Sex threads? Always? Really? Ugh!

[FaithPrevails]

I said it Cons, b/c you drag a lot of negativity into the discussion with posts like that. Tell me one positive thing you see coming out of no debates being allowed here. Can you humor me?

 

[dallasapple]

People are simply more likely to post about problems they are having than good things going on in life. People would rather vent the negative. I think it's just human nature.

I agree with MK..I dont think its abut what someone would "rather' do..its the negative things the "weigh" people down and make you feel heavy therefore people NEED someone to listen to them and thus the term "getting it off your chest"..I do agree however its human nature.

I definately think the positive things too are likely by human nature to be shared but again like MK said as far as discussion goes..there isnt a whole lot to say about it after THATS GREAT! Depending on what it is of course..the example of I got a new job today" could have a story behind it with deatils that coud lead to others telling their stories and the details could spin off into a whole new topic LOL!!...Other than that though the talking about something 'positive' that is going on there is nothing to "unravel"...or "explain" ...

Dallas

 

[Conservativation]

I said it Cons, b/c you drag a lot of negativity into the discussion with posts like that. Tell me one positive thing you see coming out of no debates being allowed here. Can you humor me?

Is the question worded the way you intended, did you mean to have the word "no" before debates? Im serious in asking because I dont understand the question.
If the question is tell one positive thing about allowing debate, I'll say that some of the participants get what they come seeking and that lately the debates have been less acrimonious. Zero tolerance for any disagreement or whatever, and the Rodney King approach will run more than half the people off.

I dont see the positive impact of the thread drift type thread.....again my opinion .....but why is it so hard to see that 2 sides on that exist?

As to dragging negativity, see thats exactly the thing, to me its not dragging in negativity, its talking about things from a POV other than echoing each other in the positive. I and Im sure many others cannot relate to that no negativity notion. Maybe its because I dont get my moods or feelings of the day from the forum, I get either interested or bored. And some get true and real feelings, and thats OK, like standing around talking, a short conversation can be pretty positive, a long one will necessarily have different POV's, there is just so much agreement that can happen until all have agreed. That feeling some people get when everyone agrees must be what drives you to want that, I guess!, because I sometimes see even the most disparate views trying to be brokered into agreement by someone just to get them to have something to agree about then move on, and flee the disagreement.

Its two totally different things people come for. Im fine with both, I think that is a more balanced view, I regulate myself by just not participating in the others. This thread already was positive and negative and I fail to see how mine in particular made it worse

 

[WalksWithChrist]

My evaluation is neither accurate nor inaccurate....its my opinion, just like the fact that I dislike coconut is neither accurate nor inaccurate.

This idea therefore that I would benefit from it is what is flawed. Like ive said if you like it great, I beg you dont stop visiting them, I encourage everyone to visit them, i post there in a blue moon, usually something mildly humorous just for fun, because I have no interest to say "last night I finished repairing the wheel that fell off the mower" even though thats a true statement, or, yesterday was daughters 1st soccer game, also true....I personally cannot imagine how those random facts are interesting.

I once listened to my wife and a lady at the neighborhood pool talking, they were basically doing what that threat does, each would say "I" or "My (kids)" and tell what they liked or didnt like or whatever, and they did that for a good 20 minutes, they enjoyed it, it was fellowship for them, no problem, I get that for them, not for me. There was no engagement, just quoting actions and opinions in an unrelated string. Its OK if I dont like that, and I sincerely see no "benefit" from it.

Ive always been that way, I have a son the same way (there some facts) that he and I talk about this, he is college freshman so we can actually compare notes, I never had a large crowd of "friends" because of this tendency to not like extremely superficial talk, son is the same, he and I like to actually talk with someone for bonding, we dont bond at the surface level at all, maybe that limits us and makes us stuck with a handful of very good friends and not a gaggle of acquaintances we can run around with. But its how we are, and Im the same way online. I can easily go into goofy mode and make jokes even in serious threads and usually Im the only one doing it. I also find that odd, that humor in the midst of heated threads is rarely responded to, except by Dallas, she and I are kinda lonely in that.

anyway..there a bunch of random things

That clears it up for me actually. Thank you. Well said.

