The Shoe is on the other Foot

[lightly]

On January 15, 2020 at 2:45 PM, Sherapy said:

Lol, I was giggling at the long winded part. And, I really should have not commented so please don’t take this personal.
 

I actually would prefer if that post was removed all together it is a baiting post. It only leads to Mr. Walker needing to defend himself. 
 Hopefully Robbie will see this and hide these last few posts. 
 

Nah ..no worries  

as for the rest.... Are any of these posts  really all that important enough to get  concerned  about?   I just don't take any of it all that seriously...but I can understand people getting sort of sensitized to each other through their  exchanges in here.

.....having said all that... I guess I'd better see what Mr. Walker had to say...and if he needed to "defend himself" over it..

[Dejarma]

14 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yes!

yes, exactly.. so now what?

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, lightly said:

Nah ..no worries  

as for the rest.... Are any of these posts  really all that important enough to get  concerned  about?   I just don't take any of it all that seriously...but I can understand people getting sort of sensitized to each other through their  exchanges in here.

.....having said all that... I guess I'd better see what Mr. Walker had to say...and if he needed to "defend himself" over it..

Lol, no he added to it the usual how much more amazing he is then you even give him credit for. 

[Mr Walker]

On 1/17/2020 at 2:41 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not saying you "can't" alter perspective. Only that I've never seen evidence from you that you can....

There have been occasional posts where i have done this, but generally i select one perspective, and argue it as forcefully as i can.

Usually because i believe it is the best (most constructive) perspective, but also  also because that is the purpose of a debate. To present all the arguments for one side, and allow others to present differing arguments. This does not mean i cannot see or consider other pov. Indeed I need to do this to present my own perspective and be able to counter that of others.   

[Mr Walker]

On 1/17/2020 at 2:42 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Yes!

That's easy. (believing  that   something for which you have no evidences does exist)

is it possible to believe  that something you  know exists, does not?

That is much harder.

Of course human imagination makes it possible but one has to carefully analyse if there's any point to doing so,and if it might not indicate an problem with accuracy/synchronicity of reason and imagination.

As long as it was entirely a mental  exercise, there might be no harm (but also little point ) but if you  came to  believe it to be true, that would be worrying.  

There is no harm in believing something exists, for which you have no evidences.

There can be great harm, however ,in coming to believe something does not exist, for which there are compelling evidences 

[Jodie.Lynne]

18 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

There can be great harm, however ,in coming to believe something does not exist, for which there are compelling evidences 

If there was compelling evidence, then more people would believe, n'est pas?

[Mr Walker]

On 1/20/2020 at 5:58 AM, Jodie.Lynne said:

If there was compelling evidence, then more people would believe, n'est pas?

Nup; if there was evidence, people would know.

Belief and disbelief can only be rationally constructed where there is insufficient evidence to know  That is why it would be a sign of a  cognitive problem if someone reused to believe in the existence of something proven to exist.

Eg I knew a woman who refused to believe that her son was hers. She believed nurses had swapped her real child for the one she was given.

Nothing, not even blood tests, could convince her of the truth, and as a consequence her son was neglected and abused. We cared for him for many years and also paid for his education at a boarding school to get him away from his mother and give him a chance at a better life  but, in the end, her rejection drove him to suicide aged 26.

[Mr Walker]

On 1/21/2020 at 11:43 AM, Mr Walker said:

Nup; if there was evidence, people would know.

Belief and disbelief can only be rationally constructed where there is insufficient evidence to know  That is why it would be a sign of a  cognitive problem if someone reused to believe in the existence of something proven to exist.

Eg I knew a woman who refused to believe that her son was hers. She believed nurses had swapped her real child for the one she was given.

Nothing, not even blood tests, could convince her of the truth, and as a consequence her son was neglected and abused. We cared for him for many years and also paid for his education at a boarding school to get him away from his mother and give him a chance at a better life  but, in the end, her rejection drove him to suicide aged 26.

What part of this confuses you, and why, Sherapy? 

[+Sherapy]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

What part of this confuses you, and why, Sherapy? 

I can’t help but wonder what the real story is, but I am not asking,

It is very sad that the son and mother never found there way. 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

11 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I can’t help but wonder what the real story is, but I am not asking,

It is very sad that the son and mother never found there way. 

