stepbystep wrote:
And yet topics of import are shut down because they might offend someone.Let us discuss the big issues, the REAL issues that affect the areas we walk in...
geoskid wrote:stepbystep wrote:
And yet topics of import are shut down because they might offend someone.Let us discuss the big issues, the REAL issues that affect the areas we walk in...
Hey SBS, You are one of the people I was talking about. There are lots more.
My original draft mentioned my frustration at offense/ taking offense. I dont take offense, I know (and welcome) that my ideas/beliefs are simply my current understanding and are open to new evidence /reasoning.
icefest wrote:a large part of politics and religion is personal, hard to justify and perhaps irrational from another persons viewpoint.
Nuts wrote:Well I can't see this 'deeper level'...
wayno wrote:to a certain extent i think political debate should be allowed at least in regard to how politics affects bushwalking and the areas where you bushwalk... in those contexts it is relevant to the forum...
geoskid wrote:How do we get depth of discussion in a forum made up of members that arguably getwhat the majority of our society don't.
I like that this forum has the basic rules of being polite and friendly - but I would suggest that to get depth in discussion we should take those rules and addto them. Perhaps a basic understanding that opinions are arrived at somehow and a willingness to explore the process by which they were arrived at - all in an environment where fallacious arguments gets one sin- binned (I would never get a game, but would love to see the play)
Two topics this week have been closed - and I can see why. Yet both topics had quite valid discussions to be had.
Opinions?
MrWalker wrote:Most problems arise when people don't show enough tolerance for others who have fundamentally different views.
geoskid wrote:How do we get depth of discussion in a forum made up of members that arguably getwhat the majority of our society don't.
I like that this forum has the basic rules of being polite and friendly - but I would suggest that to get depth in discussion we should take those rules and addto them. Perhaps a basic understanding that opinions are arrived at somehow and a willingness to explore the process by which they were arrived at - all in an environment where fallacious arguments gets one sin- binned (I would never get a game, but would love to see the play)
Two topics this week have been closed - and I can see why. Yet both topics had quite valid discussions to be had.
Opinions?
corvus wrote:geoskid wrote:How do we get depth of discussion in a forum made up of members that arguably getwhat the majority of our society don't.
I like that this forum has the basic rules of being polite and friendly - but I would suggest that to get depth in discussion we should take those rules and addto them. Perhaps a basic understanding that opinions are arrived at somehow and a willingness to explore the process by which they were arrived at - all in an environment where fallacious arguments gets one sin- binned (I would never get a game, but would love to see the play)
Two topics this week have been closed - and I can see why. Yet both topics had quite valid discussions to be had.
Opinions?
geoskid,
Not one hundred percent as to which" hymn book" you are reading from ? do you want more argument or less ?
corvus
corvus wrote:Not one hundred percent as to which" hymn book" you are reading from ? do you want more argument or less ?
corvus
walkinTas wrote:Argument doesn't have to be adversarial (the heated exchange). It can be (and IMHO should be) a sharing of "reasoned ideas" with the "reasons given in support of an idea". That leaves people free to disagree and to agree to disagree. It is desirable that this be done without judgement and without vindictive and personal insult. Sadly, when it comes to Internet forums in particular (and social discourse in general), this has been proven to be little too Utopian.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests