I wanted the title to say “stop being raging nitpickers for once in your lives” but it wouldn’t fit.
I’m referring to this thread wherein I pose a thought experiment question in Great Debates - you know, the forum that used to be the place to post debates instead of one political jack-off fest after another? I asked people to not hijack the thread with the differences between Galileo and Socrates and instead focus on the similarities, and these are the responses I get:
(presumably some ungoogleable reference to the Earth riding on the back of a tortoise a non sequitur in any case.)
How 'bout just take the stick out of your collective ass and discuss what was supposed to be discussed, or not post at all? It’s not difficult.
And if you’re going to be that nitpicky, make sure you at least make sense:
Galileo could’ve chosen death wherein he would’ve been inevitably vindicated and posthumously thrown egg all over the face of the church. His death could have arguably made a hell of a lot more sense than Socrates’.
It’s not difficult to see the similarities in the cases, especially when you’re asked to look at them and ignore the differences for the sake of discussion. Seriously, what compels people to shit all over a thread, especially when they’re asked up front not to? Maybe I should’ve posted another thread about Sarah Palin instead :rolleyes:.
Some things are worth dying for. Some aren’t. If you willfully disregard the specifics of each situation there is no “right” choice. It’s a stupid question.
So if I ask you if you’re an Elvis man or a Beatles man are you gonna say well John played the harmonica and my uncle met a man who met Elvis and I really don’t think Sir Paul should’ve married that one-legged lady, or are you gonna answer the question? (Or there’s the other option of just moving along without responding.)
That’s not even remotely equivalent to your GD thread. You weren’t asking people to pick a preference based on any old random criteria, you asked people to make a choice based on the morality of the situations. BIG difference.
Sorry, but I don’t accept the framework or the characterization. So there’s no reason for me to play along. Provide some substantiation, and maybe we could get at the underlying issues.
IMO, the OP needed more work, at least for GD. Those weren’t nitpicks. Most philosophical questions worth pondering will be hard.
Why didn’t you just ask the question without the reference to Galileo and Socrates? By posting the thread on a board full of history geeks, you were just asking for it.
I think the question is an interesting one and that the answers you received were even more so. It’s a shame you don’t think so.
Good. It’s fully within your rights to skip over any old given thread without posting.
No, it’s a shame I didn’t receive any answers.
Look, it’s an extremely simple question. The fact that people are overly complicating it makes me feel like I’m on crazy pills. Two dudes were told to shut up or die. One did, one didn’t. It doesn’t matter who the fuck they were. It just so happens that this happened to a guy named Socrates and a guy named Galileo. The debate is not about their life or circumstances. Fuck you people are dense.
Okay, you realised that it was “an extremely simple question”–whether to live a lie or die for progressive beliefs. Then you added unnecessary information. Then you call people dense for discussing a question that you complicated. Right?
I gotta agree with everyone else here. Had you posted the question in GD as you posted it here I think you may have fostered the debate you were looking for. As it is we were handed a plate of history with a side order of red herring.
Although, my joke post aside, I’m totally Socrates. While his death was unnecessary even as a martyr and makes little sense no matter how you look at it, Galileo just flat sold out his values. Socrates all the way dude.
It’s really phrased no different here than in the other thread. I just seriously want to know what kind of asshole posts a nitpick in a thread specifically asking to refrain from nitpicking, and no less than 5 people did it in that thread. It’s the online equivalent walking into a room labeled No Smoking, lighting up a Romeo y Julieta, and puffing away.
That’s what I was looking for. You cannot sit in front of your computer with a straight face and tell me you couldn’t have figured that out from my OP in the other forum.
I wanted to know if people thought it was preferable to stick to your guns, even in the face of death, or live to fight another day. It’s a really, really, exceedingly simple and clear discussion. People here just have to step on each other’s feet in a rush to prove how smart they are by “tearing apart” debates. I was afraid it might happen when I posted the OP, which is why I asked people to resist the urge to nitpick, but I didn’t realize that would be all people wanted to talk about. I almost get the feeling that had I not asked people to refrain in the OP it wouldn’t have been a problem. Then again I just don’t know anymore. It seems like every other thread in GD and the Pit turns into a series of meta-debates these days, usually to the exclusion of the original topic.
The second one is far clearer. Think about the similarities, like I clearly asked in the OP. Men of science, brought before an authority and told to shut their yap or die. One chose to die and one chose to live. There are just as many similarities in the two cases as there are differences, but when asked to focus on the similarities, residents over Doperville thought it would be a lot more fun to do this: http:/ /www.boreme.com/media/yr2008/poop-marathon-runner.jpg
That’s YHO. I’ve been here long enough to know what threads belong in what forums, and if that thread hadn’t been a trainwreck from the very first response, it would belong in GD. It was intended to be a debate about which was the better choice.
Dude, I nearly responded to the thread in question, with the nitpick that Socrates didn’t exactly fall on his sword immediately after the verdict; IIRC he resorted to bribery-twice-and when that didn’t pan out, he went ahead and took the Hobson’s Choice left available. A crass denouement to my mind, one that certainly has a bearing on whether or not I wish to emulate the fabled So-crates.
You muddied your own query by citing the specific principals, then posted ad hoc warnings not to nitpick the parts of the question which weren’t needed in the first place.
In other words, if I sincerely wanted to know how you (universal) would act if you were a hated despot holed up in your bunker/castle/stronghold with the howling mob/opposing army calling for your head at the gate-whether you would take the reins and off yourself or take your chances and wait it out-I wouldn’t bring up Hitler and Mussolini and tell everyone to just pretend their deaths were approximately congruent save their ultimate choices.
Oh, I figured it out from both the OP and the Pit definition (hell, I figured it out from the original thread title). I’m just a smartass whose too quick with the joke posts sometimes (although I do make an effort to refrain until the OP has been answered or until a more serious discussion ensues, whichever comes first. Even us smartasses have enough decorum to respect an honest quest for answers/debate).
Although it’s prudent to understand that while responsibility for effective communication is totally up to the presenter, the judgement of whether or not that communication is effective is left to the audience. Therefore if we say your question or any of the parameters of it were not totally clear to us, then they were not totally clear to us. It is our responsibility to ask question about it and your responsibility to clear it up. Addressing this with “Yes it was.” is ineffective and following it up with “You had to have known that, there’s no way you couldn’t have known that.” is somewhat condecending. Rather than abandoning your original position to defend it’s phrasing, perhaps it would be better to abandon the phrasing to restate your position.
[Harry Caray]Don’t jerk me around, Norm! It’s a simple question! A baby could answer it! If you were a hot dog, and you were starving, would you eat yourself?[/Harry Caray]
a non sequitur in any case.)