Tell Us The Good News For Once.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 07 Mar 2007 17:36

Sorry, there was a small error in that last post; "Aristotle" should read "Aristotle supporters."

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 07 Mar 2007 22:20

But we're not coming up with a solution. We're bitching about the world Jeremy. I think you don't realize that you're on a footbag forum. Nothing said here (That isn't related to footbag) will effect the real world. You just take everything way to seriously.

And if my failure to care enough to go look up some facts to back my claims pisses you off so god damn much, then you better find a way to get over, or die mad. Because as far as I'm concerned, this is a footbag forum, with a side forum for random discussion. And that's all it's going to be. Therefore I see no point to take any of this seriously, because none of it will make a difference in the world.

You'd have to be pretty thick to not be able to understand that almost all objects fall at the same speed. And if there is a difference in speed, it's do to the shape of the object, and/or the texture that could be causing friction against the air. Also the size. To be quite honest, the only person i could see not knowing that is a ditz girl at school or something. But I understand your example,however, I don't care.

And that's the beauty of an opinion, it doesn't have to be backed up by facts, the complete opposite of what you just said. I don't have to use facts to make a guess, or belief, or hypothesis about what's going to happen.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 08 Mar 2007 05:18

i have to say switch, you're really really really not going to win this debate by proving that facts are meaningless. really not a good strategy.

why would where you have a discussion effect the actual content of the discussion, or the impact that it has? if jeremy wants to make a point about global warming on a teletubby forum does that really take away from the legitemacy of the content of whatever point he was making? it has everything to do with content and nothing to do with location.

And that's the beauty of an opinion, it doesn't have to be backed up by facts, the complete opposite of what you just said. I don't have to use facts to make a guess, or belief, or hypothesis about what's going to happen.

what exactly do you think all of these are based on? you dont have any opinions right when you're born, and not just because you arent developed enough yet, its because all opinions are based on observations of the state of the world around us, which if they are accurate oberservations are little things we like to call facts.
your problem, i believe, is that you think we form our opinions based solely on something completely intangible inside of us that apparently isnt affected by what we observe at all. even if you did really think this way, you would be the only one in the world. (based on your line of debating your logical response would probably be 'waaah well so what i dont care if im the only one, i refuse to let anything you say penetrate my skull waaaah')

your post trying to explain why facts dont mean anything was probably one of the funnier posts i've read on this forum.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 08 Mar 2007 09:05

slapdash21 wrote:i have to say switch, you're really really really not going to win this debate by proving that facts are meaningless. really not a good strategy.

why would where you have a discussion effect the actual content of the discussion, or the impact that it has? if jeremy wants to make a point about global warming on a teletubby forum does that really take away from the legitemacy of the content of whatever point he was making? it has everything to do with content and nothing to do with location.

And that's the beauty of an opinion, it doesn't have to be backed up by facts, the complete opposite of what you just said. I don't have to use facts to make a guess, or belief, or hypothesis about what's going to happen.
what exactly do you think all of these are based on? you dont have any opinions right when you're born, and not just because you arent developed enough yet, its because all opinions are based on observations of the state of the world around us, which if they are accurate oberservations are little things we like to call facts.
your problem, i believe, is that you think we form our opinions based solely on something completely intangible inside of us that apparently isnt affected by what we observe at all. even if you did really think this way, you would be the only one in the world. (based on your line of debating your logical response would probably be 'waaah well so what i dont care if im the only one, i refuse to let anything you say penetrate my skull waaaah')

your post trying to explain why facts dont mean anything was probably one of the funnier posts i've read on this forum.

Of course opinions are based off our own observations. However, it's not require of me to do research to post my current opinion or idea. I can have an opinion or idea without doing extra research on a topic. Which is what Jeremy is suggesting I do. Great suggestion, but I'll decline because I don't care enough to spend the time to explore Google for the facts, when it's not required of me to do so.

I don't think I said facts are useless... And if I did, I don't know what I was thinking. Facts are great, they make things a lot easier to understand. However searching for more facts on a certain topic isn't required to form an opinion or idea about that topic. Whether that opinion or idea is dumb/stupid, doesn't matter. I guess you could called it a weird form of prejudice.

I feel like I can just come here and say what I know, or what I think I know, without worrying about whether or not it's right or wrong, because these debates aren't serious. Yeah, some of you have serious attitudes, but they're not serious debates, they aren't going to change or alter anything in the world. And I think Jeremy doesn't really understand that. Either that, or he likes to take things way too seriously IMO.

