Why do Threads with Interesting Debates always turn Cathartic?

[steveaki13]

Seeing the sad demise of the Homophobia thread made me wonder why it is that Threads in Forums like this always end in chaos? :confused:

Come on lets have yer thoughts.

(Without getting the thread Closed) :dozey:

[janneppi]

It's because people who are more interested in nursing their own psychological problems than proper discussion continue in these threads longer than those who aren't interested in reading their written vomit.


End of meaningful discussion, it's all downhill after this. ;)

[steveaki13]

It's because people who are more interested in nursing their own psychological problems than proper discussion continue in these threads longer than those who aren't interested in reading their written vomit.


End of meaningful discussion, it's all downhill after this. ;)

That view sucks. ;) (Just getting into the spirit of the downhill spiral)

True actually

[BDunnell]

The homophobia thread was a really interesting debate until one individual's contributions in particular spoiled it.

[inimitablestoo]

This may be an over-generalisation, but people are idiots.

[veeten]

thank you, Dr. House. ;)

[donKey jote]

bunch of donkeys :dozey:

[Knock-on]

The basic issue we have is the inability to accept that others have just as valid a point as ours. A subject such as Homophobia would be pretty boring if everyone was of the same view now, wouldn't it?

To have colourful debate with people sharing different values and opinions offers us a chance to more fully understand a subject and why some people are Homophobic and why others we might have thought Homophobic were, in fact, just expressing themselves in a different way.

Tollerance is about considering all views and respecting the right to state them. You may fundementally disagree with them but people must be allowed to express them. Too many times, people who claim to be open minded prove themselves to be pretty intollerant of others for expressing an alternative view to the 'norm'. Funnily enough, it's generally these people that complain most when challenged.

[steveaki13]

The homophobia thread was a really interesting debate until one individual's contributions in particular spoiled it.

Thats one issue. If a vocal typist gets ranting it blocks everyone elses comments and fragments the thread. Others lose interest and soon its 2 or 3 voices going back and forth.

[race aficionado]

Knocky.
You are ruining the thread by making sense .

Those hangovers of yours are very particular.

[steveaki13]

The basic issue we have is the inability to accept that others have just as valid a point as ours. A subject such as Homophobia would be pretty boring if everyone was of the same view now, wouldn't it?

To have colourful debate with people sharing different values and opinions offers us a chance to more fully understand a subject and why some people are Homophobic and why others we might have thought Homophobic were, in fact, just expressing themselves in a different way.

Tollerance is about considering all views and respecting the right to state them. You may fundementally disagree with them but people must be allowed to express them. Too many times, people who claim to be open minded prove themselves to be pretty intollerant of others for expressing an alternative view to the 'norm'. Funnily enough, it's generally these people that complain most when challenged.

True. Maybe the question is then. Why do threads turn petty and personal? (Because there is a difference between colourful debate and insulting.

[markabilly]

True. Maybe the question is then. Why do threads turn petty and personal? (Because there is a difference between colourful debate and insulting.

See, there you go, turning another thread into something petty and personal

[donKey jote]

allow me to do a vettel and say I'm vewwy vewwy sowwy I got the thread closed :mark:

[gadjo_dilo]

....made me wonder why it is that Threads in Forums like this always end in chaos?


Because there are too many egos in this forum.
Because today it's fair for a minority to have the appetite for becoming a majoriity.
Because.
:crazy:

[BDunnell]

Because today it's fair for a minority to have the appetite for becoming a majoriity.
:crazy:

What exactly does that mean?

[gadjo_dilo]

What exactly does that mean?

Nothing. Just a bitter observation.

[steveaki13]

allow me to do a vettel and say I'm vewwy vewwy sowwy I got the thread closed :mark:

It wasn't directed at anyone. I just wondered why a lot of threads get closed.

Tongue in cheek really.

[steveaki13]

We are all to blame sometimes when we get a bit too het up about an issue.

Its why at that point it can get silly and close the thread. When it would be better to take a step back and reflect.

[D-Type]

I think that being able to put 'extreme' views over 'forcefully' while remaining anonymous is the attraction.

[BDunnell]

Tollerance is about considering all views and respecting the right to state them. You may fundementally disagree with them but people must be allowed to express them. Too many times, people who claim to be open minded prove themselves to be pretty intollerant of others for expressing an alternative view to the 'norm'.

