What topics interest you? page 1
ksen
8th February 2012, 08:56 PM
I just saw grumps/gramps/cramps/whoever just bemoan the lack of threads in which to sink his teeth into. What topics do you guys like to talk about?
I'd be happy to look for interesting stories every now and then if I know what sorts to look out for.
I'd be happy to look for interesting stories every now and then if I know what sorts to look out for.
oblivion
8th February 2012, 09:07 PM
non-dry philosophy topics seem to be of interest. pop sci, also. so far, the politics forum hasn't really hit its stride. may be due to membership size and homogeneity.
Adenosine
8th February 2012, 09:18 PM
If Grumps wants threads to sink his teeth into he can start them.
I also like pop-sci. I like ethical dilemmas. I like getting my rant on about stuff like religion in schools and breastfeeding and women's rights. I like OWS.
I also like pop-sci. I like ethical dilemmas. I like getting my rant on about stuff like religion in schools and breastfeeding and women's rights. I like OWS.
Jerome
9th February 2012, 12:27 AM
I like ethical dilemmas.
would you save either your wife or your child to the detriment of the other?
would you save either your wife or your child to the detriment of the other?
nick
9th February 2012, 02:10 AM
If I had to choose between my wife and my child, I'd just kill them both.
O'b. J. Darte
9th February 2012, 02:58 AM
non-dry philosophy topics seem to be of interest. pop sci, also. so far, the politics forum hasn't really hit its stride. may be due to membership size and homogeneity.
Homogeneity? What sort of characteristics do the membership share?
Homogeneity? What sort of characteristics do the membership share?
oblivion
9th February 2012, 03:01 AM
non-dry philosophy topics seem to be of interest. pop sci, also. so far, the politics forum hasn't really hit its stride. may be due to membership size and homogeneity.
Homogeneity? What sort of characteristics do the membership share?
mostly first world, mostly atheist/agnostic, mostly liberal. There are a few libertarians, a few theists, etc., the politics forum would be an echo chamber on most topics right now. As we learn more about each other the anarcho-syndicalists may slug it out with the socialists in a few threads. :grin:
Homogeneity? What sort of characteristics do the membership share?
mostly first world, mostly atheist/agnostic, mostly liberal. There are a few libertarians, a few theists, etc., the politics forum would be an echo chamber on most topics right now. As we learn more about each other the anarcho-syndicalists may slug it out with the socialists in a few threads. :grin:
O'b. J. Darte
9th February 2012, 03:05 AM
My politics are boring. I vote democrat and ignore the media.
borealis
9th February 2012, 03:37 AM
I'm here for the pop-sci, the art/music/culture, occasionally social issues, a bit of theology babble if it shows up...
I'd like to see more nature oriented threads, so I may start some - birding, fish, bears, wolves, frogs, insects, plants, etc.
and the mafia games.
O'b, do you play mafia? Happy to have you join in.
I'd like to see more nature oriented threads, so I may start some - birding, fish, bears, wolves, frogs, insects, plants, etc.
and the mafia games.
O'b, do you play mafia? Happy to have you join in.
charlou
9th February 2012, 03:49 AM
Suggestion: Debates ... formal and/or fun debates, I mean ... Two people could be selected from a group of those who are interested and a random topic given, and each of the two told whether they're arguing for or against. General membership poll on who makes the best argument. Maybe a series of debates ... a tournament ...
Jerome
9th February 2012, 03:52 AM
I will debate, but I insist that I have the side that I have some agreement with.
:blinksmile:
:blinksmile:
Adenosine
9th February 2012, 04:09 AM
I like ethical dilemmas.
would you save either your wife or your child to the detriment of the other?
My daughter. I'll never have another one.
would you save either your wife or your child to the detriment of the other?
My daughter. I'll never have another one.
Jerome
9th February 2012, 04:11 AM
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Free Falling
9th February 2012, 04:12 AM
Normally, just about anything short of philosophical masturbation and pop culture interests me.
I'm abnormally bitchy these days. That means I don't have the patience for anything exceeding 2 paragraphs.
I think I'm overdue for a good fuck.
I'm abnormally bitchy these days. That means I don't have the patience for anything exceeding 2 paragraphs.
I think I'm overdue for a good fuck.
FedUpWithFaith
9th February 2012, 04:12 AM
Suggestion: Debates ... formal and/or fun debates, I mean ... Two people could be selected from a group of those who are interested and a random topic given, and each of the two told whether they're arguing for or against. General membership poll on who makes the best argument. Maybe a series of debates ... a tournament ...
I'm always up for that. I love to debate. We've seen that in other forums and it can be quite fun. I've done it.
Call it "Thunderdome"
"Two men enter, one man leaves."
May need to goose up the language for the ladies.