 

[Conservativation]

That clears it up for me actually. Thank you. Well said.

Good, I mean that...good, if it explains why I do one thing and others like other things, then lets accept that.

Its the pinnacle of irony when folks who dislike debate, proceed to debate about debate, trying to discredit those who are saying that prefer other modes of conversing.

I hope you are being serious and not sarcastic

 

[WalksWithChrist]

Good, I mean that...good, if it explains why I do one thing and others like other things, then lets accept that.

Its the pinnacle of irony when folks who dislike debate, proceed to debate about debate, trying to discredit those who are saying that prefer other modes of conversing.

I hope you are being serious and not sarcastic

Yes, quite serious.

As a matter of fact, it got me thinking. I have the same tendencies for being anti-social. It's one reason I like coming to places like this. So I don't have to do the face to face thing but can still interact. But I have come to realize that I do need some of that sort of socialization/fellowship to balance myself out. If not, I get bogged down in discussions/debates and miss the forest for the trees.

 

[dallasapple]

Good, I mean that...good, if it explains why I do one thing and others like other things, then lets accept that.

Its the pinnacle of irony when folks who dislike debate, proceed to debate about debate, trying to discredit those who are saying that prefer other modes of conversing.

I hope you are being serious and not sarcastic

I "prefer" both..in fact I "naturally" gravitate towards both.Debates are challenging and get a certain type of adrenaline and thinking going..Sharing "facts" is also stimulating as to being "known" and "knowing" someine better..

I would however disagree with your characterizing that sharign of facts is "superficial"..it CAN be..like "I got some pears on sale at Kroger"..

But sharing of "facts" about your life can be far from superficial.. its those facts that SHAPE us IMHO to who we are as people..our experiences..and its to me fascinating to find common threads in those life events with others..

You talked about the humor you use that I GET..its because of understanding at least for me ..how many people operate..the "comical" side of daily life that I get your humor.Its in the "boring" details the humor arises..People are funny..they are "weird" LOL!! Including myself..they make me laugh all the time..they dont know what im laughing at..its not funny to them..(most dont get it)..I know a few that do and they are my friends.(my girfiends)..

I got my MIL laughing her head off yesterday..My father in law is the classic" grumpy old man"..but now that I'm older and not intimidated by him and Im "wiser" to the fact hes only human..What would have offended me..or I thought was horrible..now to me is 'funny"..hes "cartoonish" to me rather than some threat..Its now comedy central.

People are strange and weird..and mostly predictable...

Dallas

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

IMO any time your goal is to prove "I'm right, you're wrong," it is a debate and shouldn't belong here. A discussion is, "This is what I believe, and here is why." There is room for disagreement, as long as all agree to disagree, civilly.

 

[McScribe]

IMO any time your goal is to prove "I'm right, you're wrong," it is a debate and shouldn't belong here. A discussion is, "This is what I believe, and here is why." There is room for disagreement, as long as all agree to disagree, civilly.

What if it is simply facts being pointed out? If someone says "The Bible says you shall love the Lord your God etc" that's not really debatable. If someone says it doesn't say that, they're simply wrong.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

What if it is simply facts being pointed out? If someone says "The Bible says you shall love the Lord your God etc" that's not really debatable. If someone says it doesn't say that, they're simply wrong.

Good point. I was thinking more along the lines of "red is better than blue." Neither the red side nor the blue side needs to "win" the discussion. Let the reds be reds and the blues be blues. And let's also allow for some purple and green in there too.

 

[mkgal1]

This word "negative" seems to keep entering discussions and is being used often to label people's (other people's) beliefs/opinions/posts. What I don't get is.....how does one feel qualified to be the one to say what is "negative"....what's "positive"? I mean, isn't that just another way of saying, "I'm right"...."You are wrong"? What's worse.....JMO......is that *to me*....it seems to be a passive/aggressive way of saying, "your opinion isn't welcome---it's bringing other's down". It controls the conversation in a subtle way...(or at least seems to make the attempt).