Why should anyone be tolerant of intolerant views? As I have said before, the natural extension of this attitude is people expressing no opinions whatsoever.

[SGWilko]

Why should anyone be tolerant of intolerant views? As I have said before, the natural extension of this attitude is people expressing no opinions whatsoever.

I'd both agree and disagree with that!

Completely understand where you are coming from.

Only those that find a viewpoint intolerant will find it intollerent - if you get my meaning.

In otherwords, the author of an intolerant view clearly thinks that view acceptable. It is the ability to express one's reason for their intolerence that can sometimes get lost.

Mind you, there are one or two who just want to see how far they can push things.

But yes, it was a shame the way the homophobia thread went belly up - it was interesting and I actually felt I learned a lot from it.

[gadjo_dilo]

No offence BD but you pretend tolerance from the others on certain issues but you yourself prove to be intolerant on things you dislike. I might be wrong but this is the impression I've got reading your posts.

[BDunnell]

No offence BD but you pretend tolerance from the others on certain issues but you yourself prove to be intolerant on things you dislike. I might be wrong but this is the impression I've got reading your posts.

I have responded to this very comment above. SGWilko gets absolutely where I'm coming from, too.

[rjbetty]

Why should anyone be tolerant of intolerant views? As I have said before, the natural extension of this attitude is people expressing no opinions whatsoever.

Ok this is maybe where I have a slight issue appearing:

I mean this well but: How do you decide what's an intolerant view? Is it simply someone who has a different opinion and values to your own, or is it when people start to get a bit nasty and personal? Too often I see that it's the former: People should be allowed to express their opinions equally without getting shouted down as bigots cos it's really unfair.

Though I have to say it's been fairly decent on this forum. Mostly this isn't the case...



Sadly, I know from first hand experience that so often, people who simply believe differently from a person get accused of "hating" and rejecting the person themselves!! I have to say it's absurd, but scarily prevalent... :(

[BDunnell]

I mean this well but: How do you decide what's an intolerant view? Is it simply someone who has a different opinion and values to your own, or is it when people start to get a bit nasty and personal? Too often I see that it's the former: People should be allowed to express their opinions equally without getting shouted down as bigots cos it's really unfair.

Why? If they are a bigot, it's entirely fair.

[rjbetty]

Why? If they are a bigot, it's entirely fair.

But how do you determine if someone is a bigot? Why is it that someone with a different view is bigoted? Aren't you also being bigoted and unflinching by basically declaring someone a bigot because what they say doesn't make you feel good.

I think it should go more by how valid their argument is, whether I like it or not.

[Knock-on]

We're getting dangerously close to hitting nails on the head :s hock:

There are some frightful trolls out there but unless they are countered in a reasoned and even handed way, then they are given credibility. Just shouting them down fuels them.

I do have some sympathy with members that get frustrated with persistent aggrivators ( I do myself; Often! ) but to dismiss people with alternative views because they differ from our personal values is destructive.

I don't want to focus on Ben here but he has identified himself as someone incapable of tollerance or objectivity if he considers the other persons views are bigoted ( for example ). However, we can all get frustrated if people, in our opinion, are so offensive to our values, that their views are irrelevant. This is where any objectivity goes out the window, tolerance is replaced by antipathy and threads get closed. It doesn't matter who is in the wrong or right, minds are closed and battle lines drawn. It's no longer a discussion but a bitch fight.

[keysersoze]

I heard a brilliant comment a few years ago and I think it speaks (somewhat) to the thread topic. It goes something like this:

The biggest obstacle standing between you and everyone else in the world is--language.

This partially explains why the person I know and love the best--my wife--is the person I suffer breakdowns in communication with the most :( . Even when you know someone it's challenging to say exactly what you mean.

[Storm]

Just like entropy of a system....which always goes from order to chaos and can never be reversed.