BTW: I'd be happy to debate a side I don't believe in.
I'm always up for that. I love to debate. We've seen that in other forums and it can be quite fun. I've done it.
Call it "Thunderdome"
"Two men enter, one man leaves."
May need to goose up the language for the ladies.
BTW: I'd be happy to debate a side I don't believe in.
Jerome
9th February 2012, 04:17 AM
Call it "Thunderdome"
:nada:
:nada:
Jerome
9th February 2012, 04:18 AM
We need a pool of members willing to debate, and we need a pool of debate topics.
Adenosine
9th February 2012, 04:22 AM
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person to save five?
Would you kill one person to save five?
Jerome
9th February 2012, 04:23 AM
No
FedUpWithFaith
9th February 2012, 04:23 AM
I like ethical dilemmas.
would you save either your wife or your child to the detriment of the other?
We've actually had this hypothetical discussion in my family. My wife would die instead of either one of my sons. She'd demand it. And if I didn't save both sons and saved her instead, she'd be such a bitch to live with afterwards that I'd probably have to kill her anyway.
would you save either your wife or your child to the detriment of the other?
We've actually had this hypothetical discussion in my family. My wife would die instead of either one of my sons. She'd demand it. And if I didn't save both sons and saved her instead, she'd be such a bitch to live with afterwards that I'd probably have to kill her anyway.
Jerome
9th February 2012, 04:25 AM
i have not assurance that my action in killing a person will for a surety save five other people\
FedUpWithFaith
9th February 2012, 04:32 AM
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person to save five?
That depends.
Will I get in any trouble?
Is death certain for the 5 unless I kill the 1?
How much do I know about the nature of these people [e.g., that some are serial killers, doctors, politicians, etc.]
What race and nationality are the 5 people vs the 1?
Which of the 6 is the cutest lady and how grateful would she be if I didn't kill her or saved her? What is her bra size?
Would you kill one person to save five?
That depends.
Will I get in any trouble?
Is death certain for the 5 unless I kill the 1?
How much do I know about the nature of these people [e.g., that some are serial killers, doctors, politicians, etc.]
What race and nationality are the 5 people vs the 1?
Which of the 6 is the cutest lady and how grateful would she be if I didn't kill her or saved her? What is her bra size?
Adenosine
9th February 2012, 04:39 AM
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person to save five?
That depends.
Will I get in any trouble?
Is death certain for the 5 unless I kill the 1?
How much do I know about the nature of these people [e.g., that some are serial killers, doctors, politicians, etc.]
What race and nationality are the 5 people vs the 1?
Which of the 6 is the cutest lady and how grateful would she be if I didn't kill her or saved her? What is her bra size?
Maybe, depends how zealous the Prosecutor is.
You know nothing.
Irrelevant.
The eighty year old grandmother and when her breasts are in one place they're an E-cup. Otherwise they're a metre long.
Would you kill one person to save five?
That depends.
Will I get in any trouble?
Is death certain for the 5 unless I kill the 1?
How much do I know about the nature of these people [e.g., that some are serial killers, doctors, politicians, etc.]
What race and nationality are the 5 people vs the 1?
Which of the 6 is the cutest lady and how grateful would she be if I didn't kill her or saved her? What is her bra size?
Maybe, depends how zealous the Prosecutor is.
You know nothing.
Irrelevant.
The eighty year old grandmother and when her breasts are in one place they're an E-cup. Otherwise they're a metre long.
FedUpWithFaith
9th February 2012, 04:50 AM
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person to save five?
That depends.
Will I get in any trouble?
Is death certain for the 5 unless I kill the 1?
How much do I know about the nature of these people [e.g., that some are serial killers, doctors, politicians, etc.]
What race and nationality are the 5 people vs the 1?
Which of the 6 is the cutest lady and how grateful would she be if I didn't kill her or saved her? What is her bra size?
Maybe, depends how zealous the Prosecutor is.
You know nothing.
Irrelevant.
The eighty year old grandmother and when her breasts are in one place they're an E-cup. Otherwise they're a metre long.
This is easy to answer if I risk even the slightest trouble. The five can croak. I don't care how nice their tits are.
But I wouldn't tell that to the beautiful lady with big tits I would have had to kill to save the 5. I'd be SO "concerned" that there might be little kids among the 5. It would look like a terribly difficult discision.
Would you kill one person to save five?
That depends.
Will I get in any trouble?
Is death certain for the 5 unless I kill the 1?
How much do I know about the nature of these people [e.g., that some are serial killers, doctors, politicians, etc.]
What race and nationality are the 5 people vs the 1?
Which of the 6 is the cutest lady and how grateful would she be if I didn't kill her or saved her? What is her bra size?
Maybe, depends how zealous the Prosecutor is.