As Cons is pointing out.....we all have our own styles. He and his son share with me a lack of need for small talk......we prefer "big talk" instead. For us....that IS positive. (Hope I'm not getting presumptuous.)

 

[FaithPrevails]

IMO any time your goal is to prove "I'm right, you're wrong," it is a debate and shouldn't belong here. A discussion is, "This is what I believe, and here is why." There is room for disagreement, as long as all agree to disagree, civilly.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

This word "negative" seems to keep entering discussions and is being used often to label people's (other people's) beliefs/opinions. What I don't get is.....how does one feel qualified to be the one to say what is "negative"....what's "positive"? I mean, isn't that just another way of saying, "I'm right"...."You are wrong"?

As Cons is pointing out.....we all have our own styles. He and his son share with me a lack of need for small talk......we prefer "big talk" instead. For us....that IS positive. (Hope I'm not getting presumptuous.)

Exactly. It seems to me as if debate is being demonized while fellowship is being put on a pedestal. Personally I think both are completely valid forms of forum communication.

 

[mkgal1]

Exactly. It seems to me as if debate is being demonized while fellowship is being put on a pedestal.

But, do you see the irony that's occuring, even in this thread? Do you see who the one is that's accepting of other's *right* to their opinion? Not debating, but just stating his views and offering an explanation of why. (I will give a hint....it begins with a "C"). IMHO.....that's the attitude that needs to be taken on.......the attitude that other's do have their own way of looking at things. But, he was told he is bringing in "negativity".......I saw it as a positive post. Even that has two sides. That view of "negative" was *just* an opinion--but, was stated as a fact. I think that may be a part of the problem.

This is just conjecture, but it SEEMS that something else can be occuring.....this categorizing of people. Just as there's been this common issue of male vs female.....it seems now that there's a sub-issue......the "fellowship" gang and all they believe VS the "debate" gang and their beliefs. It *seems* that arguments (not debates) are forming just based on who is posting.

 

[mkgal1]

This is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but it is *just* an opinion.

I said it Cons, b/c you drag a lot of negativity into the discussion with posts like that. Tell me one positive thing you see coming out of no debates being allowed here. Can you humor me?

I don't know how to say this is the Christianese language that makes it acceptable....maybe *anything* I say is the wrong way, but......do you not see negativity in what you said, Faith? I'm sorry....I am not calling you out or wanting to humiliate you, but to *me*........that reads as minimizing his opinion, by emphasizing the *just*. IMHO.....that could be perceived as goading, because it just seems to put a person on the defensive.

That's how I see it, sitting back and reading that exchange.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Exactly. It seems to me as if debate is being demonized while fellowship is being put on a pedestal. Personally I think both are completely valid forms of forum communication.

Healthy debate is one major way that iron sharpens iron, imo.

 

[dallasapple]

Healthy debate is one major way that iron sharpens iron, imo.

I agree..otherwise we are just sheep...blindly following along..BAHHH...BAHH...The world is too big to NOT debate!(which of course is debatable )

Dallas

 

[mkgal1]

Healthy debate is one major way that iron sharpens iron, imo.

I agree..otherwise we are just sheep...blindly following along..BAHHH...BAHH...The world is too big to NOT debate!(which of course is debatable )

Dallas

Exactly. I know I can get tunnel vision, and it's nice to have someone explain to me how things *look* from outside that "tunnel".....or the other "view". The world IS big....and there is more than one side to most issues, so getting the full picture takes many perspectives.

 

[Conservativation]

IMO any time your goal is to prove "I'm right, you're wrong," it is a debate and shouldn't belong here. A discussion is, "This is what I believe, and here is why." There is room for disagreement, as long as all agree to disagree, civilly.

Great, the problem is it seems that a few folks see any disagreement as boiling down to "Im right you are wrong", and thats an extremely superficial look at a discussion with 2 POV's.
I rarely if ever have seen that here, while some see it daily. Things are incredibly subjective which is to me why discussion is so interesting. Where one sees "Im right you are wrong" another sees an exchange of ideas

 

[WalksWithChrist]

I agree..otherwise we are just sheep...blindly following along..BAHHH...BAHH...The world is too big to NOT debate!(which of course is debatable )

Dallas