I'm Looking for a Mental Sparring Partner
Take This Life  

Go Back   Take This Life > Treatment and Resources > Treatment > Alternative Treatment

I'm Looking for a Mental Sparring Partner

This is a discussion on I'm Looking for a Mental Sparring Partner within the Alternative Treatment forums, part of the Treatment category; I've been trying to find someone to, well, argue with in the best sense of thwe word, and not the ...

join us
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-22-11, 03:31 PM   #1
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22
Default I'm Looking for a Mental Sparring Partner

I've been trying to find someone to, well, argue with in the best sense of thwe word, and not the destructive, and was looking for someone willing to challenge my thinking as part of my therapeutic rehabilitation.

I can elucidate the terms, which exclude evasion, but I just wanted to know if anyone was willing, and/or interested.
Noitartst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-11, 06:41 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 91
Default

I'd be interested. I've got college and stuff, but I bet I could formulate a response to anything you could possibly think of if I was given some time to think, like a few days or a week. I'm all about challenging old thought patterns, of which I've had a lot of first hand experience. We could set up a thread, or just use this one, and agree to post a response once or twice a week. What are the terms?
barnaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-11, 06:20 AM   #3
Experienced Member
 
super147's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: England
Posts: 1,770
My Mood:
Default

I would voice a note of caution, that being that debate and/or arguments are not permitted on the forums. You could take the conversation to private message as long as it doesn't become an advice giving process. Advice and support should not be given via PM, again as per the forum rules.

You might want to run this idea past a moderator for some guidance before proceeding.
super147 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-11, 01:15 PM   #4
TTL Bronze Member
 
mmch85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: LaanDaan
Posts: 5,709
My Mood:
Default

Like what Super said. I dont think this is the right place. Try to remember that this is a support community full of people in pain, arguments can lead to hurt feelings and people may feel like they are not welcome in the one place that they can speak their mind.

However there are many forums that do cater for debates.... but i doubt they will be as friendly
__________________
I hate that early bird........ You know the one who catches the worm.........get back in ya nest ya feathery little mug.........
mmch85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-11, 06:05 PM   #5
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by super147 View Post
I would voice a note of caution, that being that debate and/or arguments are not permitted on the forums. You could take the conversation to private message as long as it doesn't become an advice giving process. Advice and support should not be given via PM, again as per the forum rules.

You might want to run this idea past a moderator for some guidance before proceeding.
Fair enough; I'm not trying to violate terms, here.
Noitartst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-11, 06:13 PM   #6
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by super147 View Post
I would voice a note of caution, that being that debate and/or arguments are not permitted on the forums. You could take the conversation to private message as long as it doesn't become an advice giving process. Advice and support should not be given via PM, again as per the forum rules.

You might want to run this idea past a moderator for some guidance before proceeding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmch85 View Post
Like what Super said. I dont think this is the right place. Try to remember that this is a support community full of people in pain, arguments can lead to hurt feelings and people may feel like they are not welcome in the one place that they can speak their mind.

However there are many forums that do cater for debates.... but i doubt they will be as friendly
Well, I'm trying to heal, myself. I like to challenge the thinking of others, but I could never use that aspect of my personality constructively, and am looking to do so yet. Stonewaling led me to great frustration, great frustration, and led to huge psychosomatic issues among others.

Actually, in my own way, I seek to do unto others as they refused to do to me.
Noitartst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-11, 06:18 PM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 465
My Mood:
Default

I do agree that you should be able to reach out, with reasonable expectations, and with the understanding that the authority of those giving advice is of their opinion.
FromImpossible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-11, 06:28 PM   #8
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnaby View Post
I'd be interested. I've got college and stuff, but I bet I could formulate a response to anything you could possibly think of if I was given some time to think, like a few days or a week. I'm all about challenging old thought patterns, of which I've had a lot of first hand experience. We could set up a thread, or just use this one, and agree to post a response once or twice a week. What are the terms?
Here:

For years, I've argued with people, and kept going in circles, but I think that's because there was a lack of common understanding in what made for social civility within those circumstances. If, in argument, people think it's okay to abuse the Golden Rule because they know not even what the Golden Rule is in the course of debate, I can't blame 'em too much. After all, argument, in my view, is bloodsport, but it's not fun if we're talking past each other, is it? The goal is to get the other to acknowldge you're right, that you've made your point, and if there's no closure, well, our current left-right system of punditry is the sorry result, ain't it, Rush Limbaughs on the right, and Michael Shermers and Michael Moores on the left. The Golden Rule asks honesty (and humility) of us, and who are we to refuse, be it crow on the diet, or no?