You know nothing.
Irrelevant.
The eighty year old grandmother and when her breasts are in one place they're an E-cup. Otherwise they're a metre long.
This is easy to answer if I risk even the slightest trouble. The five can croak. I don't care how nice their tits are.
But I wouldn't tell that to the beautiful lady with big tits I would have had to kill to save the 5. I'd be SO "concerned" that there might be little kids among the 5. It would look like a terribly difficult discision.
Magicziggy
9th February 2012, 08:19 AM
This dilemma is sometimes pitched as a runaway train heading towards five innocent bystanders unable to avoid certain death. You are able to divert the train onto a another track on which a solitary innocent is trapped and will certainly die.
Would you?
Would you?
nick
9th February 2012, 01:56 PM
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person
Yes
Would you kill one person
Yes
ksen
9th February 2012, 03:21 PM
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person
Yes
Only one?
Would you kill one person
Yes
Only one?
borealis
9th February 2012, 03:39 PM
I think we should pre-emptively kill nick before he kills us all.
Hermit
9th February 2012, 03:44 PM
I think we should pre-emptively kill nick before he kills us all.Who is "nick"? :??:
borealis
9th February 2012, 03:55 PM
I think we should pre-emptively kill nick before he kills us all.Who is "nick"? :??:
This is nick.
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person
Yes
Some of us have known nick for a long time. He often offers to kill people. He must be very good at it since he never gets caught. :sherlock:
This is nick.
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person
Yes
Some of us have known nick for a long time. He often offers to kill people. He must be very good at it since he never gets caught. :sherlock:
Hermit
9th February 2012, 04:00 PM
Sorry. Still can't see a nick. I wonder if that has anything to do with my index finger on the scroll wheel.
borealis
9th February 2012, 04:16 PM
Sorry. Still can't see a nick. I wonder if that has anything to do with my index finger on the scroll wheel.
Now now. Nick is as real as you or I. No need to de-humanise him just because he can be freakishly alienating at times.
Now now. Nick is as real as you or I. No need to de-humanise him just because he can be freakishly alienating at times.
Sugreeva
9th February 2012, 04:24 PM
This dilemma is sometimes pitched as a runaway train heading towards five innocent bystanders unable to avoid certain death. You are able to divert the train onto a another track on which a solitary innocent is trapped and will certainly die.
Would you?
I would arrange it so everyone dies. That way my conscience would be clear.
Would you?
I would arrange it so everyone dies. That way my conscience would be clear.
Hermit
9th February 2012, 04:36 PM
Sorry. Still can't see a nick. I wonder if that has anything to do with my index finger on the scroll wheel.
Now now. Nick is as real as you or I. No need to de-humanise him just because he can be freakishly alienating at times.
Where did I say or imply that a nick is not human? Would you say the same thing if I told you that I quickly learnt to scroll past posts by Bartholomew Roberts?
Now now. Nick is as real as you or I. No need to de-humanise him just because he can be freakishly alienating at times.
Where did I say or imply that a nick is not human? Would you say the same thing if I told you that I quickly learnt to scroll past posts by Bartholomew Roberts?
borealis
9th February 2012, 04:43 PM
I would understand your behaviour, but still think it's somewhat dehumanising to pretend someone doesn't exist. :happyno:
Hermit
9th February 2012, 05:37 PM
From "dehumanising" to "somewhat dehumanising" in two posts. Looks promising. Maybe we can work on this until we settle for "ignoring someone whose posts are a waste of time."
borealis
9th February 2012, 05:41 PM
From "dehumanising" to "somewhat dehumanising" in two posts. Looks promising. Maybe we can work on this until we settle for "ignoring someone whose posts are a waste of time."
I might be amenable to that sort of compromise.
I am sometimes amused by nick. I particularly like his current avatar choice, for example.
I might be amenable to that sort of compromise.
I am sometimes amused by nick. I particularly like his current avatar choice, for example.
Hermit
9th February 2012, 05:52 PM
I am sometimes amused by nick.
Who is "nick"? :??:
:p
Who is "nick"? :??:
:p
Izdaari
9th February 2012, 06:07 PM
Suggestion: Debates ... formal and/or fun debates, I mean ... Two people could be selected from a group of those who are interested and a random topic given, and each of the two told whether they're arguing for or against. General membership poll on who makes the best argument. Maybe a series of debates ... a tournament ...
I'm always up for that. I love to debate. We've seen that in other forums and it can be quite fun. I've done it.
Call it "Thunderdome"
"Two men enter, one man leaves."
May need to goose up the language for the ladies.
BTW: I'd be happy to debate a side I don't believe in.
I think it was always understood that women could compete at Thunderdome. Although I don't remember it saying so in the story, I've always suspected winning at Thunderdome was how the ruler got/kept her position.