Obviously with plenty of people with strong opinions on topics (and drivers too) this is bound to happen. I got fazed when I first joined this forum more than a decade ago (especially the F1 section). By now I know it is futile to argue your point beyond a limit, as in life. You cannot change anybody's opinion in reality, whether you are actually right or totally wrong.
So I avoid such hot topics now (my opinions are often very strong and radical especially when it comes to God/religion/politics)

[Knock-on]

^^ What Storm says ^^

In the old Schumy war days, it was just bun fight after bun fight where people, on both sides, refused to concede points no matter what evidence was offered. ( and I'd just like to point out that Schumy and his fans were always in the wrong ;) )

Now days, all you can do is discuss things and swap ideas and opinions until that point that reasoned debate flies out the window and peoples ego's take over whereas the thread is effectivley dead.

[Mark]

You do to an extent have to be tolerant of intolerant views; ottherwise you cannot engage in debate.

[SGWilko]

You do to an extent have to be tolerant of intolerant views; ottherwise you cannot engage in debate.

Yup.

But if someone sees your view as intolerant, and says as much, which makes you intolerent of them, where do you go from there?

I guess the ability to debate the issue in a forceful, but non confrontational manner is key, and that can easily be lost behind the anonymity of a keyboard and just an IP address for identity!

[airshifter]

You do to an extent have to be tolerant of intolerant views; ottherwise you cannot engage in debate.

And really most people don't even open their eyes to opposing views on many issues. They may be "tolerant" in typed words, but they aren't even really considering any opposing point of view. I also think that for the most part society defines what is "right and wrong" and the overall views of society have much to do with many peoples view.

[rjbetty]

You do to an extent have to be tolerant of intolerant views; ottherwise you cannot engage in debate.

But again, the uneasy question which comes to mind is, on what basis is a view considered intolerant...?

[Mark]

It's a matter of opinion, those who are considered intolerant most likely do not believe themselves to be so. Of course this is a motorsport forum, nothing that's written here is of consequence in the scheme of things :)

[henners88]

The homophobia thread was a really interesting debate until one individual's contributions in particular spoiled it.
I hadn't realised that thread had closed until now. I do think that individual could have been ignored rather than the pursuit that followed to be honest. I didn't agree with him, but had no interest in pushing him to say anything more. I can understand people were offended by his comments but I've recently had to ignore a member I didn't agree with and it makes it easier on everybody and enables the thread(s) to continue along a more pleasant route. :)

[BDunnell]

I think it should go more by how valid their argument is, whether I like it or not.

And who decides that?

[BDunnell]

I hadn't realised that thread had closed until now. I do think that individual could have been ignored rather than the pursuit that followed to be honest. I didn't agree with him, but had no interest in pushing him to say anything more. I can understand people were offended by his comments but I've recently had to ignore a member I didn't agree with and it makes it easier on everybody and enables the thread(s) to continue along a more pleasant route. :)

Well, this is true. In the case of that thread, I wasn't so much offended as confused, and the said member did little to dispel that confusion.

[Jag_Warrior]

Compared to some other forums I've posted on, the discussions here usually retain a good amount of intelligence and civility longer than they do elsewhere. But sooner or later, even here, people run out of things to say... yet insist on saying something else anyway.

[airshifter]

Compared to some other forums I've posted on, the discussions here usually retain a good amount of intelligence and civility longer than they do elsewhere. But sooner or later, even here, people run out of things to say... yet insist on saying something else anyway.

Good points Jag. I think it's because most of the members here are from europe, and we all know how thin skinned that crowd can be. Buncha sissy wimps if I've ever seen one. <cue rimshot after intentionally caustic remarks>

[steveaki13]

Who changed the title of my thread? From Chaotic to Catholic. :confused: :mad: :p

[Knock-on]

@Airshifter
Unlike a certain rooting, shooting, bible bashing bunch of warmongers... Oh, you were joking :p :D

[rjbetty]

And who decides that?

I just want things to be fair.

I personally tend to not be a huge fan of the terms "homophobia" and "intolerance" as I feel they are far too overused, and are simply bandied around when someone simply disagrees with their opinion.

[donKey jote]

Who changed the title of my thread? From Chaotic to Catholic. :confused: :mad: :p

bunch of donkeys :laugh:

[Starter]

Who changed the title of my thread? From Chaotic to Catholic. :confused: :mad: :p
The new Pope. :D

[Mark]

Because you should never take anything too seriously :D

[Spafranco]

The homophobia thread was a really interesting debate until one individual's contributions in particular spoiled it.

