Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
This thread is a response to a bunch of posts in another thread. The posts were off-topic and thus I've moved my response here to end that mistake. This is also a long and complex argument/discussion. You may wish to read it in small bites and over time. You may wish to skip it altogether -- but if you do skip it or claim to have just "skimmed it," don't be surprised if I take you to task. I'm getting cranky in my old age. ;>)
First though, another apology.
SoggyShorts of all people gives concise thoughtful feedback and certainly ought to have been consulted. He asked us, as members of the community, what was asked.
I've nothing more to say that would not gain me penalty points.
Lel
[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry if you felt insulted. I didn't pay enough attention to your post and thus continued to speak of off topic things. I helped derail the thread. For that I am sorry. As for your inability to recall after a few posts, I'm sorry your medical condition makes that occur. Hopefully you will be getting better soon.
As for Soggy's short and concise responses, they do, in fact, make a point. But do they prove the points they make? One of the hallmarks of our current rhetorical situation in the West is the belief that stating a point is, or should be, enough to convince others. Usually this comes in the form of simply staing the point with a clever meme or mantra, and leaving it at that. Little or no thought is given to how others might respond -- the objections they may raise. And, as you probably know from your own experience it's the objections we sense that first come up. These objections, if they are not dealt with by the point being made, are enough to stop any persuasion exactly because they are not dealt with. And if you disagree with somebody right from the start, most of the time you aren't going to actually put your objections down or enter into the discussion past lobbing your own pithy sayings back, exactly because it's unpleasant and difficult to do so; the "stupidity" of the point the other person made is so obvious you need not respond;, or "others will do so," among other reasons. In fact though, the posts that get the most responses/reactions are the ones which force you to do so because they deal with possible objections right from the beginning. Once the thinner walls of objection have been kicked down the reader is forced to confront the actual question and may actually find themselves in danger of being persuaded. In other words, if you put a point down and then try to include or cover the most obvious objections others may have, you will find others will be more likely forced to think about your point instead of just rejecting it out of hand.
[Three paragraphs omitted on the nature of persuasion in deference to the need to avoid excessive "walls of text." -- see, I am listening
)
Objections:
Of course many are going to argue that they do their thinking elsewhere. But thinking isn't a light switch and like any "muscle" if you restrict it to only those places and times you set aside to exercise it, soon those times become harder and harder to come by exactly because most of us spend most of our time trying to get out of excess work. So, I believe, it's better to make thinking a habit of mind rather than an occasional thing you drag out when required, if you want your mind to stay in shape.
Another objections: many people are using the game to escape. Escape what? Worries? Stresses? etc? If so, I'd argue that this is exactly why you should engage in complex and forceful discussion. After all if the problems facing you were simple to solve you'd have solved them already. To do so will probably take some intense and complex thinking and what better place to warm up, practice, and train for the struggle than by reading "walls of text" analyzing those "walls of text" and coming up with complex arguments of your own? You'd be surprised at how exercising your brain here can actually help you with the stresses in life not by escaping from them but by enabling you to take them on and solve them.
Of course, sometimes those stresses are medical and for that you need to work with your health professional. But most of us don't have those problems and thus most of us are not subject to such restrictions.
And another objection: Playing this game is a form of entertainment. But of course, what entertains you and what entertains me may be quite different, right? In addition, entertainment is not always passive. There are passive forms, of course, and active ones as well. Skiing is active. Watching cat videos is passive. Somewhere in between are games like this one. And even the "active" part of it is a balance between imagination and thinking. You make choices in the game and some of those are about the best route to this or that based upon reason, evidence and (mostly informal) calculations. Your mind is active and you can find that entertaining as well. If you don't find thinking a form of entertainment I suspect your cities will suffer because of it. Not that you won't/can't go far, but a thoughtful process beats a random one in building something every time.
In the end though, what I do is not about me so much as about others. All life is about the lives of others and their progress and growth. That's my base-line philosophy. I work to help and challenge others and that sometimes means "walls of text" for those who are willing to partake. Many of those who are not, are sadly, already so mentally undernourished they probably can only react with emotion because that's all they have left. I am probably not the one to help them wake up and start thinking again.