I'm always up for that. I love to debate. We've seen that in other forums and it can be quite fun. I've done it.
Call it "Thunderdome"
"Two men enter, one man leaves."
May need to goose up the language for the ladies.
BTW: I'd be happy to debate a side I don't believe in.
I think it was always understood that women could compete at Thunderdome. Although I don't remember it saying so in the story, I've always suspected winning at Thunderdome was how the ruler got/kept her position.
FedUpWithFaith
9th February 2012, 06:42 PM
Suggestion: Debates ... formal and/or fun debates, I mean ... Two people could be selected from a group of those who are interested and a random topic given, and each of the two told whether they're arguing for or against. General membership poll on who makes the best argument. Maybe a series of debates ... a tournament ...
I'm always up for that. I love to debate. We've seen that in other forums and it can be quite fun. I've done it.
Call it "Thunderdome"
"Two men enter, one man leaves."
May need to goose up the language for the ladies.
BTW: I'd be happy to debate a side I don't believe in.
I think it was always understood that women could compete at Thunderdome. Although I don't remember it saying so in the story, I've always suspected winning at Thunderdome was how the ruler got/kept her position.
Probably. But she may have used a male surrogate sort of like Master did with Blaster though they were treated as one person. So I guess it was three men enter (or maybe even 2.5 men), 2 men (1.5 men?) leave?
OK, sorry, I have a tendency to get embarassingly over-analytical:hehe:
I'm always up for that. I love to debate. We've seen that in other forums and it can be quite fun. I've done it.
Call it "Thunderdome"
"Two men enter, one man leaves."
May need to goose up the language for the ladies.
BTW: I'd be happy to debate a side I don't believe in.
I think it was always understood that women could compete at Thunderdome. Although I don't remember it saying so in the story, I've always suspected winning at Thunderdome was how the ruler got/kept her position.
Probably. But she may have used a male surrogate sort of like Master did with Blaster though they were treated as one person. So I guess it was three men enter (or maybe even 2.5 men), 2 men (1.5 men?) leave?
OK, sorry, I have a tendency to get embarassingly over-analytical:hehe:
Sugreeva
9th February 2012, 09:22 PM
No, just embarassing.
hadespussercats
12th February 2012, 06:21 AM
I think we should pre-emptively kill nick before he kills us all.Who is "nick"? :??:
This is nick.
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person
Yes
Some of us have known nick for a long time. He often offers to kill people. He must be very good at it since he never gets caught. :sherlock:
You are Nick?
I'd kill that one person if I thought he or she was really terrible, in order to save five. Or if that one person wanted to die-- I'd kill him or her then.
But if they're all the same to me, I wouldn't kill any (which would mean most of them die, but ah well. Sometimes I need a reason to take initiative.) Generally I think killing people is wrong-- even if it may be for "the greater good."
As for my husband vs. my child (who would I save?) he and I have discussed it, and he knows I would save our baby, because 1. he couldn't save himself, while J probably could, and 2. because saving my child's life and making sure he makes it safely to adulthood is the most basic definition of my job as a mother.
Wait. Someone else wrote something I wanted to respond to. Oh well.
This is nick.
Your turn to ask an ethical dilemma.
Would you kill one person
Yes
Some of us have known nick for a long time. He often offers to kill people. He must be very good at it since he never gets caught. :sherlock:
You are Nick?
I'd kill that one person if I thought he or she was really terrible, in order to save five. Or if that one person wanted to die-- I'd kill him or her then.
But if they're all the same to me, I wouldn't kill any (which would mean most of them die, but ah well. Sometimes I need a reason to take initiative.) Generally I think killing people is wrong-- even if it may be for "the greater good."
As for my husband vs. my child (who would I save?) he and I have discussed it, and he knows I would save our baby, because 1. he couldn't save himself, while J probably could, and 2. because saving my child's life and making sure he makes it safely to adulthood is the most basic definition of my job as a mother.
Wait. Someone else wrote something I wanted to respond to. Oh well.
hadespussercats
12th February 2012, 06:23 AM
Oh! I remember now!
This thread makes me laugh because "Thunderdome" is our name for the baby's playmat.
This thread makes me laugh because "Thunderdome" is our name for the baby's playmat.
Supernaut
12th February 2012, 07:08 AM
I love to talk about 4wd's/4x4's etc. I also do not mind religion and general discussion topics. News and current events is interesting as well.
PermanentlyEphemeral
12th February 2012, 11:46 PM
Sorry. Still can't see a nick. I wonder if that has anything to do with my index finger on the scroll wheel.
Nick is Nick's nick.
Actually Bartholomew Robert's is Nick's nick and Nick is his name.
But here he doesn't use his nick, he uses Nick his name.
