Wrong again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.