Who's opinions are you more likely to pay attention to?

[Rokenn]

^^^^^^^updated profile in a vain attempt to win magik's trust [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Cloudbringer]

I give alot of credence to the criteria Saz mentioned. Polite and respectful just naturally call up similar responses. [img]smile.gif[/img]

That said, I know I like to be aware of age groups, if not specific ages. I might answer someone a bit more succintly if they are ahem..of mature years... ahem...like myself ....but give more explanation if they are in the younger brackets. Our early teens for instance might not know who Perry Como is, LOL, I know it's just an example, don't throw stuff at me! I've found that you might have to tell 'em how us oldsters lived...you know the walking 6 miles, barefoot, to school in the snowy weather stories... hehe... But seriously, I've run into some 30+ yr olds who asked in all seriousness, who is Judy Collins- hehe.. including one I'm engaged to!

I don't worry so much about country, but it does help with understanding some things and even language use.

[Scholarcs]

btw MagiK, if my friend hadn`t told me he was visiting relatives in Maryland these holidays, then I wouldn`t have known where on earth it was

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Like I've said - Identity theft. If you are bright at all, you can use the info I've put in my profile to find out my identity. Checking with the attorney registration committee in any of the states I'm admitted in will bring you my Social Security No. in short order. Birth date is the final piece of the puzzle to allow access to my bank accounts, credit cards, personal info, etc. Gotta be careful these days. But, I'm turning 29 this month, FYI. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I had no idea about the Social Security number thingy! (j/k)

As for the location thingy it does puts peoples views into some kind of context. Whereas knowing someone's age just gives you the opportunity to disregard their views based on their youth. Of course you may be a bit more understanding to a teenager leaving in the back of beyond who has trouble spelling.

[Borvik]

I remember a thread about uneducation or something. It's been about a test, and most people had problems with geography (same with me). It might be a little bit off topic but here's a link, which I think is great!

www.mapquest.com/atlas

Back to topic... I always look up the profiles of the people who are posting. "Talking" on a board is a difficult thing, because you don't see the other persons. You can't look in their faces to guess their emotions or feelings, when they are talking to you and you don't see their gestures. The more information I have of the people who are talking to me, the more apropiate I can react to their arguments (be it in a good or bad way). The informations in the profiles are still meager, but they are better than nothing I guess. I'm not sure if it helps me to TRUST more. But surely I feel better.

[ 12-14-2002, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: Borvik ]

[skywalker]

My answer?

People who post messages that respect all others regardless of whether you agree or not.

(The reason why my location is fictional. The last time I got into an argument on these boards, my wife requested I change the location and hide my e-mail. She feels safer that way for some reason. She's funny that way.)

Mark

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Donut: As for the location thingy it does puts people's views into some kind of context.

That's pretty much where I stand on this idea, too. It's nice but not completely necessary.

I don't disregard anyone's ideas/opinions "off the bat" unless they have a history of spewing hate and/or conspiracy theories.

[ 12-14-2002, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[John D Harris]

Location of poster is nice to know to help with any possible response, but not a necessity.

Reasoned, logical, "Hale I'll even settle for semi-logical arguements one side or the other based on facts not emotion. Anybody that wants to dicuss anything is fine with me, a heated discussion is ok. Discussions that invole questions and answers, a free exchange of ideas Will be the most succesful. Remember One side of an agruement ALWAYS seems right until the other side is presented.(paraphrased by me) (Bonus kudos if you know where that comes from )

I've found that emotion based, driven agruements carry little weight and seem to ONLY take into account the emotional feelings of the poster, while completely ignoring any emotional feelings of others that may disagree.
Emotions are subjective, and can be tossed about by almost any slight wind.

Polite, respecful, is nice but it also falls in the "Eye of the beholder", what I might consider to be respectful, someone else may not see it that way. That doesn't mean it's ok to be rude, it means be aware the respectful and polite are subjective things.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Moreover, I sometimes wonder if I only want that info so I can know more about my opponent's weaknesses when I disagree. For instance, on today's thread, if I knew where some people were from when they bash the US government/political system, I may very well counter-bash with specific examples of their own government's failings. That would not prove my side, now would it, and it would be - as you have been kind enough to point out before - ad hominem.

However that may be construed by some as a straw man,
Let’s say I am Called “Herbert”, And I live in “Herbland”
This Is “Reginald” and he lives in “Mesopotamia”.
Herbert criticises Mesopotamia for being MEEN WAH!
Reginald criticises Herbland for Ritual sacrifice of young maidens and the burning of their still beating hearts.
But Herbert doesn’t support ritual sacrifice.
Thus the criticisms do not make a jot of difference to him, unless he specifcally vioced his support for The Sacrifice of young maidens,
other than to illustrate than we are all MEEN WAH!

And Also, Two wrongs don’t make a right.
If a village A goes to village B and kills people, is village B then justified in going and killing people in village A?
Of course not.
If my country beats your country with a leek, it doesn’t therefore mean your country is justified in going beating other countries with leeks.
That's always important to remember.

[ 12-15-2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Eisenschwarz ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Moreover, I sometimes wonder if I only want that info so I can know more about my opponent's weaknesses when I disagree. For instance, on today's thread, if I knew where some people were from when they bash the US government/political system, I may very well counter-bash with specific examples of their own government's failings. That would not prove my side, now would it, and it would be - as you have been kind enough to point out before - ad hominem.

However that may be construed by some as a straw man,
Let’s say I am Called “Herbert”, And I live in “Herbland”
This Is “Reginald” and he lives in “Mesopotamia”.
Herbert criticises Mesopotamia for being MEEN WAH!
Reginald criticises Herbland for Ritual sacrifice of young maidens and the burning of their still beating hearts.
But Herbert doesn’t support ritual sacrifice.
Thus the criticisms do not make a jot of difference to him, unless he specifcally vioced his support for The Sacrifice of young maidens,
other than to illustrate than we are all MEEN WAH!

And Also, Two wrongs don’t make a right.
If a village A goes to village B and kills people, is village B then justified in going and killing people in village A?
Of course not.
If my country beats your country with a leek, it doesn’t therefore mean your country is justified in going beating other countries with leeks.
That's always important to remember.[/QUOTE]Agreed it is important to remember, but it is equaly important to remember that countries, expecialy free democratic, can not and should not act as if it was made up of only one indivdual. It MUST take into account the greater good for the society, or the greater good for the most of it's citizens, and their desires as a whole. If a country does not do this it will cease to exist, and then everybody in that country will be at the mercy of the strong, ruthless and the un-mericful. In short Anarchy, no laws no rights nothing to stop anybody from doing what ever their little heart desires.

In your example of the villages "A" & "B", it is a totaly stacked in your side of the arguement's favor. Does not village "B" have other options? Could village "B" not try to strenghten It's defenses first, or how about let village "A" know that if It does not stop the killing of village "B"'s citizens then village "A" Will be subject to punishment. What about village "B" doing nothing does it not have that option? Village "B" also has the option of killing the citizens of village "A" To apply to a society, country, or village an axiom that best applies to the individual does not in any shape ,form, or manner take into account that not all members of the whole agree. IMHO is naive, foolhardy, the ultimate expression of ditatorship and violation of fundimental rights.

[ 12-15-2002, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]