Nick is Nick's nick.
Actually Bartholomew Robert's is Nick's nick and Nick is his name.
But here he doesn't use his nick, he uses Nick his name.
Gallstones
13th February 2012, 10:20 PM
Suggestion: Debates ... formal and/or fun debates, I mean ... Two people could be selected from a group of those who are interested and a random topic given, and each of the two told whether they're arguing for or against. General membership poll on who makes the best argument. Maybe a series of debates ... a tournament ...
I like this for an idea.
I like this for an idea.
Daphne Girl
13th February 2012, 10:24 PM
If I had to choose between my wife and my child, I'd just kill them both.
Good thing you have neither. Do you even have a girlfriend?
Good thing you have neither. Do you even have a girlfriend?
Floppit
13th February 2012, 10:27 PM
I like soft philosophy - less complicated than the hard core stuff but enough to make me think about stuff. Anything that gets me to reassess something I took as read is good.
Apart from that I guess I like threads about society, kids and I'd love some really meaty ones about horses but that's ridiculous, a counter culture to the horse culture, a bull with tits!
The last bit will never happen and was added just to fuel jokes about my weirdness and gratuitous sexual innuendo...
Apart from that I guess I like threads about society, kids and I'd love some really meaty ones about horses but that's ridiculous, a counter culture to the horse culture, a bull with tits!
The last bit will never happen and was added just to fuel jokes about my weirdness and gratuitous sexual innuendo...
ksen
13th February 2012, 10:35 PM
If I had to choose between my wife and my child, I'd just kill them both.
Good thing you have neither. Do you even have a girlfriend?
He used to have a wife . . . then he sacrificed her and cannibalised her corpse.
Good thing you have neither. Do you even have a girlfriend?
He used to have a wife . . . then he sacrificed her and cannibalised her corpse.
FedUpWithFaith
13th February 2012, 11:45 PM
Suggestion: Debates ... formal and/or fun debates, I mean ... Two people could be selected from a group of those who are interested and a random topic given, and each of the two told whether they're arguing for or against. General membership poll on who makes the best argument. Maybe a series of debates ... a tournament ...
I like this for an idea.
Let the first debate be if we should have another debate.
I like this for an idea.
Let the first debate be if we should have another debate.
O'b. J. Darte
14th February 2012, 02:15 AM
Sounds like work.
Mr. Mellow
14th February 2012, 04:43 AM
I'm just here for shits and giggles. I'm rarely comfortable with expressing my opinion or position on anything but the most fluffy subjects, and take pains to stay fray-adjacent. I do enjoy simply reading discussions on just about any topic (i.e., lurking, as I feel I have more to learn than offer), especially when they don't break down into pissing contests, or when a sincerely posted thread immediately breaks down into a sarcasm-fest, with little or no discussion of the OP's subject (I've seen this happen a lot on Ratz). A thoughtful and level-headed conversation, with the occasional moment of levity, is a thing of beauty.
The subjects I like the most are personal stories, member-contributed visual art and craftwork photos, poetry and fiction, funny shit, miscellaneous personal interests, etc.
The closest I'd likely come to posting or starting a thread in the Discussion and Debate area would be to simply ask a question for personal edification. My next and only contribution to the thread after that would likely be, "cool, thanks." :yes: :o
I also have a morbid interest in seeing the occasional fundamentalist theist get eaten alive. Probably the longest I've ever stayed in a non-fluffy thread was trying to get a Muslim on RD.net to tell me why it's ok for a 50-year old man to marry a pre-pubescent girl, but he just ignored me, so I gave up. :sadcheer:
The subjects I like the most are personal stories, member-contributed visual art and craftwork photos, poetry and fiction, funny shit, miscellaneous personal interests, etc.
The closest I'd likely come to posting or starting a thread in the Discussion and Debate area would be to simply ask a question for personal edification. My next and only contribution to the thread after that would likely be, "cool, thanks." :yes: :o
I also have a morbid interest in seeing the occasional fundamentalist theist get eaten alive. Probably the longest I've ever stayed in a non-fluffy thread was trying to get a Muslim on RD.net to tell me why it's ok for a 50-year old man to marry a pre-pubescent girl, but he just ignored me, so I gave up. :sadcheer:
Izdaari
14th February 2012, 05:02 PM
I like courteous and non-adversarial conversation about philosophy, theology, politics, history, and stuff like that. I have a sense of humor and like funny posts, but not content-free pursuit of lulz. It's all about the signal-to-noise ratio.
Exi5tentialist
14th February 2012, 08:46 PM
I like courteous and non-adversarial conversation about philosophy, theology, politics, history, and stuff like that. I have a sense of humor and like funny posts, but not content-free pursuit of lulz. It's all about the signal-to-noise ratio.