My proposed solution assumes that rudeness is self-evident, regardless of your political views. In punditry today, "I scoff at you for your scornful beliefs," versus "I scoff at you for your scornful manners," have pretty much mingled, but I think they need to be separated. Pundits so often, left or right, resort to rudeness when trapped, yes? Is that not an intinctive truth, yes? If so, then why not just socially punish that behavior whenever perpetrated, regardless of whether we sympathize with that pundit's viewpoint, or not? If we consistently, if not perfectly, can, then I'd daresay pundits' behavior would change, and in all likelihood dramatically.

Basically, my simple solution calls for the two arguers to be refereed by the audience, be it in the form of one observer, or a whole crowd, scanning for signs of evasion in one or the other of the parties. Specific protocols can be devised, but they just amount to recognizing good behavior, and excoriating the bad--simple as that. No, we can't expect each other to always be civil, but that ought be where society rebukes the etiquette breacher, post haste.

In short, the individual getting grilled has a responsibility, nay, a duty, to both himself and his opponent to create the perception that he's genuinely listening, genuinely engaged with thequestions he's forced to field, and not just blowing them off because they're uncomfortable. Is it easy? No, but it's the right thing to do, and besides this is bloodsport--you're trading punches to see who's tougher-minded towards reality, who grips it harder, and that's what this exercise is all about.

There's nigh an infinite number of ways to disengage from an attack, ranging from the answers themselves to body language, but none should be acceptable. Just don't enter the arena if you don't wish to be mauled, and if you change you mind afterwards? Tough. The goal is to ask questions aimed at challenging you opponent's understanding of what the truth is, and if his answers be blurry, winnow 'em down so they aren't, and the faster the better, with no excuses about the inquiry being too quick, or rapid-fire, in sight.

I don't expect your answers to be perfectly consistent--what's the fun in that, anywho? The goal, rather, to is to rework and refine them in light of reality, which is constantly being re-understood, anyways, but isn't that where the fun lies? It's all in the revision, and it's with inconsistencies as to where you start.

You see, my personal political and social views may hail from right-of-center, but intellectually, I'm postmodern in, I believe, the the best sense of the word, finding delight in the deconstruction of the narrative. Postmodernism can be described as many things, and I read up on the topic before starting this article, but for the sake of common understanding here, let us simply define postmodernism as the attack of, and upon, the text, and and our age as one where everything's up for critique, and if not, then it is is widely deemed that it should be.

I have found that I learn best by probing, and at the same time found, however, that people largely dislike to be probed, especially for contradictions. It's kinda ironic given our era, but it's human nature. Even so, society has erected guidelines pushing up, and against, our natural tendencies, be they to confine, subdue--and dare I say regulate? Argument, as I'll again repeat, is bloodsport, and certainly not for everyone, but to him whom it appeals, to such a soul I call.

The first thing, per my system of debate, is that you have no right to be offended at having your logic attacked. Evasiveness and hostility, therefore, justify the attack, and hence vindicate the search for contradiction, instead of rebuking it. In punditry today, the talkers get mad when their fellow pundits stonewall them, but engage in hypocrisy when they themselves do it, and yet such behavior, alas, is actually par for the course.

And that, of course, is where the Golden Rule comes, or, rather, does not--come into play. If you expect people to stand their ground with if-so-then questions, then you'd blame well better be prepared to take what you dish out, yes? That's my ideal, although frankly, the beliefs I sport are the ones whose competitors I believe I can maul, and not so much on their internal consistency, though, obviously, I'm satisfied with such.

I've not exactly had my integrity tested, though, because I've not had too many wanting to maul me like I've wanted to do others (none comes to mind, really), but in such an event, were I to deviate from the following guidelines I'll subsequently elaborate upon, then I'd be justifiably deemed "contemptible" by my opponent, and unworthy of respect, ensuring his win by forfeit:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This might not be the right forum, granted, but I hope you can start to understand my frustration.

I've got other formats, in mind, too.

I did an experiment on this once, and it likely seems the best social results come where you're just focused on debate, and someone else is keeping a close, if informal, score of who's being intellectually sloppy.

WIth the help of someone else who was willing, I tried it on someone whom I'd had trouble with in the past. Frankly, the lack of dramatics was a disappointment, but it worked; I could not find any fault with the results with this good-cop-bad-cop format, but to try it online I would need longer-term assistance from others.
Noitartst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-11, 06:40 PM   #9
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Maryland
Posts: 465
My Mood:
Default

I did want to add that I do understand the rules of the board and even well meaning people can be over their head if they attempt to help another (in the sense like a psychologist would).
FromImpossible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-11, 04:39 PM   #10
New Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22
Default

Nn argument there, sir.

Oh, and by the way, shrinks today may praise empathy, but it's conditional, because they're hypocritical cowards when it comes to wrath; they refuse to acknowledge it, and that is a gaping hole in their aspirations to validate.
Noitartst is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2