If this were a serious debate...well, I probably wouldn't be here, but hypothetically, if I were, I wouldn't just post random shit like I do right now. Because then it would matter, but here, it doesn't. Because it's just a footbag forum, with mainly teenagers, some people in their twenties.

There's going to be people that take this seriously, and then there's going to be people that don't take this seriously, and everyone's just going to have to get used to both of them.

I never had a problem with Jeremy's relentless effort to bring 100% accurate knowledge to the forums, until he started bagging on me and my ideas. Now I have a problem. If Jeremy has this need to be 100% correct all the god damn time, that's his business, but don't come around trying to change my ideas or try to tell me I'm wrong. I don't tell Jeremy his ideas are bullshit, I don't tell him his way of thinking is just stupid. We have our disagreements, but what he did was just fuckin' rude.

And you can check the history, rarely do I ever bag on Jeremy and/or his ideas. I recall complimenting him on some of his thought process actually in a few topics. Even though I disagree with some of the ideas he had in those same topics I complimented him in.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 08 Mar 2007 15:59

I remember him calling your ideas "made up bullshit" but you've pretty much admited that yourself and said that its your perogative to make up bullshit (you say yourself you feel that its ok to come here and say whatever you want reagardless of whether its right or wrong) so i hardly think its fair to then take offense when others share that opinion but express it with the word bullshit.
Other than that I also remember Jeremy explaining why he finds your idea that people starving is OK abhorent, and if I remember correctly he speaks to the idea not to you personally for holding it.
You also call his facts stupid, and you're telling him he's wrong to impose facts upon you. So you do tell him he's wrong.
So really, both of you "rarely bag on each other" but on the other hand you both "bag on each others ideas" fairly consistently but thats bound to happen when you disagree. I don't think its fair to feel entitled to post whatever you want reagrdless of it being right or wrong simply because its your opinion, and then have a problem when someone disagrees with it. You are of course entitiled to post whatever you want within the boundaries of the forum, but you also need to accept people bagging you're ideas within those same boundaries.
The discussion section is clearly labelld as "mostly for serious discussion" so while that doesn't preclude posting baseless opinions (it does say mostly after all) you should expect most people to take things seriously in this section of the forum.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 08 Mar 2007 20:43

dyalander wrote:I remember him calling your ideas "made up bullshit" but you've pretty much admitted that yourself and said that its your prerogative to make up bullshit (you say yourself you feel that its ok to come here and say whatever you want regardless of whether its right or wrong) so i hardly think its fair to then take offense when others share that opinion but express it with the word bullshit.
Other than that I also remember Jeremy explaining why he finds your idea that people starving is OK abhorrent, and if I remember correctly he speaks to the idea not to you personally for holding it.
You also call his facts stupid, and you're telling him he's wrong to impose facts upon you. So you do tell him he's wrong.
So really, both of you "rarely bag on each other" but on the other hand you both "bag on each others ideas" fairly consistently but thats bound to happen when you disagree. I don't think its fair to feel entitled to post whatever you want regardless of it being right or wrong simply because its your opinion, and then have a problem when someone disagrees with it. You are of course entitled to post whatever you want within the boundaries of the forum, but you also need to accept people bagging you're ideas within those same boundaries.
The discussion section is clearly labeled as "mostly for serious discussion" so while that doesn't preclude posting baseless opinions (it does say mostly after all) you should expect most people to take things seriously in this section of the forum.

After he stated the whole "bullshit" thing, and I never said his facts were wrong, or it was wrong of him to post facts.

And I only stated that what he did was just flat out rude (IMO), which is the only reason I react the way I am. People complaining about me doesn't really irritate me. It's when someone's just flat out fuckin' rude, for no apparent reason. I don't tear down Jeremy's posts in such offensive ways, no matter how much I may disagree with him, why should he? Not why should he be allowed, this isn't about rules, it's about realizing that it's my opinion and he should just accept it, just like I except just about everything he says. (However it's kinda hard to accept the opinion of someone that doesn't really say anything himself, but rather quotes just about everyone else in the world. I'm really accepting those other people's opinions...) ... (Then again he shares their opinions, however they created those opinions and he read about them and simply agreed...)

I didn't have a problem until he told me that my ideas are bullshit. If you don't like the ideas, go ahead and say you don't agree, but don't attack them or demean them , that's just going to start an argument (Like this.) and ruin the topic (like this.).