A non-adversarial conversation about politics?
What's that?
A non-adversarial conversation about politics?
What's that?
O'b. J. Darte
14th February 2012, 09:59 PM
I'm just here for shits and giggles. I'm rarely comfortable with expressing my opinion or position on anything but the most fluffy subjects, and take pains to stay fray-adjacent. I do enjoy simply reading discussions on just about any topic (i.e., lurking, as I feel I have more to learn than offer), especially when they don't break down into pissing contests, or when a sincerely posted thread immediately breaks down into a sarcasm-fest, with little or no discussion of the OP's subject (I've seen this happen a lot on Ratz). A thoughtful and level-headed conversation, with the occasional moment of levity, is a thing of beauty.
The subjects I like the most are personal stories, member-contributed visual art and craftwork photos, poetry and fiction, funny shit, miscellaneous personal interests, etc.
The closest I'd likely come to posting or starting a thread in the Discussion and Debate area would be to simply ask a question for personal edification. My next and only contribution to the thread after that would likely be, "cool, thanks." :yes: :o
I also have a morbid interest in seeing the occasional fundamentalist theist get eaten alive. Probably the longest I've ever stayed in a non-fluffy thread was trying to get a Muslim on RD.net to tell me why it's ok for a 50-year old man to marry a pre-pubescent girl, but he just ignored me, so I gave up. :sadcheer:
RD.net banned me for being a sock of someone I didn't know. They let me sign back up but made me use a different user name. Weird.
The subjects I like the most are personal stories, member-contributed visual art and craftwork photos, poetry and fiction, funny shit, miscellaneous personal interests, etc.
The closest I'd likely come to posting or starting a thread in the Discussion and Debate area would be to simply ask a question for personal edification. My next and only contribution to the thread after that would likely be, "cool, thanks." :yes: :o
I also have a morbid interest in seeing the occasional fundamentalist theist get eaten alive. Probably the longest I've ever stayed in a non-fluffy thread was trying to get a Muslim on RD.net to tell me why it's ok for a 50-year old man to marry a pre-pubescent girl, but he just ignored me, so I gave up. :sadcheer:
RD.net banned me for being a sock of someone I didn't know. They let me sign back up but made me use a different user name. Weird.
Mr. Mellow
14th February 2012, 10:08 PM
That is weird. That forum was a bit schizophrenic due to inconsistent admin decisions/edicts, as I recall. RatSkept is slightly less so, but many of the good mods have quit, and I don't spend enough time there to know now to have a feel for the place.
Izdaari
15th February 2012, 01:30 AM
I like courteous and non-adversarial conversation about philosophy, theology, politics, history, and stuff like that. I have a sense of humor and like funny posts, but not content-free pursuit of lulz. It's all about the signal-to-noise ratio.
A non-adversarial conversation about politics?
What's that?
I don't mind people arguing for their positions, even when they're totally opposite and strongly felt. I just want it to be an argument between friends, not enemies.
Once I saw Rush Limbaugh and Phil Donahue do just exactly that. It was on Phil's old daytime talk show. He had Rush on as the sole guest, and the two of them argued politics with passion and intensity, but with civility and fairness for the whole show. They both totally knew their stuff and were well matched, and they genuinely seemed to like and respect each other. I really enjoyed that, and gained respect for both of them.
A non-adversarial conversation about politics?
What's that?
I don't mind people arguing for their positions, even when they're totally opposite and strongly felt. I just want it to be an argument between friends, not enemies.
Once I saw Rush Limbaugh and Phil Donahue do just exactly that. It was on Phil's old daytime talk show. He had Rush on as the sole guest, and the two of them argued politics with passion and intensity, but with civility and fairness for the whole show. They both totally knew their stuff and were well matched, and they genuinely seemed to like and respect each other. I really enjoyed that, and gained respect for both of them.
charlou
15th February 2012, 02:25 PM
I like courteous and non-adversarial conversation about philosophy, theology, politics, history, and stuff like that. I have a sense of humor and like funny posts, but not content-free pursuit of lulz. It's all about the signal-to-noise ratio.
Would like to see you join in the debates I suggested earlier.
Will start a thread in the next few days on that idea .. see if it takes wing ... :)
Would like to see you join in the debates I suggested earlier.
Will start a thread in the next few days on that idea .. see if it takes wing ... :)
Hermit
15th February 2012, 02:26 PM
I like soft philosophy - less complicated than the hard core stuff...Modal logic is out then? Plantinga will be miffed. He uses it to prove that the christian god exists. Modal logic, according to him, asserts that if something is possibly true, it is necessarily true. And he gets paid for coming up with stuff like that.
This is one area of topics I am interested in: the absurdities people come up with without losing sufficient standing to be relegated by everyone to the heap of irrelevant people.
