This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Has this forum turned into a verbal circus?

21 posts in this topic

Posted

I have been looking over some of the recent topics and ... I'm finding it difficult to remain polite. I am shocked that people would write such long winded stuffy sounding essays without the slightest attempt to learn a few things before starting. We have a discussion about free markets based on total ignorance of what exactly the term means. There is another discussion on values of goods with absolutely no investigation of existing work in that field, and theses based on suppositions rather than reality. Is it so that you don't care enough about knowledge to look some up? Does it happen that you only want to show off how gracefully you can manipulate obscure words and concepts? Jugglers in a verbal circus? Is that what this forum has become?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jewels Vern, you're talking about me. Not this forum. You're talking about me. Not everyone engages in topics the way I do. I'd accept any criticism you have to offer, but don't cast that criticism on the forum in general when it isn't just.

Edited by Parody of Language
Deleted reverse-criticism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I hope you're not judging the entire forum on a couple of topics.

Why don't you start a topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Does it happen that you only want to show off how gracefully you can manipulate obscure words and concepts? Jugglers in a verbal circus? Is that what this forum has become?

Presumably, you just discovered the concept of irony and you couldn't think of a better way to convey it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heh, what?

Jewels, you became a member of ths forum three years ago, and have made 98 posts. That means you are averaging about 30 posts a year.

I think you need to participate a little bit more than that, if you want these kinds of complaints to be taken seriously. At least that's how I feel about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heh, what?

Jewels, you became a member of ths forum three years ago, and have made 98 posts. That means you are averaging about 30 posts a year.

I think you need to participate a little bit more than that, if you want these kinds of complaints to be taken seriously. At least that's how I feel about it.

By that logic you would ignore the warning lights in your car because they flash only at rare and erratic intervals, ignore pain in your foot because it only hurts once a year on average, ignore God because He averages less than one revelation per thousand years, etc.

Is there something more to this metric than I see at the moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I didn't want call out any particular person, although of course it was necessary to cite a couple of examples of what I was talking about. There were more than two.

There are two general situations of which I speak:

1. You are comparing concepts which are similar but have unique names (often simply the names of people who first proposed the variations). I find that annoying because it's difficult to keep several nearly identical concepts straight in my mind. It's hard to compare apples to apples because they are all just apples. This is what I mean by juggling words: there is no point to the discourse, it's merely a show.

2. You have chosen a subject about which you know nothing but you want to talk anyway. That is called a rant and we can accept it if it has an emotional angle. That is to say you just want to dump. Please don't try to pretend it is applicable to anything.

3. There is a third case that especially applies to politics: there are dozens of words for every flavor of political thought, and every word has multiple meanings which may contradict each other. There are so many variations of socialism that people simply can't keep track of which is which, and discussions of "libertarian" always bog down because it refers to groups that want to increase liberty, groups that want to restrict liberty, and groups that want to abuse liberty. In discussing politics, words are more like a snowball fight than a juggling act. It is best to avoid discussing politics, since nobody knows what anybody is talking about and decisions are imposed by force of arms.

We have a body of knowledge and opinion called "common law" that has been developed over a period of centuries to resolve disputes where one person's rights contradict another's (and that happens any time two people meet). The basis of common law is that a law is universal, common to all persons, as compared to enacted law which is imposed by one person or group against another. It is a waste of effort to formulate any opinion about rights or civic duties without considering what has already been developed and made a part of the common law.

We have two competing bodies of theories about markets, one called Keynesian Economics and the other called Traditional or Austrian Economics. It is difficult to surmise things about economics without injecting your own wishes about how reality should behave, so it is quite necessary to consider one or both schools of economic theories to see what has already been worked out and tested. Keynesians and Austrians don't agree on much, but at least they all make a living with what they preach. If you want to make up your own material you have quite a chore to accomplish, and you will be an easy shot for anyone who has already studied the field.

If you want to talk about God you really should collect a few things that God has told us about Himself, since there is no other source of such knowledge. Anything you make up yourself is not worthy of consideration. Neither is anything made up by anyone else. Success in mathematics (Stephen Hawking) or entertainment (various actors and singers) or in any field does not qualify a person to pretend to know something when he doesn't. If you support your position by quoting fools and liars, you only make yourself one of them.

If you want to talk about science you should first learn some science. That is a major problem because science has jumped the track. All disciplines have been taken over by petty tyrants who dictate what is to be considered true and how it is to be discussed. You can still talk about whatever we have been commanded to believe, or compare those things to actual observations, but it's silly to pretend to discuss science when you haven't studied the topic at all.

Overall, what I am saying is if you don't know what you are talking about, stop talking. It's perfectly ok to say "I don't know." It's perfectly ok to spend some time staring at what you have typed while you ponder whether it says something valid. It's perfectly ok to push the Back button on your browser and let your message disappear. That is the best thing to do when you get that nasty feeling that you don't actually know whereof you speak. That is worth repeating: you should read what you have typed before you post it, and consider whether it says anything that needs to be said. If your piece starts with an assessment of your naivety or an apology for your ignorance, that's a good sign you should not be posting on that topic.

Edited by Jewels Vern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heh, what?

Jewels, you became a member of ths forum three years ago, and have made 98 posts. That means you are averaging about 30 posts a year.

I think you need to participate a little bit more than that, if you want these kinds of complaints to be taken seriously. At least that's how I feel about it.

By that logic you would ignore the warning lights in your car because they flash only at rare and erratic intervals, ignore pain in your foot because it only hurts once a year on average, ignore God because He averages less than one revelation per thousand years, etc.

Is there something more to this metric than I see at the moment?

Yes, it means I feel quite sure that you haven't been around these parts nearly long enough to have read and digested all the threads and essays and other material to make an informed judgment one way or another about the quality of discussions here, and to pretend otherwise is simply arrogant.

I didn't want call out any particular person, although of course it was necessary to cite a couple of examples of what I was talking about. There were more than two.

There are two general situations of which I speak:

1. You are comparing concepts which are similar but have unique names (often simply the names of people who first proposed the variations). I find that annoying because it's difficult to keep several nearly identical concepts straight in my mind. It's hard to compare apples to apples because they are all just apples. This is what I mean by juggling words: there is no point to the discourse, it's merely a show.

2. You have chosen a subject about which you know nothing but you want to talk anyway. That is called a rant and we can accept it if it has an emotional angle. That is to say you just want to dump. Please don't try to pretend it is applicable to anything.

3. There is a third case that especially applies to politics: there are dozens of words for every flavor of political thought, and every word has multiple meanings which may contradict each other. There are so many variations of socialism that people simply can't keep track of which is which, and discussions of "libertarian" always bog down because it refers to groups that want to increase liberty, groups that want to restrict liberty, and groups that want to abuse liberty. In discussing politics, words are more like a snowball fight than a juggling act. It is best to avoid discussing politics, since nobody knows what anybody is talking about and decisions are imposed by force of arms.

We have a body of knowledge and opinion called "common law" that has been developed over a period of centuries to resolve disputes where one person's rights contradict another's (and that happens any time two people meet). The basis of common law is that a law is universal, common to all persons, as compared to enacted law which is imposed by one person or group against another. It is a waste of effort to formulate any opinion about rights or civic duties without considering what has already been developed and made a part of the common law.

We have two competing bodies of theories about markets, one called Keynesian Economics and the other called Traditional or Austrian Economics. It is difficult to surmise things about economics without injecting your own wishes about how reality should behave, so it is quite necessary to consider one or both schools of economic theories to see what has already been worked out and tested. Keynesians and Austrians don't agree on much, but at least they all make a living with what they preach. If you want to make up your own material you have quite a chore to accomplish, and you will be an easy shot for anyone who has already studied the field.

If you want to talk about God you really should collect a few things that God has told us about Himself, since there is no other source of such knowledge. Anything you make up yourself is not worthy of consideration. Neither is anything made up by anyone else. Success in mathematics (Stephen Hawking) or entertainment (various actors and singers) or in any field does not qualify a person to pretend to know something when he doesn't. If you support your position by quoting fools and liars, you only make yourself one of them.

If you want to talk about science you should first learn some science. That is a major problem because science has jumped the track. All disciplines have been taken over by petty tyrants who dictate what is to be considered true and how it is to be discussed. You can still talk about whatever we have been commanded to believe, or compare those things to actual observations, but it's silly to pretend to discuss science when you haven't studied the topic at all.

Overall, what I am saying is if you don't know what you are talking about, stop talking. It's perfectly ok to say "I don't know." It's perfectly ok to spend some time staring at what you have typed while you ponder whether it says something valid. It's perfectly ok to push the Back button on your browser and let your message disappear. That is the best thing to do when you get that nasty feeling that you don't actually know whereof you speak. That is worth repeating: you should read what you have typed before you post it, and consider whether it says anything that needs to be said. If your piece starts with an assessment of your naivety or an apology for your ignorance, that's a good sign you should not be posting on that topic.

Thank you so much for the lecture. We appreciate it, and shall strive to mend our ways. Your input is valuable to us.