I shall end this here, though I do have more I could, and maybe should say.
AJ
First though, another apology.
SoggyShorts of all people gives concise thoughtful feedback and certainly ought to have been consulted. He asked us, as members of the community, what was asked.
I've nothing more to say that would not gain me penalty points.
Lel
[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry if you felt insulted. I didn't pay enough attention to your post and thus continued to speak of off topic things. I helped derail the thread. For that I am sorry. As for your inability to recall after a few posts, I'm sorry your medical condition makes that occur. Hopefully you will be getting better soon.
As for Soggy's short and concise responses, they do, in fact, make a point. But do they prove the points they make? One of the hallmarks of our current rhetorical situation in the West is the belief that stating a point is, or should be, enough to convince others. Usually this comes in the form of simply staing the point with a clever meme or mantra, and leaving it at that. Little or no thought is given to how others might respond -- the objections they may raise. And, as you probably know from your own experience it's the objections we sense that first come up. These objections, if they are not dealt with by the point being made, are enough to stop any persuasion exactly because they are not dealt with. And if you disagree with somebody right from the start, most of the time you aren't going to actually put your objections down or enter into the discussion past lobbing your own pithy sayings back, exactly because it's unpleasant and difficult to do so; the "stupidity" of the point the other person made is so obvious you need not respond;, or "others will do so," among other reasons. In fact though, the posts that get the most responses/reactions are the ones which force you to do so because they deal with possible objections right from the beginning. Once the thinner walls of objection have been kicked down the reader is forced to confront the actual question and may actually find themselves in danger of being persuaded. In other words, if you put a point down and then try to include or cover the most obvious objections others may have, you will find others will be more likely forced to think about your point instead of just rejecting it out of hand.
[Three paragraphs omitted on the nature of persuasion in deference to the need to avoid excessive "walls of text." -- see, I am listening
)Objections:
Of course many are going to argue that they do their thinking elsewhere. But thinking isn't a light switch and like any "muscle" if you restrict it to only those places and times you set aside to exercise it, soon those times become harder and harder to come by exactly because most of us spend most of our time trying to get out of excess work. So, I believe, it's better to make thinking a habit of mind rather than an occasional thing you drag out when required, if you want your mind to stay in shape.
Another objections: many people are using the game to escape. Escape what? Worries? Stresses? etc? If so, I'd argue that this is exactly why you should engage in complex and forceful discussion. After all if the problems facing you were simple to solve you'd have solved them already. To do so will probably take some intense and complex thinking and what better place to warm up, practice, and train for the struggle than by reading "walls of text" analyzing those "walls of text" and coming up with complex arguments of your own? You'd be surprised at how exercising your brain here can actually help you with the stresses in life not by escaping from them but by enabling you to take them on and solve them.
Of course, sometimes those stresses are medical and for that you need to work with your health professional. But most of us don't have those problems and thus most of us are not subject to such restrictions.
And another objection: Playing this game is a form of entertainment. But of course, what entertains you and what entertains me may be quite different, right? In addition, entertainment is not always passive. There are passive forms, of course, and active ones as well. Skiing is active. Watching cat videos is passive. Somewhere in between are games like this one. And even the "active" part of it is a balance between imagination and thinking. You make choices in the game and some of those are about the best route to this or that based upon reason, evidence and (mostly informal) calculations. Your mind is active and you can find that entertaining as well. If you don't find thinking a form of entertainment I suspect your cities will suffer because of it. Not that you won't/can't go far, but a thoughtful process beats a random one in building something every time.
In the end though, what I do is not about me so much as about others. All life is about the lives of others and their progress and growth. That's my base-line philosophy. I work to help and challenge others and that sometimes means "walls of text" for those who are willing to partake. Many of those who are not, are sadly, already so mentally undernourished they probably can only react with emotion because that's all they have left. I am probably not the one to help them wake up and start thinking again.
I shall end this here, though I do have more I could, and maybe should say.
AJ