Ive told it before

This was the woman's second child  She had her first a t 16 and him about  18 

She was from a family of 6 girls and no males, with a strong mother and a weak father All the girls loved sex and used it to get what the y wanted in life, starting in  their  early to mid teens   (i visited them once in my late teens/ early twenties  I was only in their lounge room for about an hour and there was a competition between 3 of them (aged about 14 to 17)  to seduce me. Luckily this, and the "pheromones" filling the room, put me off, rather than encouraged me, and i was  able to escape unscathed.   Even then i thought it was like something from a bad movie,  and the first time i had actually encountered what  at the time would  have been called nymphomaniacs.(this definition was only removed from  the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in 1980)

From the first time she saw her baby she became convinced it was not her son and that the nurses had mixed up the babies 

She treated him very badly, both physically and emotionally (she was a big powerful woman, but more significantly totally empowered with her self belief ) and he was badly damaged. The father was not a strong  or confident man ,and she used sex to control him, as she had from the moment the y met. He began to  drink a lot  but was never violent .Indeed he was very quiet and non assertive This meant he was unable or unwilling to confront his wife and protect his son     

We tried to intervene when he was a baby but she said she would take both her children and move interstate and none in the family would ever see them again This was quite believable and possible back in the 1970s, although much harder today   

Eventually when the boy was 26 and had 3 children of his own he took the youngest baby to see his mother to show her her grandchild.

She told him it was not her grandchild because he was not her son A few days later he committed suicide .

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

25 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Ive told it before

This was the woman's second child  She had her first a t 16 and him about  18 

She was from a family of 6 girls and no males, with a strong mother and a weak father All the girls loved sex and used it to get what the y wanted in life, starting in  their  early to mid teens   (i visited them once in my late teens/ early twenties  I was only in their lounge room for about an hour and there was a competition between 3 of them (aged about 14 to 17)  to seduce me. Luckily this, and the "pheromones" filling the room, put me off, rather than encouraged me, and i was  able to escape unscathed.   Even then i thought it was like something from a bad movie,  and the first time i had actually encountered what  at the time would  have been called nymphomaniacs.(this definition was only removed from  the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in 1980)

From the first time she saw her baby she became convinced it was not her son and that the nurses had mixed up the babies 

She treated him very badly, both physically and emotionally (she was a big powerful woman, but more significantly totally empowered with her self belief ) and he was badly damaged. The father was not a strong  or confident man ,and she used sex to control him, as she had from the moment the y met. He began to  drink a lot  but was never violent .Indeed he was very quiet and non assertive This meant he was unable or unwilling to confront his wife and protect his son     

We tried to intervene when he was a baby but she said she would take both her children and move interstate and none in the family would ever see them again This was quite believable and possible back in the 1970s, although much harder today   

Eventually when the boy was 26 and had 3 children of his own he took the youngest baby to see his mother to show her her grandchild.

She told him it was not her grandchild because he was not her son A few days later he committed suicide .

 

 

I meant from all perspectives. 
 

A situation like this has multiple layers.

 

 

[Mr Walker]

On 1/23/2020 at 12:22 PM, Sherapy said:

I meant from all perspectives. 
 

A situation like this has multiple layers.

 

 

Indeed.

The woman was mentally unwell but also  had psychological predispositions from her own upbringing 

Nonetheless, for 26 years she denied a proven truth.ie That this lad was her biological son

This denial caused him to suicide, and as a consequence messed up a further generation of children/young adults.  

[+Sherapy]

22 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Indeed.

The woman was mentally unwell but also  had psychological predispositions from her own upbringing 

Nonetheless, for 26 years she denied a proven truth.ie That this lad was her biological son

This denial caused him to suicide, and as a consequence messed up a further generation of children/young adults.  

I am not going to stand in judgement of a biological mother and her child where there were serious issues. It saddens me that in this whole situation they didn’t get didn’t get help or appropriate guidance for whatever reasons and a man is gone. 
 

[+Sherapy]

On 1/18/2020 at 5:00 PM, Mr Walker said:

There have been occasional posts where i have done this, but generally i select one perspective, and argue it as forcefully as i can.

Usually because i believe it is the best (most constructive) perspective, but also  also because that is the purpose of a debate. To present all the arguments for one side, and allow others to present differing arguments. This does not mean i cannot see or consider other pov. Indeed I need to do this to present my own perspective and be able to counter that of others.   

IMHO,  Awww that is what you are doing I just figured you aren’t trained formally in argumentation or debate, and you don't have to be to post of course, I think the suggestion to perspective shift is a good thing it would be for you broaden your horizons if that was your interest, 

What you do is quarrel, you seem to enjoy fighting that your personal opinion is right based on your personal belief, and if pressed you will run to google to cut and paste any thing that agrees with you.