This is one area of topics I am interested in: the absurdities people come up with without losing sufficient standing to be relegated by everyone to the heap of irrelevant people.
charlou
15th February 2012, 02:27 PM
:sadcheer:
FedUpWithFaith
15th February 2012, 04:44 PM
I like soft philosophy - less complicated than the hard core stuff...Modal logic is out then? Plantinga will be miffed. He uses it to prove that the christian god exists. Modal logic, according to him, asserts that if something is possibly true, it is necessarily true. And he gets paid for coming up with stuff like that.
This is one area of topics I am interested in: the absurdities people come up with without losing sufficient standing to be relegated by everyone to the heap of irrelevant people.
This is a very interesting topic. You and I enjoy many of the same absurdities in philosophy I think and the fools people make of themselves in the process (myself included sometimes). Perhaps I go a step further simply because I enjoy the unanswerable curious questions, the mental game, and the logical argument even though much of the enterprise is useless or worse.
At the end of the day, I would credit the philosopher Wittgenstien at basically getting the gist of philosophy right in the sense that I'd guess that over 90% of philosophy cunnumdrums are rooted purely in language semantics. The remainder of unanswerable questions are probably undecideable (in the same deep sense as Godel's theorem's undecideability) but don't make that realization rigorously derivable because of the limitations of language or because we haven't been smart enough to figure out how yet.
Modal Logic is a somewhat special case as it tries to be as rigorously mathematical as possible, relying mostly or entirely on tight symbolic thinking rather than language. Yet we have Plantinga and the last time I checked, even atheist model logicians had not clearly spotted his mistakes (except in some earlier versions) yet intuitively we all "know' you can't prove God from pure logic, language, or symbols. The mistake must be one of extraordinary subtlety and I think we always learn something useful from those. If it hasn't been discovered already, the flaw likely lies in the initial semantic assumptions/initial conditions which look perfectly reasonable, but turn out not to be.
This is one area of topics I am interested in: the absurdities people come up with without losing sufficient standing to be relegated by everyone to the heap of irrelevant people.
This is a very interesting topic. You and I enjoy many of the same absurdities in philosophy I think and the fools people make of themselves in the process (myself included sometimes). Perhaps I go a step further simply because I enjoy the unanswerable curious questions, the mental game, and the logical argument even though much of the enterprise is useless or worse.
At the end of the day, I would credit the philosopher Wittgenstien at basically getting the gist of philosophy right in the sense that I'd guess that over 90% of philosophy cunnumdrums are rooted purely in language semantics. The remainder of unanswerable questions are probably undecideable (in the same deep sense as Godel's theorem's undecideability) but don't make that realization rigorously derivable because of the limitations of language or because we haven't been smart enough to figure out how yet.
Modal Logic is a somewhat special case as it tries to be as rigorously mathematical as possible, relying mostly or entirely on tight symbolic thinking rather than language. Yet we have Plantinga and the last time I checked, even atheist model logicians had not clearly spotted his mistakes (except in some earlier versions) yet intuitively we all "know' you can't prove God from pure logic, language, or symbols. The mistake must be one of extraordinary subtlety and I think we always learn something useful from those. If it hasn't been discovered already, the flaw likely lies in the initial semantic assumptions/initial conditions which look perfectly reasonable, but turn out not to be.
Hermit
15th February 2012, 11:10 PM
Modal Logic is a somewhat special case as it tries to be as rigorously mathematical as possible, relying mostly or entirely on tight symbolic thinking rather than language. Yet we have Plantinga...
Exactly. Look at Axiom S5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_S5), and explain to me the mathematical rigour of it. (Haha. Rhetorical question.) No wonder you can use it to prove the existence of the christian god.
I think ordinary logical conclusions that turn out to be wrong, are so because either at least one premiss is wrong, or someone made a mistake in applying logic. Modal logic, or at least Axiom S5, is different in so far as it is broken at the core. What gets me is that people still bother spending time on it, and even more so, that they are listened to after they have already gone way past discussing the borked foundation and onto building huge constructs based on that utterly nonsensical core.
My rant might give you the impression that topics themselves like modal logic interest me. Let me assure you, that is not the case.
Exactly. Look at Axiom S5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_S5), and explain to me the mathematical rigour of it. (Haha. Rhetorical question.) No wonder you can use it to prove the existence of the christian god.
I think ordinary logical conclusions that turn out to be wrong, are so because either at least one premiss is wrong, or someone made a mistake in applying logic. Modal logic, or at least Axiom S5, is different in so far as it is broken at the core. What gets me is that people still bother spending time on it, and even more so, that they are listened to after they have already gone way past discussing the borked foundation and onto building huge constructs based on that utterly nonsensical core.
My rant might give you the impression that topics themselves like modal logic interest me. Let me assure you, that is not the case.
FedUpWithFaith
15th February 2012, 11:53 PM
Ah yes, you're right, Seraph. Been a long time since I looked at this or forgot about it. Not worth troubling about.
Izdaari
16th February 2012, 01:28 AM
I like courteous and non-adversarial conversation about philosophy, theology, politics, history, and stuff like that. I have a sense of humor and like funny posts, but not content-free pursuit of lulz. It's all about the signal-to-noise ratio.
Would like to see you join in the debates I suggested earlier.
Will start a thread in the next few days on that idea .. see if it takes wing ... :)
If you mean the one on one formal debates? Ah, no, totally not my thing, sorry. Friends exchanging views over coffee or beers is what I want, not folks at podiums performing for the judges.
Would like to see you join in the debates I suggested earlier.
Will start a thread in the next few days on that idea .. see if it takes wing ... :)
If you mean the one on one formal debates? Ah, no, totally not my thing, sorry. Friends exchanging views over coffee or beers is what I want, not folks at podiums performing for the judges.
Mantisdreamz
16th February 2012, 01:45 AM
I'm just here for shits and giggles. I'm rarely comfortable with expressing my opinion or position on anything but the most fluffy subjects, and take pains to stay fray-adjacent. I do enjoy simply reading discussions on just about any topic (i.e., lurking, as I feel I have more to learn than offer), especially when they don't break down into pissing contests, or when a sincerely posted thread immediately breaks down into a sarcasm-fest, with little or no discussion of the OP's subject (I've seen this happen a lot on Ratz). A thoughtful and level-headed conversation, with the occasional moment of levity, is a thing of beauty.
The subjects I like the most are personal stories, member-contributed visual art and craftwork photos, poetry and fiction, funny shit, miscellaneous personal interests, etc.
The closest I'd likely come to posting or starting a thread in the Discussion and Debate area would be to simply ask a question for personal edification. My next and only contribution to the thread after that would likely be, "cool, thanks." :yes: :o
:hug:
I mostly like the fluffy social threads as well. People's stories of something that happened to them that day. Also like the music forum, listening to others picks (learned about many new artists that way).
Also, anything to do with Psychology or Neuroscience. General science too, but mostly will just read from the sidelines without participating too much.
One thing i like about ratskep is the Parenting forum. People asking for advice, or sharing their stories. It's interesting.
Other than that, i like the art and book forums that they have there too.
The subjects I like the most are personal stories, member-contributed visual art and craftwork photos, poetry and fiction, funny shit, miscellaneous personal interests, etc.
The closest I'd likely come to posting or starting a thread in the Discussion and Debate area would be to simply ask a question for personal edification. My next and only contribution to the thread after that would likely be, "cool, thanks." :yes: :o
:hug:
I mostly like the fluffy social threads as well. People's stories of something that happened to them that day. Also like the music forum, listening to others picks (learned about many new artists that way).
Also, anything to do with Psychology or Neuroscience. General science too, but mostly will just read from the sidelines without participating too much.
One thing i like about ratskep is the Parenting forum. People asking for advice, or sharing their stories. It's interesting.
Other than that, i like the art and book forums that they have there too.
charlou
16th February 2012, 09:11 AM
I like courteous and non-adversarial conversation about philosophy, theology, politics, history, and stuff like that. I have a sense of humor and like funny posts, but not content-free pursuit of lulz. It's all about the signal-to-noise ratio.
Would like to see you join in the debates I suggested earlier.
Will start a thread in the next few days on that idea .. see if it takes wing ... :)
If you mean the one on one formal debates? Ah, no, totally not my thing, sorry. Friends exchanging views over coffee or beers is what I want, not folks at podiums performing for the judges.
No worries, and yes, I like that too. :)
I can see by the minimal interest since I raised it in this thread that it's probably not going to be worth starting a thread on it.
Would like to see you join in the debates I suggested earlier.
Will start a thread in the next few days on that idea .. see if it takes wing ... :)
If you mean the one on one formal debates? Ah, no, totally not my thing, sorry. Friends exchanging views over coffee or beers is what I want, not folks at podiums performing for the judges.
No worries, and yes, I like that too. :)
I can see by the minimal interest since I raised it in this thread that it's probably not going to be worth starting a thread on it.
Grumps
16th February 2012, 04:18 PM
I just saw grumps/gramps/cramps/whoever just bemoan the lack of threads in which to sink his teeth into. What topics do you guys like to talk about?
I'd be happy to look for interesting stories every now and then if I know what sorts to look out for.
Wait... what?
When did I say this?
I'd be happy to look for interesting stories every now and then if I know what sorts to look out for.
Wait... what?
When did I say this?
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét