Mutual Admiration Societies

or M. A. S. for short.

If the nature of debate is to always look for agreement or for one's that agree then this is not "real" debate. It is a cultish mind looking for a mindless cult. If one "really" postulates then you would think (if thinking is actually on the minds agenda) that the postulator is already in agreement with themselves. It is only when they are not in actual agreement with their own posts that they search for validation by others. This validation can also arrive in the form of disagreement. This form of validation works like thus; The one who disagrees with the SPLIT MINDED postulator gets a label attached to them. This labelling excersise perpetuates the split minded outlook that there is an US and THEM. If one enters a debate with a question (rather than opinion) then one would expect others may wish to offer an answer based on these other's perceptions. If the one who asks only REACTS to the answers then they are also looking only for validation. The creation of the M. A. S. is only another SYSTEM of BELIEF. It is not a product of "true" debate. It is a M. A. S. debate for mas-debaters. This is my postulation. Your choice is to react, question, agree, disagree. I don't care which. Thinking may accompany the last three. Reactivity may accompany all four.
Voted for by grant.
View 3 comments Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
- Nathan Explosion
  February 8, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  
  Damn it Grant
  Yike I can't figure out what to think of you.
  I've tried to get a general feel of the kind of person you are. getting a ruff idea of a person is part of my primary debating technique it helps me avoid things that could upset the other person or things that would destact from my point. I'm very experianced in useing this method and rarely wrong because I usally only try to nail down the very most defineing characterics of how they argue. Dispite myself I can't get a peg that really fits. this is what I've come up with but I have little faith in it.
  
  You said you have eliminated ego, by your writing style and wording I can see that if anything your actually workING to eliminate ego. What you've reviled of you'r righting style displays blatant eastern views however the absance of quotes and specific referances would suggest two possiblities either you have a hadit of not finishing the books you read or either that you learn more by assimulating the data into the mass of your total knowledge. I image most like either one of these traites could very well explain the absance of names and referances.
  
  now if I take these indevidual clues and put them together. I arrive at these conlusions. writing style and writing construction suggests that you are probably between the ages of 16 and 24(big gap I know your tough to narrow down), was or are home or public schooled, if in college it is you first or second year tops, your either Asian or caucasian.
  
  Judging primarily from word usage and sentance structure I would be lead to beleive that you write before thinking about the whole, letting yourself work out what you want to say as you write even comeing to revalations and new ideas as you do so.
  
  I image that you are most likely middle class economically and you family participate(d) only moderately or less then moderately in your interests. I think this because although you use a large vocabulary it seems to be unexersized.
  
  Basically I tend to bounce around you either being like a self made scholar or a some smart ass punk trying to act smart. BOTH OF WHICH ARE BASED ON THE CRAPPIEST DATA I'VE EVER COLLECTED.
- - grant
    February 8, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    
    Its just your brain
    trying to put things in boxes with a label on them. Because I'm not a thing your brain will struggle with it. It's just what brains like to do because brains are things in the form of tools. But these tools also like to be in control and due to their thingness will look for other things (or look at others as things) for security. Are you your brain Nathe?
- Nathan Explosion
  February 9, 2007
  Edit | Reply
  
  I'm not a tool...I think
  Hmmmmm am I my brain? I am the sum of my total parts.
  If I have a soul that would be part of me, and my body is what holds me to this reality and transmits the information to my conciosness.
  Am I my brain? whether or not I am my brain is, at least to me, is undeterminal. Fore I have no perpective having not knowling been seperate.
  
  I am in identity my awareness which is bound to this physical realm by my brain.
  
  but in reality how I am really I am just another portion of energy, ever changing form, in an eternal cycle of the univers this time round I'm a person with "awareness". Later maybe I won't be "aware". maybe I'll be a tool, in a box.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

But then

If the nature of philosophy is debate, the world is completely full of brilliant philosophers, concidering most folks will argue with a fence post

Voted for by Dwn.

View 9 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
grant
November 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

Debate is debate and philosophy is debatable. "Brilliance" is as SUBJECTIVE as a fence post.
TeChNoWC
November 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

If we cannot debate debatability then this is a mass. As absurd as it may sound, these sort of extremes destroy themselves. "I hate opinionated people profusely", its so paradoxical that its not funny (well, that's subjective hey, so excuse the phrase, because that is all it is, nothing literal).
Dwn
November 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

You may debate your philosophy,grant, You may not debate mine , for yours is something you hold,I cannot debate that, it is yours, mine is something I hold, it is mine.I may argue that you do not hold these thing you say true, but who am I to know, you know what you hold to be true. You may argue that I do not hold the things I say I believe as truth, but who are You to say, not being me? I know what I hold to be true. Perhaps truth is subjective, depending on the experiences and observations of the beholder,perhaps it is not, But in eather case , Discussion may clairify a point, but arguements solidify posisions
Weydon
November 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

Debate the validity of it. You can believe you can fly all you like. It is your belief to hold onto forever and ever. But the validity of it can be debated, and would easily be disproven.
Dwn
November 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

Who do I need to validate that which I believe to? I do not feel the need for validation, as my philosophies are formed from My life experiences, which none can know in there entirety excpt myself, neither yours nor grants, and in order for the need of validation to exist, our sumises would have to come from speculation rather than excperience, and observation.
Weydon
November 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

Why do we have to do this dance Dwn? What do your innocent, very personal philosophies have to do with your refusal to degrade yourself to "debating" on moral issues like homosexuality. Debating on morals, like debating on whether or not you can fly, can be dangerous if you refuse to give it a shot. If you want to believe the vastness of the universe was made in 7 days, you can. If you want to ignore when people show outstanding evidence to the contrary, I'll smile and not say a word. If you say that your philosophies from life experiences should be taught to all children, you're going to need validate your beliefs.
Dwn
November 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

Why are you so hung on my views of homosexuality,I have said what I have to say about it, and hold to my beliefs,I do not hate the sinner but I do hate the sin. You are more than welcome , from my prospective to believe however you desire.Should you be a homosexual, (I dont think you are , but who am I to know?)I still have nothing against you, even if I fear for your happiness in life. There is no dance to do here , I believe the way I believe, and have grown tired of the whole debate on this subject, I have seen that no one is going to change there position on it, and those waiting for me to change mine will have a long wait indeed,So I propose we not let it be a barrior in between us , but rather leave it for those more directly concerned
grant
November 7, 2006
Edit | Reply

I agree. It will be a long wait. But time is of no consequence, so that is a very positive statement Dwn. A wait is a wait. Take all the time you want.
Dwn
November 7, 2006
Edit | Reply

The wait will probably out live us both grant :)