I will not shoot the next priest I see...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Have you tried wanking?

No. Is it fun?

[Trinity]

A Fact: something which is known to be true. This implies to me that there is no chance of an evolving debate by flinging facts at one another; it's a stalemate situation- if the facts are there for all to research then there's nothing to debate about other than nit picking finer details or getting into personal shit-flinging.

Real debate (well. my idea of it) is satisfying for me when a group of people thrash it out with opinions/suggestions/subjective perspectives/philosophical views but don't need to land at any conclusion or have egos boosted because someone thinks they're "right". Much more fun and creates a richer opportunity to learn and grow. Playing Devil's advocate can be enriching when there's a genuine sense of wanting someone to think more deeply about something they've said but it doesn't have to be laced with contempt and vitriole.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A Fact: something which is known to be true. This implies to me that there is no chance of an evolving debate by flinging facts at one another; it's a stalemate situation- if the facts are there for all to research then there's nothing to debate about other than nit picking finer details or getting into personal shit-flinging.

Real debate in my idea of it, is satisfying for me when a group of people thrash it out with opinions/suggestions/subjective perspectives/philosophical views but don't need to land at any conclusion or have egos boosted because someone thinks they're "right". Much more fun and creates a richer opportunity to learn and grow. Playing Devil's advocate can be enriching when there's a genuine sense of wanting someone to think more deeply about something they've said but it doesn't have to be laced with contempt and vitriole.

Bloody communist!

[Trinity]

Pin not thy labels upon me, I am not a blazer, sir

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The futility of seeking an honest debate from some members here became obvious to me early on.

[pErvinalia]

Seth is fully ideologically blinkered. That's not to say one can't learn anything from him, but he will never submit to learning anything of anyone else.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I like Seth. I find him interesting when he's not in full-on diatribe mode. I avoid debating him on his pet subjects because it's pointless but I am more than willing to hold a meta-debate with him on why he acts the way he does.

[pErvinalia]

I hear he's amenable to debating about Marxism.

[Hermit]

A Fact: something which is known to be true. This implies to me that there is no chance of an evolving debate by flinging facts at one another; it's a stalemate situation- if the facts are there for all to research then there's nothing to debate about

I've had facts flung at me that caused me to change my mind. The facts did not always emanate directly from whomever I was interacting with, and sometimes there was a delay between receiving them and me my changing my mind, but ultimately debate was the cause of it.

In the end it comes down to what is actually "known to be true," and that usually has a lot more to do with the context in which it is sent and received than it is asserted to be "a fact" or "known to be true". Recently, for instance, I was astonished to find out that no lesser genius than Albert Einstein wrote a foreword around 1955 for a book by a prominent geologist who disputed that tectonic plate movement was "a fact". Even in the so-called "hard sciences" facts are not accepted as such until the environment for such recognition is favourable. History is awash with discoveries that were ignored, ridiculed and/or rejected until they were accepted decades or even centuries later as "fact".

[Trinity]

A Fact: something which is known to be true. This implies to me that there is no chance of an evolving debate by flinging facts at one another; it's a stalemate situation- if the facts are there for all to research then there's nothing to debate about

I've had facts flung at me that caused me to change my mind. The facts did not always emanate directly from whomever I was interacting with, and sometimes there was a delay between receiving them and me my changing my mind, but ultimately debate was the cause of it.

In the end it comes down to what is actually "known to be true," and that usually has a lot more to do with the context in which it is sent and received than it is asserted to be "a fact" or "known to be true". Recently, for instance, I was astonished to find out that no lesser genius than Albert Einstein wrote a foreword around 1955 for a book by a prominent geologist who disputed that tectonic plate movement was "a fact". Even in the so-called "hard sciences" facts are not accepted as such until the environment for such recognition is favourable. History is awash with discoveries that were ignored, ridiculed and/or rejected until they were accepted decades or even centuries later as "fact".

It's funny because I almost expanded on the definition of "fact". Without getting too much into the metaphysical, it is after all, only our individual perception and our empirical experiences which lead us to label something as "fact". Maybe it is debatable that there is no such thing as fact because how can one person's perception of "reality" ultimately be corroborated by another's?