I don't say this to have a go at you, you remind me of me when I thought I was “debating” too
then I took Philosophy and Critical Thinking and was graded and given feedback on how to refine. 

The Professor I had was tough as nails and for me, a gift, she actually gave in depth feedback that was geared to refinement, which I work at and I am a work in progress. Lol 

Argumentation and debate begin with a claim and the distinguishing factor or crux is that they both use evidence ( facts) to advance the claim, opinion, idea, theory etc. 

 

 

 

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

IMHO,  Awww that is what you are doing I just figured you aren’t trained formally in argumentation or debate, and you don't have to be to post of course, I think the suggestion to perspective shift is a good thing it would be for you broaden your horizons if that was your interest, 

What you do is quarrel, you seem to enjoy fighting that your personal opinion is right based on your personal belief, and if pressed you will run to google to cut and paste any thing that agrees with you.

I don't say this to have a go at you, you remind me of me when I thought I was “debating” too
then I took Philosophy and Critical Thinking and was graded and given feedback on how to refine. 

The Professor I had was tough as nails and for me, a gift, she actually gave in depth feedback that was geared to refinement, which I work at and I am a work in progress. Lol 

Argumentation and debate begin with a claim and the distinguishing factor or crux is that they both use evidence ( facts) to advance the claim, opinion, idea, theory etc. 

 

 

 

as just posted elsewhere i am highly trained in debate  which is why i object so  much to ad hominem argument 

 

i was a part of, and led, debating teams as a student   in high school and junior rotary, (Interact) where i was the local president.

I taught formal  debating for most of my career and organised in school, inter school, and state wide debating groups  for both the education department and groups like rotary/lions

With respect i would argue that it is you  who often   fails to meet normal debating standards and requirements 

However, in part, this is  acceptable in a forum like this, which is NOT a formal debating society 

Out of interest.

What level of formal  training, and how many years of experience in organised debating,  do you bring to this debate ?

Ps where you debate ideas, values, beliefs, or philosophies, the y can be and usually are, argued on the merit of a claim /argument and quality of debate  not the evidences, because there may be none.

Indeed a good team can(and often does)  win a debate by arguing well for something everyone knows is false in fact.

logical fallacies are fatal in debating. False premises are not 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Mr Walker

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

as just posted elsewhere i am highly tried in debate  which is why i object so  much to ad hominem argument 

 

i was a part of, and led, debating teams as a student   in high school and junior rotary, (Interact) where i was the local president.

I taught formal  debating for most of my career and organised in school, inter school, and state wide debating groups  for both the education department and groups like rotary/lions

With respect i would argue that it is you  who often   fails to meet normal debating standards and requirements 

However, in part, this is  acceptable in a forum like this, which is NOT a formal debating society 

Out of interest.

What level of formal  training, and how many years of experience in organised debating,  do you bring to this debate ?

With all due respect, I absolutely value feedback, but in this case I pass, I have not seen you debate. Maybe you were a hot shot I just don’t know and you are not known for presenting facts, your more opinion based.  

If I have questions I go to Eightbits, period. 
 

Perhaps I will see some of the debate prowess you tout in the future though. 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Sherapy

[KyotoCarl]

A non-believer can't state his belief since he is a non-believer.

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, KyotoCarl said:

A non-believer can't state his belief since he is a non-believer.

Why not? Doesn't look like it's stopped any of us.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

3 hours ago, KyotoCarl said:

A non-believer can't state his belief since he is a non-believer.

I believe you are wrong about that. 

[KyotoCarl]

20 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I believe you are wrong about that. 

If you are a non-believer it means I don't believe. How can I need to have a reason for that? 

[rashore]

5 minutes ago, KyotoCarl said:

If you are a non-believer it means I don't believe. How can I need to have a reason for that? 

Everyone is a believer. Beliefs that things do exist, beliefs that they don't exist. Beliefs that they are not sure either way. A non-believer would be someone devoid of any beliefs one way or another, and no one around here seems to be devoid of any belief.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

25 minutes ago, KyotoCarl said:

If you are a non-believer it means I don't believe. How can I need to have a reason for that? 

In this thread it is quite clear that the term belief refers to theism, not belief in general. As Rashore wrote above we all believe in something.

One of my beliefs is that people who argues sematics, like you do, does so because thats all they really have: Some words in an old book.

Anyway my post was meant as a joke, but apparently that flew right over your head. Despite the smiley I added specifically to make that clear.