Why Do You Write Opposing Answers?

[Heyo]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?
Do you assume bad intentions, like the interlocutor wanting to dominate or censor you?
Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

When I post a hypothesis, I want it to be dissected and the errors pointed out so that I can learn from it and refine or discard the hypothesis. Using the golden rule, I assume others want the same. I'm just helping when I criticise.
Is that wrong?

Debate me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?
Do you assume bad intentions, like the interlocutor wanting to dominate or censor you?
Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

When I post a hypothesis, I want it to be dissected and the errors pointed out so that I can learn from it and refine or discard the hypothesis. Using the golden rule, I assume others want the same. I'm just helping when I criticise.
Is that wrong?

Debate me.

I'm genuinely interested in all topics (rather) I question. When I continue to ask questions of said answers others think it's a debate.

Believe me or not but I don't have many thread posts were I actively wished to debate. Most topics I don't know scholarly about other than experiences and interpretations from them.

So, it's a touch and go. Maybe I get lucky. Depend (auto spell) on the topic and how close people are touchy about it to insult...literal insult. I'd have to learn to cut it short cause when it happens it's highly irritating.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?.

No. Now stop criticizing how I behave on the forum.

Did I mention that I jump to conclusions and think everything is about me as well?

 

[MatthewA]

I believe that is good to agree to disagree it is a healthy relationship.

If you continue to love each other regardless afterwards.

 

[Vinayaka]

I voted other because often I post only to provide an opposing POV. There usually is one, and if nobody posts it, readers might jump to conclusions that everyone thinks the way the poster did. It's to provide information.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's probably a somewhat boring answer, but it differs depending on context.
For the most part, I assume people putting something on the boards here want either discussion, or critical analysis/debate. Either that, or they're going for a laugh. Much like you, this is mostly due to the fact that it summarises my motivations in posting here, and I make some level of assumption that others are similarly motivated.
Some appear to be trolls, and I'll tend to either ignore them, or try to use a little humour in responding to those people.

Then there are the ones who are certain the have 'The Truth'...whether that's in a religious sense or not...and want to tell people what the truth is. Those are the ones I have the most issue with, conceptually. My world view doesn't really allow for single binary truths in the sense some seem to believe, and anyone proselyting in that way have questionable motivations and appear kind of...well...brittle to my eyes.

Quick note : everything here pertains to me as a poster, rather than a mod.

 

[JustGeorge]

Honestly, I'm not much of a debater. I 'debate' all day with the kids. I don't want to get online and debate, too.

But, in general, I don't mind if people want to debate, so long as their intentions are good(meaning they want to debate because the subject interests them or means something to them, not merely to be a poo head). And I prefer that they can do it respectfully... name calling and snide insults usually says more about the one flinging them rather than the one receiving them.

 

[MatthewA]

I do not like to debate either; my friend gets mad at me if I disagree with him; but we are all entitled to what we believe; and our own opinions for the most part; I do like truth over opinions though; and desire to know the truth for sure.

When people say Jesus Christ is not real that doesnt bother me.
When people say that I do not know Christ Jesus and they been in way longer in knowing of Christ than me; I can get a little bit passionate because I do not believe numbers mean anything, facts do.

When people say that do not Jesus Christ in their life; that is okay fine with me; what can I do; bind them up in a chair and put a gun to their head and make them agree with me? Why no!; it is all personal choice in my estimation. Some people desire God, and Jesus Christ in their life and so do not care; they just shun away from it.

Its okay. I do not mind either way it goes personally. I just wanna love by and through spirit; and present truth especially on the topics that come from the bible.

This what I believe anyway.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I wonder if people take the time talk with people long enough to know the context of the debate. Sometimes I'll ask an opposing question and the said person may think its a defense debate when it's just posing an opposite view in relation to the one I respond to.

That and I notice that if one has "done it in the past, they will do it again" mentality. If I approached conversations like that (those that don't insult me) I wouldn't be on RF. So, how much patience does one have and interest to determine whether its their own biases that's keeping them from seeing the context of a debate or do they jump the gun? It makes it terribly hard to learn anything when people assume debates and arguments are the same.

 

[MatthewA]

The internet is a difficult place in my opinion to have questions and seek answers sometimes in writing form I believe @Unveiled Artist It would be much more enjoyable to talk about certain things in real life; or via seeing you and talking to you personally.

This form can only go so far.

I know in my own life it is still challenging trying to relate to others but I do try to love and be kind and gentle to other people in this world because I try to treat people as I would want to be treated. I am most certainly far from perfect and others are better in these things that I am.

 

[Vinayaka]

For the record, I believe many initial posts are 'fake debates' where the person has no real intention of debating at all, but uses it as an excuse to present their own views. It's subtle proselytizing, and I don't think the individual may even be aware of it. Sometimes they are though.

 

[Vinayaka]

I probably need banned for that Vinayaka.

The mods have a difficult time in making that determination, so you're probably good.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For the record, I believe many initial posts are 'fake debates' where the person has no real intention of debating at all, but uses it as an excuse to present their own views. It's subtle proselytizing, and I don't think the individual may even be aware of it. Sometimes they are though.

I don't think they'll get it. No one has addressed me when I asked, but maybe someone else would with a different approach. I don't know.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The mods have a difficult time in making that determination, so you're probably good.

Well, something tells me the difficulty may be dropping significantly…

 

[JustGeorge]

Well, something tells me the difficulty may be dropping significantly…

Did you get that on your fortune cookie, too?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?
Do you assume bad intentions, like the interlocutor wanting to dominate or censor you?
Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

When I post a hypothesis, I want it to be dissected and the errors pointed out so that I can learn from it and refine or discard the hypothesis. Using the golden rule, I assume others want the same. I'm just helping when I criticise.
Is that wrong?

Debate me.

But what if someone dissects your ideas, points out "errors" from their point of view -- but you don't see as errors? Are your own carefully considered thoughts not worthy of being defended, until such time as somebody gives you some real, supported reason to reconsider them?

That is, after all, what debate is all about.

I've posted lots of my thoughts here. I've written very long posts (sometimes so long as requiring more than 1 post) to talk about things that I have thought long and hard about. For example, I wrote a two-post essay on why I am an atheist -- giving anybody who cared to ample opportunity to point out my errors. And many people did post -- but they didn't refute what I'd written, they merely stated that they thought I was wrong, or "lacked faith" (well, duh!), or some such. There's nothing in such posts that can teach me anything, so why should I not refute them?

 

[VoidCat]

Cuz it's relevant to the convo

 

[osgart]

I enjoy being criticized. Or I just post to see all the differing points of view come out.

RF is an education. I love diversity.

It's also nice when people agree or enjoy some of my expressions.

I actually learn cool things on here.

It's good to make yourself known sometimes.

 

[Kooky]

For me it's all of the above - or rather, any single reason from the above, depending on circumstances.

 

[Friend of Mara]

Do you get angry when someone criticises your ideas?
Do you assume bad intentions, like the interlocutor wanting to dominate or censor you?
Do you criticise others ideas? Why?

Why do you post ideas in a forum when you don't want them to be criticised?

When I post a hypothesis, I want it to be dissected and the errors pointed out so that I can learn from it and refine or discard the hypothesis. Using the golden rule, I assume others want the same. I'm just helping when I criticise.
Is that wrong?

Debate me.

TBH I came here because I like debating and conversing ideas and its been pretty good about that. I didn't come here to agree with everything said. I'd just talk to myself at that point.