[Seth]

Seth is fully ideologically blinkered. That's not to say one can't learn anything from him, but he will never submit to learning anything of anyone else.

Wrong. I learn a great deal from other members quite often, otherwise I wouldn't bother. You only think I'm ideologically blinkered because YOU are ideologically blinkered.

[Seth]

It happens that my specialty is taking contrarian positions for the purposes of advancing the debate

This is the umpteenth time you have made this point. But the fact is, I have only ever seen you take a single position in any argument you have presented - hard-line, libertarian gun-nut. There are plenty more contrarian positions out there that you could pick from but you choose to stick to the same, tired, repetitive line. So either, you are utterly lacking in imagination, or your claim is simply bullshit.

Well, when it comes to the gun debate, as in most other things, I'm one of the only people here either capable of or interested in arguing that hard line pro-gun stance intelligently and I'm up against what I would characterize as a united front of anti-gun ideological blinkeredness.

The problem is that almost all of the arguments made here against guns are simplistic, simple-minded, ideological, thoughtless, un-nuanced and infantile, and despite literally tens of thousands of attempts over the years to educate various anti-gun nuts, I've almost never moved past the "no they aren't, yes they are" stage despite providing reams of well-reasoned arguments and piles of actual facts.

Arguing guns with people who do not understand them and are afraid of them is usually a highly circular pursuit. I do it because I happen to feel it's necessary and desirable to debunk the simplistic arguments presented for the benefit of the lurkers who might drop by.

And it's not true that guns are the only thing I debate. But it does seem to be a favorite thorn in the paw of socialists.

[Seth]

It happens that my specialty is taking contrarian positions for the purposes of advancing the debate

This is the umpteenth time you have made this point. But the fact is, I have only ever seen you take a single position in any argument you have presented - hard-line, libertarian gun-nut. There are plenty more contrarian positions out there that you could pick from but you choose to stick to the same, tired, repetitive line. So either, you are utterly lacking in imagination, or your claim is simply bullshit.

Yep. I know for a fact he believes this crap that he argues. He's not being a contrarian. He's being a fanatic.

And you're not?

Pot, kettle, black.

You just don't like it because I'm so good at destroying your silly fanatical arguments.

[Seth]

A Fact: something which is known to be true. This implies to me that there is no chance of an evolving debate by flinging facts at one another; it's a stalemate situation- if the facts are there for all to research then there's nothing to debate about other than nit picking finer details or getting into personal shit-flinging.

Yup. That's the problem. Facts are facts. But the question is how one uses a fact to support an opinion on a subject. Too many people, not just here but everywhere, misuse facts to try to support illogical and irrational arguments. I'm pretty good at pointing that out and it pisses some of the smaller intellects off when the errors in their reasoning are revealed because their egos are punctured.

Real debate (well. my idea of it) is satisfying for me when a group of people thrash it out with opinions/suggestions/subjective perspectives/philosophical views but don't need to land at any conclusion or have egos boosted because someone thinks they're "right". Much more fun and creates a richer opportunity to learn and grow. Playing Devil's advocate can be enriching when there's a genuine sense of wanting someone to think more deeply about something they've said but it doesn't have to be laced with contempt and vitriole.

I agree. And so long as those I'm debating on a subject remain objective, rational, reasonable and polite, so do I...although I do admit that from time to time I slip into invective inappropriately over dead-horse flogging, for which I try to apologize. But when the debate turns into a personal attack on me, then I have no compunctions whatever about giving better than I get. It's kind of fun to trade insults in fact, as you well know.

But this thread is a prime example of how tolerant and willing to discuss an issue without rancor I actually am. This is all a personal attack on me unrelated to the OP, and yet I'm perfectly happy to discuss my motivations and practices politely with those who choose to be polite about it.

[Seth]

The futility of seeking an honest debate from some members here became obvious to me early on.

That's only because YOU are intellectually stunted and unable to honestly discuss a subject without allowing your emotions and prejudices to take you beyond civil debate and into invective and insult.

You seem to think that "honest debate" is synonymous with "agree with me," and you can't stand it when someone (like me) is willing to defend a disparate point of view vigorously.