You are obviously referring to me so why not say it. I don't care whether you agree or disagree. The sad part is that in that discussion I was on your side and cited many studies and could have included more. Those that just took words from posts as oft happens but do not see the meaning are prone to misinterpret what the poster is saying.

[inimitablestoo]

I was...just...mean
Fun with selective quotation :D

[BDunnell]

You are obviously referring to me so why not say it. I don't care whether you agree or disagree. The sad part is that in that discussion I was on your side and cited many studies and could have included more.

Well, you said, very clearly, that homosexuals have a 'serious anomaly'.

[Sprocket]

You are obviously referring to me so why not say it. I don't care whether you agree or disagree. The sad part is that in that discussion I was on your side and cited many studies and could have included more. Those that just took words from posts as oft happens but do not see the meaning are prone to misinterpret what the poster is saying.

What was there to misinterpret? You posted gay people suffered from a serious anomaly and being gay was a 'mishap'. You then used some very old 'scientific papers' to prove such terms were normally applied to gay people. That much was quite simple to understand even for me, it was what followed where I got completely lost, something about character assassination etc. Oh well who cares really, much more important things in life to worry about.

[donKey jote]

... in the name of the father, the son, and the woolly goats :uhoh: :andrea:

[Spafranco]

Well, you said, very clearly, that homosexuals have a 'serious anomaly'.

I did not say it and pointed you to where it was stated in medical journals. Not one but two.

Do you see post #48 and the the selective method he has used to make a mockery of me? As much as I care little for the childishness of his attempt at being snide he is being a total hypocrite. He attempts to ingratiate himself to you which he succeeded in doing and you posted that you liked it.
Since you feel you are the aggrieved party in all this and have the support of the many members that contributed I am left to wonder at the level of education some members displayed with reference to their remarks.
Stating that an orientation is considered by many in the medical community to be an ' anomaly' does not immediately position the person pointing this out as being in agreement.
It would behoove you to state what you feel regarding your homosexuality.Why does it occur in your opinion? Is it biological or determined by some other factor?

[inimitablestoo]

A load of crap, basically
Ooh, get her ;)

[Spafranco]

What was there to misinterpret? You posted gay people suffered from a serious anomaly and being gay was a 'mishap'. You then used some very old 'scientific papers' to prove such terms were normally applied to gay people. That much was quite simple to understand even for me, it was what followed where I got completely lost, something about character assassination etc. Oh well who cares really, much more important things in life to worry about.
Is it obtuse or just a willingness to continue these inane mischaracterizations and carry on with your finger pointing selectively viewing old studies and then determining because they are old that they are in effect not worthy of peer approval.
Was the penicillin considered in your mind only relevant when you did not know of it's date of discovery? What about the SSRI's? What about Lithium, tricyclics or other forms antidepressants?

Where do you have your initial point of acceptance of studies?

You do care and getting lost due to someone stating character assassination while understanding what was said is very dubious and an attempt by you to carry something on that I suggest you know very little about, thus your confusion.

It is best I would suggest that you leave the commentary and the accusations alone and try to at least be civil.

[Spafranco]

Sprocket and others unhappy with the older studies here is a link to one in the "80's. The 1980's.

AwD3FNUJjXwC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=homosexuality+is+an++anomaly&source=bl&ots=UNzSuNU0_i&sig=_ZUC-ASZRJbP2CC7paYEuWaR-CE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZUdTUfrDBZCC9QS50YAI&sqi=2&ved=0CIcBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=homosexuality is an anomaly&f=false

[BDunnell]

I did not say it and pointed you to where it was stated in medical journals. Not one but two.

Do you see post #48 and the the selective method he has used to make a mockery of me? As much as I care little for the childishness of his attempt at being snide he is being a total hypocrite. He attempts to ingratiate himself to you which he succeeded in doing and you posted that you liked it.
Since you feel you are the aggrieved party in all this and have the support of the many members that contributed I am left to wonder at the level of education some members displayed with reference to their remarks.
Stating that an orientation is considered by many in the medical community to be an ' anomaly' does not immediately position the person pointing this out as being in agreement.
It would behoove you to state what you feel regarding your homosexuality.Why does it occur in your opinion? Is it biological or determined by some other factor?

