Debate Poll

[Anonymous User]

Being inquisitive by nature and having a vested interest in bonsai forums, I thought a poll would bring some interesting points to consider to the forefront.

Over the course of the last few months we have seen many discussions take place on subjects that many have strong opinions on. These discussions were heated at times and they no doubt sometimes got out of hand with rudeness and off topic remarks, yet the question remains as to if such discussions are really useful or not.

Subjects such as stock sources, collecting, nurseries, Yamadori, strainers, masterpiece definitions, pricing, art, sales, promotion, contests, have been discussed and dissected and debated with excellent arguments coming from all sides. Have they made you rethink your positions on certain subjects? Have they simply reconfirmed your beliefs? Did they make no difference at all? Did you read or participate in them?

It is these questions and others I seek to answer with the poll above. Please feel free to comment.

Multiple choices are allowed and encouraged.



Will

 

[Walter Pall]

I have no poll above!

 

[Anonymous User]

Sorry, I was filling out the questions when you posted.



Here they are,



Will

 

[No it's not...]

I realize the poll isn't meant to be all scientific-y and I do think it's great to sometimes evaluate what it is we're doing, but it's kinda hard to quantify a qualitative question. It might be a good idea to tell the viewers why you (as in anyone) answered the poll the way you (as in anyone) did for the thread to make sense...

 

[Anonymous User]

Ah, lookie, someone gave this poll a "terrible" rating. You'd think they would have least left a comment explaining why they thought this thread was terrible. I wonder why they decided to do so anonymously?



Will

 

[Ashbarns]

Ah, lookie, someone gave this poll a "terrible" rating. You'd think they would have least left a comment explaining why they thought this thread was terrible. I wonder why they decided to do so anonymously?



Will

Was that berley you just threw in the water Will?

 

[Anonymous User]

No, was that chum you just threw?

 

[Ashbarns]

HAHAHA great response pass the can opener.

Ash

 

[Chris Johnston]

So it wasn't just one "terrible" vote, was it? Looks like out of ten ratings, this thread has averaged 1.7

 

[Rusty Harris]

http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-rules.html



http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-suggestions.html



http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html


#18 on the third link is vital, and always shows the gentleman, in my opinion.

 

[Vance Wood]

Ah, lookie, someone gave this poll a "terrible" rating. You'd think they would have least left a comment explaining why they thought this thread was terrible. I wonder why they decided to do so anonymously?



Will

Because you posted the poll. Face it Will, you are to some who frequent this place the cyber version of X-lax, you bring the best out of them.

 

[grog]

There's certainly been some good information from the debates but it seems like you have to sift through a lot of other stuff to get to it. Personally I would prefer more about trees and less about who is smarter, more clever, or more willing to go to ridiculous lengths to try and "win" an argument.

 

[darrellw]

There's certainly been some good information from the debates but it seems like you have to sift through a lot of other stuff to get to it. Personally I would prefer more about trees and less about who is smarter, more clever, or more willing to go to ridiculous lengths to try and "win" an argument.

Well said, Grog!

 

[Dwight]

Ditto the Grog man

Edit : I just went through the rest of the site and only found about five or six posts for the month outside general discussion , only one ( I think ) was about trees. How many posts have there been in this general discussion section in the last three days ?

 

[Gnome]

There's certainly been some good information from the debates but it seems like you have to sift through a lot of other stuff to get to it. Personally I would prefer more about trees and less about who is smarter, more clever, or more willing to go to ridiculous lengths to try and "win" an argument.

I also agree. Debate, discourse and yes even polite argument, should always be encouraged but when the debate itself takes on a life of it's own the pertinent information is obscured.

Norm

 

[Anonymous User]

So it wasn't just one "terrible" vote, was it? Looks like out of ten ratings, this thread has averaged 1.7

TAke out the usual five people and what is left? Still a rating that means nothing at all. The only possible use for such would be if people used the "sort" function to sort by rating, in which case even a single star lists above all those with none, so thanks guys...

 

[Anonymous User]

http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-rules.html



http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-suggestions.html



http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html


#18 on the third link is vital, and always shows the gentleman, in my opinion.

Good links, thanks.

I personally believe that #6 in the third link you gave us ("Attack the idea not the person.") is the root of much of the bickering that goes on here, in fact I have stated such on many occasions.

Further links on this subject...

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm

http://www.goodart.org/attack.htm


Attacking the person, by definition is nothing more than a personal attack and leads only to more of the same. Such attacks do nothing to add to the understanding of the topic, they disrupt the thread, and basically ruin the experience for all involved. Lastly, it has been shown time and time again that such "tactics" are not welcomed on this and many other forums, yet the few still persist.

Here's the Wikipedia definition for personal attack, one which I think many will find interesting when weighed against much of the crap on this forum.

Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example, a defense attorney may claim that a witness' testimony cannot be trusted because he is a convicted felon. On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a formal fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".


Further Reading:

The Fallacy of Personal Attack

Fallacy: Personal Attack

The Meaning of Civility

Defamation of character



Will

 

[BonsaiWes]

I'm going tree shopping.

 

[Chris Johnston]

Good links, thanks.

I personally believe that #6 in the third link you gave us ("Attack the idea not the person.") is the root of much of the bickering that goes on here, in fact I have stated such on many occasions.

Further links on this subject...

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm

http://www.goodart.org/attack.htm


Attacking the person, by definition is nothing more than a personal attack and leads only to more of the same. Such attacks do nothing to add to the understanding of the topic, they disrupt the thread, and basically ruin the experience for all involved. Lastly, it has been shown time and time again that such "tactics" are not welcomed on this and many other forums, yet the few still persist.

Here's the Wikipedia definition for personal attack, one which I think many will find interesting when weighed against much of the crap on this forum.

Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example, a defense attorney may claim that a witness' testimony cannot be trusted because he is a convicted felon. On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a formal fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".


Further Reading:

The Fallacy of Personal Attack

Fallacy: Personal Attack

The Meaning of Civility

Defamation of character



Will

All good stuff. Can you show us the last time you were personally attacked?

 

[Anonymous User]

All good stuff. Can you show us the last time you were personally attacked?

This is an attempt to incite Chris and an obvious twist of what has been said here, please note not only didn't I insinuate that I was personally attacked in my posts above, I did not infer that the point I made was in regards to myself.

Now instead of trying to make this about me instead of the subject once again (attacking the person), why don't you express your opinion on the topic at hand in an intelligent, civil manner, if you are capable.



Will