In the meantime, check out my reply to your discussion of black holes in the Hawking thread, to see how you might go about heeding your own advice.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The votes are in and the choice is unanimous: the forum really is a circus and the members really are verbal jugglers and everybody really wants to keep it that way. You call your subject philosophy, but the only thing you tolerate is consensus. You all insist you don't want to stick to any hard meanings for your words or to pursue any particular conclusions in your discussions, because you don't want to be restricted in any way. No standards, and especially no excellence allowed. But then you got bent out of shape when I called you verbal jugglers and your forum a circus. Only one member took issue with the substance of my posts; he said "You're wrong!" One member accused me of being belligerent, as if it were my fault for provoking the ad hominem attacks. I'm not belligerent, I'm arrogant, meaning I'm right and I know it.

The conclusion, even though I know you hate conclusions, is that you have nothing that I want and I have nothing that you want, so there is no reason for us to seek each other's company again.

I won't be back.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Oh, don't go.

We clearly need edumacating and you are clearly the sage to do it.

Tell us more about the non-existent black holes.

Or maybe you have some more stuff to say about the Earth leaving Saturn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm kind of apathetic about the e-drama now. I wish I had the energy to write a long-winded post as is typical. There's really no reason for davidm to be mocking you though, it's unnecessary to respond in kind.

In all the years of being on the internets, I have never discovered a way to defuse situations such as these, other than totally ignoring it. It's the discussion itself that fuels the fire. This very post is just going to make it worse in fact.

All I can say is, if you don't feel comfortable here, then you're free to leave, and free to come back when you do feel comfortable again.

Oh, don't go.

We clearly need edumacating and you are clearly the sage to do it.

Tell us more about the non-existent black holes.

Or maybe you have some more stuff to say about the Earth leaving Saturn?

You're not helping. Stop posting stuff like this.

I +1'd Jewels Vern's post in order to confuse everyone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The votes are in and the choice is unanimous: the forum really is a circus and the members really are verbal jugglers and everybody really wants to keep it that way.

And only one person voted and that person is a complete cry-baby and possibly a troll and his opinion is about as worthless and wanted as a fart in a spacesuit.

You call your subject philosophy, but the only thing you tolerate is consensus.

We also tolerate backing one's positions and statements up with arguments and evidence. Perhaps if you'd have tried that you might have found this place more to your liking, but you didn't. :nono:

You all insist you don't want to stick to any hard meanings for your words or to pursue any particular conclusions in your discussions, because you don't want to be restricted in any way. No standards, and especially no excellence allowed.

Yeah, because "If you say something about economics that isn't preached on Mises.org, you're wrong! Read economics 101 and go to Mises.org for all teh answers!" and "Earth had rings and orbited Saturn, but then broke away 10,500 years ago because some crackpot reckons it did" are teh uber-epitomisations of excellence and high standards.

But then you got bent out of shape when I called you verbal jugglers and your forum a circus. Only one member took issue with the substance of my posts; he said "You're wrong!" One member accused me of being belligerent, as if it were my fault for provoking the ad hominem attacks.

Yes, one member, which is precisely why you were neg-repped nearly all the way to IIDB within a matter of days.

I'm not belligerent, I'm arrogant, meaning I'm right and I know it.

Correction, you're arrogant, meaning you like to claim that you're the only intelligent person in the room, but that's because the room is your arse and you're the only person in there (and it seems that you're in deep, sunshine).

The conclusion, even though I know you hate conclusions, is that you have nothing that I want and I have nothing that you want, so there is no reason for us to seek each other's company again.

I like where this is going.

I won't be back.

Freude, schöner Götterfunken*

Tochter aus Elysium,

Wir betreten feuertrunken,

Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!

Deine Zauber binden wieder

Was die Mode streng geteilt;

Alle Menschen werden Brüder,

Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

Wem der große Wurf gelungen,

Eines Freundes Freund zu sein;

Wer ein holdes Weib errungen,

Mische seinen Jubel ein!

Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele

Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund!

Und wer's nie gekonnt, der stehle

Weinend sich aus diesem Bund!

Freude trinken alle Wesen

An den Brüsten der Natur;

Alle Guten, alle Bösen

Folgen ihrer Rosenspur.

Küße gab sie uns und Reben,

Einen Freund, geprüft im Tod;

Wollust ward dem Wurm gegeben,

Und der Cherub steht vor Gott.

Vor Gott!

Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen

Durch des Himmels prächt'gen Plan,

Laufet, Brüder, eure Bahn,

Freudig, wie ein Held zum Siegen.

Seid umschlungen, Millionen!

Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!

Brüder, über'm Sternenzelt

Muss ein lieber Vater wohnen.

Ihr stürzt nieder, Millionen?

Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?

Such' ihn über'm Sternenzelt!

