Hi
Even if we are all human, nobody is really looking like Barbie or Ken. We are all different. We all got our own demented kind of moral and taste regardless our programmed biology and what is told officially between the commercials. Still, according to the MOQ toolbox, I think that meeting at the Intellectul level, truth benefits from both parts when they are using a proper language AND listen with an dynamically open and respectful mind. If this is not the case, the communication sinks down one level into the social where the celebrity of the contrahents are valued. Instead of logic, words like "idiot", "dick" and "Shame on you!" are used. If that too doesn't give a constructive solution, the conflict sinks down yet one level into the biologic where electric shocks, chains and bondage have to be used to achieve the correct behaviour of the competitors. If the competition still dont show a winner and a loser in the game there is no more to do and we have to go down to the slaughterhouse at the strict physical level an devaporize the object. Zap! Jan-Anders 24 sep 2011 kl. 23:58 dmb wrote > Mark said to Ham: > When some do not have any idea how to refute an argument, they will attack > you personally. Has happened to me until they learned not to debate me. > Happens to Marsha, John, and others who are serious about progressing MoQ. > > > dmb says: > That's hilarious. Reminds me of the UFOlogists who condemn the scientific > community for being skeptical about their scientifically impossible claims. > In both cases, we have ridiculous, delusional, self-aggrandizing claims that > don't address any of the actual criticism. Like the conspiracy theorist, the > lack of evidence is only taken as proof of the conspiracy's effectiveness. Or > the bible-thumper who takes your disagreement as proof that the devil's got a > hold of you. There is no point in talking to such people, but it certainly > isn't because their arguments are irrefutable. Quite the opposite. It's > because they are apparently oblivious to the fact that their arguments are > completely worthless. > > Marsha is pushing vacuous nihilism where there should be nothing but values > and morals. John is pushing old-school theism where there should be > non-theistic philosophical mysticism. Ham is pushing the metaphysical > framework (SOM) where there should be a philosophy that begins by rejecting > that framework. I guess I can only speak for myself because other folks might > have their own reasons for ignoring them. As I see it, some people hang > around here even though they are basically incapable of having a real debate. > I have tried, believe me, but some people cannot be reasoned with. Some > people prove this over and over again. And that's how I learned not to debate > them, by trying to. Again, it's not because they were irrefutable but because > they are unreasonable and/or hopelessly lost. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