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 09 Mar 2007 00:04

Dude, if you're going to post things with no factual basis, and claim that they are facts, or express your opinions without any evidence to support those opinions, or express opinions has grotesquely as immoral as it being a good thing that 30,000 children under the age of 5 starve to death every day, I will call you on it, regardless of who you are or how you have behaved in the past. If Vasek or Bill Clinton or Stephen Hawking put forward the opinions you've put put forward on this forum, I would attack them as well. Expressing your opinions, which are based on ignorance (that's what you call it when you have an opinion but no facts to back it up), is not only spreading that ignorance, it's spreading the idea that it is ok to have opinions without evidence. When we look at the problems in the world today, one of the significant things we notice in almost every problem, from Israel to North Korea to the Congo, is people acting on strongly held dogmatic beliefs. If we continue to tolerate beliefs that are not based on evidence, we will continue to face the same problems. We need to change the way we think and act if we are to change the way we live (as species).

Now I obviously only play a very tiny role in the world, but I strongly believe in being the change you want to see in the world. Rather than simply complaining about the problems, I always try to actually create change in that problem, be it on this forum, in politics or the environment. I can only do as much as one person can do, but if everybody did as much as one person can, wouldn't that be enough? How can I complain about a problem in society if I don't do everything I can to solve it?

Now earlier you asked what I do to make the world a better place. For starters I work for the largest environmental charity in Australia. Last month the team I am in charge of raised over $100,000 for that charity. If you extrapolate that out over a year, we're looking at over $1 million. The charity I work for has helped to save over 20,000,000 hectares of wilderness in Australia and has effectively reduced Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 5%. Obviously I've only played a small role in that, but I've certainly played a role. Apart from that, I'm fairly heavily involved with politics. I regularly communicate with state and federal politicians, as well as having letters published in a number of newspapers. If we're not active about the changes we want to see in the world, those changes won't happen. It's just like footbag, if you want to get good, you have to be the one to spend the hours every day practising. There are no good footbaggers who haven't put in the effort it takes, and just like we can't make better footbaggers without effort, we can't make a better world without effort either. Every little bit counts. At the moment less than 0.01% of the worlds population makes a financial commitment to helping the environment. Imagine if that was 40% instead.

You should read those two articles I posted, I didn't just post them to improve my post count. They show us exactly what we can achieve through individuals making an effort. We don't need to accept the world how it is, we can expect better.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 09 Mar 2007 04:07

again, switch, you CANNOT have as extreme opinions as your own, involving the death of children, and then call jeremy rude for having any opinion whatsoever, and expect anyone to take you seriously (oh wait, i guess you dont care about being taken seriously...in which case why are you even discussing this?!?!), or to "respect and accept your opinion"

i agree with jeremy that your ideas are definitely bullshit. just saying i disagree would not convey a strong enough message about my opinion of your ideas. besides, here's the difference...

i disagree with your opinion = i think its at least a viable opinion that you may have formed based on facts that you observed, yes combined with personal beliefs you may have (it cannot be only one or the other)

i think your opinion is bullshit = i can tell by the lunacy of your opinions that they are not based on any facts whatsoever, which means they are, as we have already stated several times, completely baseless and formed completely out of your mind with no influence whatsoever from what we call the real world and the facts that exist within it, therefore your opinion is as important to me as if you had waited behind a male cow with a plate and offered me what came out of it as your opinion.

and i, fred allen, think your opinion, is complete bullshit.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 09 Mar 2007 04:08

and i also think i had one too many commas in that last sentence.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 09 Mar 2007 16:33

I don't see how he has been rude - if you're posts are no more than opinion with no factual evidence and moreover that opinion runs against the facts at hand its completely fair to define that opinion as bullshit.
Jeremy does not have to accept your opinion just because you are entitled to have one - you're right, you are entitled to have any opinion you wish, however, the moment you express it to another human being you open that opinion up for critique. If you are not willing to have your opinion critiqued then don't post it. If you are unwilling to discuss your opinion then what are you doing posting here? This area is for discussion not stating personal opinions and having everyone accept them.

If you don't like the ideas, go ahead and say you don't agree, but don't attack them or demean them , that's just going to start an argument (Like this.) and ruin the topic (like this.).