Über Sternen muss er wohnen.

Seid umschlungen, Millionen!

Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!

Brüder, über'm Sternenzelt

Muss ein lieber Vater wohnen.

Seid umschlungen,

Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!

Freude, schöner Götterfunken

Tochter aus Elysium,

Freude, schöner Götterfunken

Götterfunken!

B)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You know what's the first sign of know-nothingism?

Calling philosophy verbal juggling. After all, Jules himself admitted that he didn't know anything about philosophy, much less how to debate or formulate a coherent & substantial response, without resorting to ad hominem attacks or hand-waving belly laughs. :banghead:

Many of his posts were little more than the conversation-stopper variety, so there's no loss of his company. :wave:

One more thing: Jules probably won the title of most neg-repped poster on this board. For that alone we should create an award named after him, in his memory. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In This Thread: Trolls trolling trolls.

I like where this is going.

thread%20is%20going.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Does the wind blow cold up there on your lofty pedestal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

One more thing: Jules probably won the title of most neg-repped poster on this board. For that alone we should create an award named after him, in his memory. :cheers:

There should be a point where the rep rating goes from "bad" to "LOL @ this c**t."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

To be fair, this thread was doomed from the start and should have been locked before it got going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The votes are in and the choice is unanimous: the forum really is a circus and the members really are verbal jugglers and everybody really wants to keep it that way. You call your subject philosophy, but the only thing you tolerate is consensus. You all insist you don't want to stick to any hard meanings for your words or to pursue any particular conclusions in your discussions, because you don't want to be restricted in any way. No standards, and especially no excellence allowed. But then you got bent out of shape when I called you verbal jugglers and your forum a circus. Only one member took issue with the substance of my posts; he said "You're wrong!" One member accused me of being belligerent, as if it were my fault for provoking the ad hominem attacks. I'm not belligerent, I'm arrogant, meaning I'm right and I know it.

The conclusion, even though I know you hate conclusions, is that you have nothing that I want and I have nothing that you want, so there is no reason for us to seek each other's company again.

I won't be back.

This is a very strange post. It's only the third post of yours that I have read, and you'll have to pardon me for assuming that your knowledge is that gained from the Mise Institute. If this is correct, then I have to point out that while there are many debatable issues that the Mise Institute studies, glancing at some of them, what passes for "knowledge" is more or less made up history, made up economics, and a strange avoidance of anything resembling real scholarship. As the expression goes, We are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to make up facts.

On the questions you raise about discussions on economics such as the he minimum wage, you presented nothing to debate. You made a number of declarative sentences which can be summed up as saying, (pardon the quotes) "I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. If you don't believe me look at what the Mise Institute has to say."

I read their completely made up stories about the causes of the Civil War, and these were interesting fictions, presented as scholarship. Indeed it was almost trivially easy to discredit them. So easy, that it makes me question ANY "fact" presented by this institute on topics I'm less familiar with. I also read their debunking Krugman on the minimum wage and found the arguments incredibly weak, and more or less consisting of invented strawmen.

Personally I have no problem debating you, or anyone else, on any subject that I'm familiar with. But you don't seem to actually want to get into debate. You want to present everyone with a blueprint of "truth," and this blueprint is ready made, and ready to go at this institute.

If you cannot debate any subject by means other then saying, (pardon the quotes again) "I'm right, you people refuse to acknowledge that, I'm out of here," then of course you should leave.

But I challenge you to stay and actually get into real discussions, and where you find opinions devoid of worth, then puncture them in your own words, and not merely asking people to read the opinions of others, no matter how worthwhile you think they are.

Dave

Edited by Chato
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Chato, you're proof that this board can absorb different opinions and perspectives, even contradictory ones, and yet thrive on that. You may have had a rocky start, but you've actually became our best poster recently. Great post.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Chato, you're proof that this board can absorb different opinions and perspectives, even contradictory ones, and yet thrive on that. You may have had a rocky start, but you've actually became our best poster recently. Great post.

I'm sure Mr. Vern could contribute to this site, even though I probably disagree with many of his views. But he seems to have the attitude, that if an opinion doesn't mesh with his institute, then it's automatically false. There are many forms of religion, and any political theory risks becoming a religion, once it's "truths" are not open to discussion. I should know, I'm a Marxist, and it's obvious that many Marxists have "got religion." It would appear that such is the case here with Mr. Vern.

He really should reconsider both his decision and his attitude. Who knows? Maybe he could change some of my views?

On another note, did you notice the ratings for Michio's poster on the other thread? Looks like zero? Click on the rating... :D

While I haven't been here that long, never saw this before... :)

Dave

Edited by Chato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0