Oh, for goodness' sake. I really don't care. And post #48 was, I thought, quite funny — as, unintentionally, is your overwrought reaction.

[rjbetty]

Sprocket and others unhappy with the older studies here is a link to one in the "80's. The 1980's.

AwD3FNUJjXwC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=homosexuality+is+an++anomaly&source=bl&ots=UNzSuNU0_i&sig=_ZUC-ASZRJbP2CC7paYEuWaR-CE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZUdTUfrDBZCC9QS50YAI&sqi=2&ved=0CIcBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=homosexuality is an anomaly&f=false

Whoa this looks like spambot speak. :r2d2: :p

[Sprocket]

Is it obtuse or just a willingness to continue these inane mischaracterizations and carry on with your finger pointing selectively viewing old studies and then determining because they are old that they are in effect not worthy of peer approval.
Was the penicillin considered in your mind only relevant when you did not know of it's date of discovery? What about the SSRI's? What about Lithium, tricyclics or other forms antidepressants?

Where do you have your initial point of acceptance of studies?

You do care and getting lost due to someone stating character assassination while understanding what was said is very dubious and an attempt by you to carry something on that I suggest you know very little about, thus your confusion.

It is best I would suggest that you leave the commentary and the accusations alone and try to at least be civil.

First it was accusing me of posting just to agree with people, then it was character assassination, now you suggest I'm confused and uneducated lol.

If it says in a medical report 'an anomaly of the hypothalamus' that does not mean it is saying being gay is an anomaly. (like you did yourself) Do you get that?

Frankly though your reactions are becoming more entertaining than the original thread.

[donKey jote]

Catholic Rocky Horror.... Let's do the time-warp amen ! :laugh:

[SGWilko]

Sprocket and others unhappy with the older studies here is a link to one in the "80's. The 1980's.

AwD3FNUJjXwC&pg=PA315&lpg=PA315&dq=homosexuality+is+an++anomaly&source=bl&ots=UNzSuNU0_i&sig=_ZUC-ASZRJbP2CC7paYEuWaR-CE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZUdTUfrDBZCC9QS50YAI&sqi=2&ved=0CIcBEOgBMAk#v=onepage&q=homosexuality is an anomaly&f=false

1980's. So as recent as 33ish years ago huh? Well, I bet that's relevant then eh, cos nothing has changed since then has it????

[henners88]

1980's. So as recent as 33ish years ago huh? Well, I bet that's relevant then eh, cos nothing has changed since then has it????
I remember when Freddy Mercury died, many people had never heard of aids and wrongly condemned gay people because of it. The British government and health boards spent a huge amount of time and money on awareness. It just goes to show it wasn't that long ago people were extremely unaccepting (not a real word) through sheer ignorance. The 1980's was a difficult time especially.

[SGWilko]

The 1980's was a difficult time especially.

Indeed - Mullets for example, just wrong on so many levels! :p

[Knock-on]

1980's. So as recent as 33ish years ago huh? Well, I bet that's relevant then eh, cos nothing has changed since then has it????

It was a beautiful day, the birds were singing, life was good and then you post this crap and try to put a downer on it. Nothing has changed since the 80's. NOTHING, and my iPod proves it :D

'Her name was Rio and she danc............'

[SGWilko]

NOTHING, and my iPod proves it :D

Yup, them folks at Apple still can't make a battery last more than a day..........

[Mark]

Indeed - Mullets for example, just wrong on so many levels! :p

And yet Yvan Muller carried on the tradition!

[henners88]

Yup, them folks at Apple still can't make a battery last more than a day..........
My iPhone is dying since the last update too. I've actually had to start being sociable! :p

[Mark]

Yup, them folks at Apple still can't make a battery last more than a day..........

At the risk of turning this into the mobile thread, there is a reason for that.
Mostly because most people don't need a battery that lasts more than a day, batteries are a trade off between size, weight and then the amount of power they push out determines CPU speed and many other factors. All that being considered Apple decided to spec a processor, screen and battery combination that lasts about a day. They could have made it last longer but most people wouldn't have needed it and the phone would be quite different.

[Knock-on]

If I'm away for a few days with no access to power, I switch Wifi off and just use 3g every few hours to check updates.