This isn't your blog. If you don't agree with an idea that is posted in a forum designed to be an area for vigorous discussion it is not rude to attack and demean it. If you believe something is wrong you are completely entitled to speak to why you believe it to be wrong by attacking its foundations, and demeaning it by showing it to lack validity. The term "bullshit" was used to do the latter I don't think its rude at all. This isn't a formal dinner table which has high standards of manners to be upheld, this is a discussion forum where ideas are voiced, attacked and demeaned and you are not entitled to ruin a topic simply because after posting an opinion it becomes grist for the mill like every other opinion.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 10 Mar 2007 22:08

Jeremy wrote:Dude, if you're going to post things with no factual basis, and claim that they are facts, or express your opinions without any evidence to support those opinions, or express opinions has grotesquely as immoral as it being a good thing that 30,000 children under the age of 5 starve to death every day, I will call you on it, regardless of who you are or how you have behaved in the past. If Vasek or Bill Clinton or Stephen Hawking put forward the opinions you've put put forward on this forum, I would attack them as well. Expressing your opinions, which are based on ignorance (that's what you call it when you have an opinion but no facts to back it up), is not only spreading that ignorance, it's spreading the idea that it is ok to have opinions without evidence. When we look at the problems in the world today, one of the significant things we notice in almost every problem, from Israel to North Korea to the Congo, is people acting on strongly held dogmatic beliefs. If we continue to tolerate beliefs that are not based on evidence, we will continue to face the same problems. We need to change the way we think and act if we are to change the way we live (as species).

Now I obviously only play a very tiny role in the world, but I strongly believe in being the change you want to see in the world. Rather than simply complaining about the problems, I always try to actually create change in that problem, be it on this forum, in politics or the environment. I can only do as much as one person can do, but if everybody did as much as one person can, wouldn't that be enough? How can I complain about a problem in society if I don't do everything I can to solve it?

Now earlier you asked what I do to make the world a better place. For starters I work for the largest environmental charity in Australia. Last month the team I am in charge of raised over $100,000 for that charity. If you extrapolate that out over a year, we're looking at over $1 million. The charity I work for has helped to save over 20,000,000 hectares of wilderness in Australia and has effectively reduced Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 5%. Obviously I've only played a small role in that, but I've certainly played a role. Apart from that, I'm fairly heavily involved with politics. I regularly communicate with state and federal politicians, as well as having letters published in a number of newspapers. If we're not active about the changes we want to see in the world, those changes won't happen. It's just like footbag, if you want to get good, you have to be the one to spend the hours every day practising. There are no good footbaggers who haven't put in the effort it takes, and just like we can't make better footbaggers without effort, we can't make a better world without effort either. Every little bit counts. At the moment less than 0.01% of the worlds population makes a financial commitment to helping the environment. Imagine if that was 40% instead.

You should read those two articles I posted, I didn't just post them to improve my post count. They show us exactly what we can achieve through individuals making an effort. We don't need to accept the world how it is, we can expect better.

So... Religion (Any, religion.) is a bad thing?

Texta · Post by **Texta** » 11 Mar 2007 03:07

Switch Kicker wrote:So... Religion (Any, religion.) is a bad thing?

Incorrect use of capital letters. Am I ignoring the main thrust of the thread because I've been smashed in the debate? Obviously no, but it looks like Switch Kicker has been owned like a black man.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 11 Mar 2007 08:40

yeah i guess it doesnt really require 4 people to tell switch that he's wrong, but he really still doesnt seem to get it anyway!

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 11 Mar 2007 10:48

dyalander wrote:This isn't your blog. If you don't agree with an idea that is posted in a forum designed to be an area for vigorous discussion it is not rude to attack and demean it. If you believe something is wrong you are completely entitled to speak to why you believe it to be wrong by attacking its foundations, and demeaning it by showing it to lack validity. The term "bullshit" was used to do the latter I don't think its rude at all. This isn't a formal dinner table which has high standards of manners to be upheld, this is a discussion forum where ideas are voiced, attacked and demeaned and you are not entitled to ruin a topic simply because after posting an opinion it becomes grist for the mill like every other opinion.

Agreed, to an extent. You contradicted yourself there. If anyone is allowed to speak out and demean or attack another's opinion, then I AM entitled to ruin this topic by attacking Jeremy's bullshit opinion driven response. (Concerning the 30,000 children dying thing,blah blah blah.) If that is what you consider to be ruining the topic.

Secondly, I never said he couldn't say what he said. I only said it was fuckin' rude, and that it was also the explanation for my reactions.

(This was supposed to be posted yesterday, but some error came up.

)

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 11 Mar 2007 16:08

As i've explained "rudeness" is defined relative to the arena of discussion, given the conditions of this arena he was not rude.
I don't contradict myself at all - you are welcome to attack and demean his ideas but not to ruin the thread by diverting it to a side issue regarding your philosophy on rudeness, forum conduct, the usefulness of the discussion etc etc, or to speak beyond the ideas to the person expressing them.

