Any thoughts on this? (9)

http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Who you calling"@?!;:$£<&#931;#"!" "Did you just call me a "@€$££!?"!

Very few people when they state a position in public will then publicly retreat from it, so it's mostly a safe bet that the stated man of faith, or the stated socialist, or the stated racist are not going to be swayed. If somebody posts something I disagree with and I then post a counter-argument it's not necessarily to try and change their mind, but the minds of others who might read the thread.

The idea that two people with strongly held, well informed and differing opinions can just meet, talk, and then agree one or other is right is a bit silly to be honest. Especially when the world is so full of grey areas and ambiguities.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

in response i have five logical fallacies of my own:

#1 they're not logical fallacies

#2 anything quoting evolotionary psychology is by definition suss

#3 dodgy assertions are often shored up with "teh science"

#4 never trust an article with more pictures than paragraphs (unless they're diagrams)

#5 everything you read on the internets is true.

Edited 19 Dec 11, 8:30 AM by shit_sub

That's certainly true, but there's still an element of competition against the guy you're arguing with.

Whilst you can be pretty sure that he wont change his mind, by winning over others who may be reading you're showing them that he's not only wrong, but stubbornly choosing to remain wrong, despite the fact that you've convinced everyone of the opposite viewpoint.

Therefore you can win and be seen to win the argument regardless of whether the person you're arguing with changes their position.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Isn't this the definition of "scientist" - or even "rationalist". I have held strongly to certain views and been forced to renounce them in the face of evidence. Not easy but we should strive to do it....

See worlds on worlds compose one universe, observe how system into system runs

Discussion on Informed Consent often alights on issues that inflames heated debate. Rarely have I seen evidence of minds being changed.

However, where informed and logical debate can run aground, there is another mechanism for communicating ideas that can serve well; stories. In a story we can appeal to people's hearts. By tackling issues from the side rather than head on, we can sometimes persuade people think again,. With stories we also can leave them the space and privacy for reconsideration of their views.

Informed debate and deductive reasoning are not to be abandoned, and in the making of laws they are the only thing that counts. But sometimes, a willingness to appear kind can outweigh an unwillingness to appear foolish.

We have a wonderful heritage of stories, story telling, theatre, television soaps and so on that have taken on big themes and sought to change public opinion.

The @Fetish_Photo_Album A free and private flickr group for IC members to share dirty pictures!

Edited 20 Dec 11, 1:45 PM by MarcusStrapp

Round these parts it's rather grandly referred to as "narrative".

"We must tell the narrative!" my bosses eagerly remind each other.

And while it's rather spoiled by its association with running things up the flagpole to the blue sky outside the box, I think I probably agree with them (and you)

Welcome back btw, I haven't seen you posting for ages!

Edited 20 Dec 11, 1:43 PM by shit_sub