I'm bored and want to argue about...

Post Reply New Topic

Right now I am actually bored and I want to do something. I don't necessarily want to argue, per se, but it's the first thing I could think of. For this thread, how about the subject of contention be about the motivation of people who argue online. One person can claim that they're arguing for one reason and another can question their motives and put them in a psychological box whereby they reinterpret whatever the other says to fit within their nasty little psychopathic paradigm. IDK, what are other people's reasons for baiting and debating others?

well, obviously you think you're morals are better than anyones. but even if they arent lets debate morality. Is it right? wrong?

Debating and baiting others are a matter of boredom, and belief that one is right.

If morality is false there can then be neither right nor wrong. If morality is true then it can be right or wrong. So, does right equal true and wrong equal false? If so, then morality can only be right for if it were wrong then it could not be wrong.

Show me anyone who seriously considers themselves to be wrong. You may certainly find people who believe they have done something wrong or have thought wrong in the past, but I doubt you can find anyone who considers their present thoughts to be wrong presently.

So what you are saying is its like holding a N and N of a magnet together. they repeal each other. but opposites attract, true. however not when men are involved

Explain.

Also, opposites attract in terms of the electromagnetic force but not in terms of the gravitational force. In the electromagnetic force there are two types of charges, positive and negative. In the gravitational force there is merely mass which has no analog to differing charges, at least not known yet. Even where gravity is considered a fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime, it is mass that causes such warping of spacetime.

Some people lack confidence.

There is a reason we argue with each other. Because if we all agreed with each other, there would be little to talk about. Of course, we can comment and maybe add a point that the speaker/writer missed, but there's more to discuss in disagreement. The internet especially is a place for disagreement as being anonymous allows a person to be as contentious and polemical as they want, without facing real world repercussions.

Lacking confidence is not the same as thinking oneself to be completely wrong about a present conclusion. In fact, having a lack of confidence is usually about a conclusion which one had previously arrived at yet now is questioning the soundness thereof. Also, a person may be questioning a present conclusion, but they do not consider themselves entirely wrong about everything they are thinking. If they did, they'd probably be a vegetable.

Explain? why you already have your mind made up that a "god" made everything seen and unseen in 7 days. and really, i dont think science absouletly understands anything in the universe. but gravity seems to me like it is multi-functional, it can bend, oppose and do who knows what else? humans hardly have any knowelege let alone to understand everything at this point

Last edited by richardbenson on 15 Jan 2011, 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If people all agreed with each other they'd be more productive, however getting people to agree with each other is impossible. There is one benefit to having everyone at odds with another though, and that namely being that when there is opposition there is a necessity to improve and refine one's thoughts, whereas if they present themselves no challenge nor opposition then they often will stagnate and end up developing garbage upon garbage. It's similar to what happens when only one side of a debate is permitted freedom of speech and the other side is censored and silenced.

Nobody needs to know everything, however learning as much as possible within what is available is a good goal. I don't consider understanding everything to be possible, nor knowing everything, however the limits of a person to learn as much as they can within their lifespan is not reachable either. The human mind has the capacity to store over 250 terabytes in memory and I don't consider that to be able to be used up within an hundred year lifespan.

Well, lets get down to business then. you think some guy who popped out of a toaster made all this crap. I dont, also i agree human knowelege isnt probably ever going to figure out the essentials. my whole argument, is morality. is it right? wrong?

my take on it is, morality in itself is evil.

Morality delineates between behaviors which are good, neutral, or evil. To judge morality itself as evil is to use morality, thus you've used morality to judge morality as evil. Thus you've performed an evil act according this scheme of morality.

Thats true. however, im shure some demon is responsible for most of the worlds wrong doings in your opinion. i guess i should have made myself clear, when i spoke of morality.
I think sociatys determine morality. (i forgot i was taliking to aspies )

and really. i live by what I feel is right,