Agreed, to an extent.

I hope that means that you'll be a little bit more tollerant of people diss-ing your ideas and not immedietly take it personally, or as an affront to your right to express them.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 11 Mar 2007 18:14

dyalander wrote:As I've explained "rudeness" is defined relative to the arena of discussion, given the conditions of this arena he was not rude.
I don't contradict myself at all - you are welcome to attack and demean his ideas but not to ruin the thread by diverting it to a side issue regarding your philosophy on rudeness, forum conduct, the usefulness of the discussion etc etc, or to speak beyond the ideas to the person expressing them.

Agreed, to an extent.
I hope that means that you'll be a little bit more tolerant of people dissing your ideas and not immediately take it personally, or as an affront to your right to express them.

There wasn't an "arena" until after he turned into a dick.

And by "attacking and demeaning his ideas" I ruined the thread. Either way, it fall completely within my right to react the way I did.

And it was personal, as soon as he used the word "bullshit" to blow off my input. Bottom line, he was a dick, and he's not right this time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rude There's the actual definition of "rude" you stupid git. Quit making up your own little definitions to fix your stupid mistakes.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 11 Mar 2007 19:34

Oh lol. You really are a very ignorant little man aren't you?

Clearly Dyalan was referring to this forum when he used the word "arena," and I can say with all confidence that this "arena" has existed for longer than you've been posting on this forum (it was implemented while Rob was still an admin in 2003, about 2 years before you joined the forum). You may have found his post a little hard to comprehend.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, and you should expect that with opinions like yours, you'll receive a great deal of condemnation and ridicule, because your opinions are generally unsourced and meaningless. You do not know how to use correct grammar, how to formulate an argument, or the appropriate decorum in a serious discussion. You are considerably out of your depth in discussions such as this one, and that's why nobody is backing you up, while a number of people are attacking you.

You are left with a choice; you can be stubborn and continue to act the way that you do, or you can take the criticism on board and start thinking and putting forward rational arguments based on what is actually known. You can remain the village idiot, or you can learn from those around you.

While I'm sure you think that what you write is correct, I would urge you to consider why so many people oppose what you say, and so few people agree with you. While I would agree that a million people thinking something is a good idea does not make it a good idea, I would suggest that the more people who agree with an idea, the more likely it is to be right. Of course it could be wrong, but without a machine for giving us absolute answers, we can only base such a judgement on probability and the level of reason behind such ideas.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 12 Mar 2007 16:30

So what part did you agree with and why??

MatS21 · Post by **MatS21** » 16 Mar 2007 05:53

[quote="Switch Kicker]

There wasn't an "arena" until after he turned into a dick.

And by "attacking and demeaning his ideas" I ruined the thread. Either way, it fall completely within my right to react the way I did.

And it was personal, as soon as he used the word "bullshit" to blow off my input. Bottom line, he was a dick, and he's not right this time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rude There's the actual definition of "rude" you stupid git. Quit making up your own little definitions to fix your stupid mistakes.[/quote]

You didn't attacked his ideas at all, all you did is claim your idea as legitimate and try to discredit his idea, which is completely different than proving it wrong or attacking it. The only place where you attacked it is about abstinence and he admitted you we're partly right. That's another proof that he is somewhat open-minded and ready to hear your arguements if you have some credible. But you don't. All your saying is my opinion is that even if every facts proves me I'm wrong.

And he haven't been that rude, be ready to see your opinions discussed and attacked if you claim it. Your choice to keep your eyes closed and consider yourself a victim or to read his article and answers and to make your ideas about the subject, but this time with knowledge on the subject.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 03 May 2007 04:43

Switch Kicker wrote:
Jeremy wrote:So you think it is a good thing that 30,000 children under the age of 5 die of starvation every year?

[source]

[/img]http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2005 ... rchild.jpg[/img]

You're not going to make me feel bad by showing me pictures of unfortunate children. The cold fact is, that's just tough shit. That's life. And it's going to get worse before it gets better. If there weren't so many people to begin with, this problem wouldn't be so big of a problem right now.

I personally couldn't care less that 30,000 children starve to death each day.

I've had the belief for a very long time that the population's never going to go down through abstinence, so it's only going to go down this way. People dying. We need more of it. Either that, or these damn Africans need to realize that more kids isn't a good thing. Especially seeing as they can't feed themselves, let alone thirty kids.

Have you ever stepped out of the US? Canada and Mexico don't count.

Fuck you, bitch.