If longer, then I turn it off overnight.

Lasts well over a week easy.

[pino]

I love pizza :p :

[henners88]

I think it was badminton he said he was playing, although saying that Star Wars is bound to become more popular again.

[race aficionado]

At the risk of turning this into the mobile thread, there is a reason for that.
Mostly because most people don't need a battery that lasts more than a day, batteries are a trade off between size, weight and then the amount of power they push out determines CPU speed and many other factors. All that being considered Apple decided to spec a processor, screen and battery combination that lasts about a day. They could have made it last longer but most people wouldn't have needed it and the phone would be quite different.

And if you need extra juice, get your self a mophi.

[Spafranco]

If it says in a medical report 'an anomaly of the hypothalamus' that does not mean it is saying being gay is an anomaly. (like you did yourself) Do you get that?

Oh I get quite a lot more than you realize. Incidentally, why are you bringing up the hypothlamus? Is Androgen involved? Is castration involved? Why is the hypothalamus of significance.
I have given you some clues but your exercise in demeaning my contribution makes me sad as it is indicative of a person that just loves to make fun of others to benefit their shallow self worth.

[Sprocket]

Oh I get quite a lot more than you realize. Incidentally, why are you bringing up the hypothlamus? Is Androgen involved? Is castration involved? Why is the hypothalamus of significance.
I have given you some clues but your exercise in demeaning my contribution makes me sad as it is indicative of a person that just loves to make fun of others to benefit their shallow self worth.

You are simply hilarious, please carry on. My own shallow worth? Where do you get all this stuff from? I'm sure everyone is bored of this by now.

[donKey jote]

I love pizza :p :

Pizza Hawaii :facelick: :vader: :andrea:

[Spafranco]

Oh, for goodness' sake. I really don't care. And post #48 was, I thought, quite funny — as, unintentionally, is your overwrought reaction.
Well, are you going to give a reason as to why you feel you are gay? Once again, I will emphasize as I have done more than once that 'biological anomaly' is in the content of many known studies.
I will supply you with another. Let Sprocket and his hoped for admiring audience poke fun at me all they want.I really do not care as I am comfortable around homosexuals and they do not bother me in any way shape or form. It does seem to bother many and they stray from one arcane judgement to another to ridicule me and state that certain studies are inaccurate because they occurred in the 40's or 50's. Could you please explain why if you do not care about why you are homosexual do you take such umbrage at me pointing to studies and not my personal belief. You don't get to criticize others for writing what they deem as relevant while at the same time suggesting that it is of no consequence to you. Really, you don't care but you deem it necessary to suggest that what you perceive as wrong (your posting about my posts) seems odd. If you don't care, why does biological anomaly or mishap of nature seem to be so important, and you do care. So, why not fill me in on what you consider the reason for ones homosexuality.
You must have one. You have a male heterosexual body but you are attracted to other males of the same sexual persuasion, namely homosexual.

“INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heteros
exual men as in the women.
It was also, however, more than twice as large in t
he heterosexual men as in the
homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is
dimorphic with sexual
orientation [i.e., shows a difference in structure
between homosexuals and
heterosexuals], at least in men, and suggests that
sexual orientation in particular same sex attraction
seems to be a anomaly and

biological substrate.”

[BDunnell]

You have a male heterosexual body

No, I have a male body. There is no such thing as a 'male heterosexual body'.

As for the rest of it — yawn.

[donKey jote]

No, I have a male body. There is no such thing as a 'male heterosexual body'.
Amen :andrea:

[inimitablestoo]

I also have a male body. Fortunately I also have a large carpet to dispose of, so one trip to the woods later and the evidence will be gone :D

[donKey jote]

I don't have any toes ! :bigcry:

ftGSJj_j4EA

I think I need a hug :andrea:

[Spafranco]

You are simply hilarious, please carry on. My own shallow worth? Where do you get all this stuff from? I'm sure everyone is bored of this by now.
I'm glad you find me hilarious. It is a sad reflection of a man that has to ask why one would find the contribution of another and not understand it.
For me your attempts at insult makes me ponder and view insults such as yours a complement from those that no no better.

[Mark]

And we now have the answer to the question this thread posed.