Value based topics - political, religious etc.

[SquareRobot ●]

So, my question is, can I be overtly racist toward a fictional group? I highly dislike the Mer aka Elves. Ugh. I'll do it without swearing!

[VirtualWeasel ●]

So, my question is, can I be overtly racist toward a fictional group? I highly dislike the Mer aka Elves. Ugh. I'll do it without swearing!

People (meaning me) have done it in the past... And then an Argonian vs. Dunmer forum war started. Which was totally mostly my fault...

[OblivionDuruza ●]

So, my question is, can I be overtly racist toward a fictional group? I highly dislike the Mer aka Elves. Ugh. I'll do it without swearing!

Not if you want to live .

But in all seriousness, I believe that people can get as passionate about fictional factions/groups as real ones, so tread lightly. Don't flame and don't express you're hate unless it adds to discussion or serves a certain point. I personally won't stand any Mer-bashing and could potentially get quite furious.

[Andere ●]

SquareRobot, the best way to find answers to your question is to PM Dark Lord or General, direct links are in the first post here.

Normally you couldn't do it as you have no post count, but I've added you to Confirmed users, so just fire off! And welcome to the Forum.

[SuperNull ●]

Perhaps the best way to go about this is to allow philosophy but to discourage politics and religion.

Philosophy _can_ be done as a battle of wits with respect for each other.
Religion and political preference on the other hand tend to originate from (moral) convictions that can't (shouldn't?) be dissected beyond a certain point. Discussing them guarantees some/all parties get emotionally invested.

[N'wah Nern ●]

Why does it seem we (humans) can't discuss the most important topics without coming to hate each other? I guess that's what makes them important.

[scribbane ●]

Why does it seem we (humans) can't discuss the most important topics without coming to hate each other? I guess that's what makes them important.

It's because they are the most passionate topics. Our beliefs are some of the most important things to us, and they are usually the things we will fight for.

[Grim ●]

Religion is a lie. Coffee is our natural relationship with the Gods. Period.

[Pilaf The Defiler ●]

Ha... "you can talk about anything you want, as long as it doesn't really mean anything." Sounds just like the official Bethsoft forums.

[General Grumble ●]

Why does it seem we (humans) can't discuss the most important topics without coming to hate each other? I guess that's what makes them important.

It's because they are the most passionate topics. Our beliefs are some of the most important things to us, and they are usually the things we will fight for.

Beliefs are the problem facts are the only solution

[Frost Mage ●]

But who knows what beliefs are facts and what facts are actually just well-convinced beliefs?

[Spiney ●]

Facts have evidence while beliefs are things we just spout regardless.

[Frost Mage ●]

But who truly knows that there is gravity on other planets? We call this a fact, but we truly do not know this.

[Andere ●]

Gravity is caused by a mass attracting another mass, thus we know there is gravity anywhere where mass is present. Another fact is, presented by a propulsion engineer, that time is an abnormality caused by gravity. Meaning: no mass, no gravity, no time. Kind of interesting when you start to think of some spiritual realm... they have no mass, do they? Goes for God too...

I make the claim, the true realm of humans is not scientific = so called facts. People make their decisions based on values and feelings, all marketing and sales personal know this. I also make the claim that modern man isn't necessarily that knowing as he claims to be. There just might be a reality higher than we can perceive with our five senses? Perhaps the sixth one we lost once in the past?

I encourage to use your brains. Like X-Files stated, The truth is out there.

[Frost Mage ●]

*brofist*

[General Grumble ●]

Gravity is caused by a mass attracting another mass, thus we know there is gravity anywhere where mass is present. Another fact is, presented by a propulsion engineer, that time is an abnormality caused by gravity. Meaning: no mass, no gravity, no time. Kind of interesting when you start to think of some spiritual realm... they have no mass, do they? Goes for God too...

Care to present a source for this propulsion engineer? A source is something which we science fundamentalists like to call evidence. The reason we supply evidence is so that it can be tested by others and against other evidence which has already been proven to be correct.

I make the claim, the true realm of humans is not scientific = so called facts.

I make the claim that when I defecate rainbows smelling of roses come out. However, since I can't present any evidence to back up my claim you'll just have to believe me, or not.

People make their decisions based on values and feelings, all marketing and sales personal know this.

This is true for the majority of people on the planet unfortunately. Logic is not natural for human beings and must be learned, but it's not hard to learn. It's like riding a bike. This assertion is evidenced by the millions of people world-wide while still being a minority, that are capable of thinking logically.

I also make the claim that modern man isn't necessarily that knowing as he claims to be. There just might be a reality higher than we can perceive with our five senses? Perhaps the sixth one we lost once in the past?

Made me think of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U

I encourage to use your brains. Like X-Files stated, The truth is out there.

I sir, encourage you to follow your own advice

[Eltee ●]

No need to be a jerk about it.

[General Grumble ●]

sorry if I over stepped the mark I considered that playful banter.

Out of interest and for future reference which part did you find most distressing? The part where I explained what evidence is and why we need it, the defecating rainbows bit, the Tim Minchin video, or when I asked him to consider taking his own advice?

[Andere ●]

I don't think General Grumble was a jerk or caused problems. I knew I made a weak point when not giving the name of the propulsion engineer... I have it somewhere in my bookshelf, but can't remember where. About the time issue, something can be found here: http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/in ... -3304.html. Besides gravity, the big issue is the light of speed - is it constant? It's a bit like the controversy about light otherwise; I'm a photographer, and I learned that the basics of optics teach that light can only be refracted, it cannot be bent. Well then, lately we have learned can light can be bent. And the speed of it? Latest measurement show that the speed would decrease --- meaning that the assumed increasing speed of the expansion of universe doesn't in fact take place, but is only visual illusion. Ha?

That's the problem with science: it's correct. It cannot accept that it may be wrong. Like in old days, Earth was the center. Then came Copernicus. And until these past days "scientists" have claimed that there is no water in space, whereas The Bible has proclaimed for thousands of years that there is. And now, finally, man found it.

Man's truth varies, truth doesn't. And I'm not preaching, or anything. Use your brains, folks. --- Don't believe me!

[General Grumble ●]

That's the problem with science: it's correct. It cannot accept that it may be wrong. Like in old days, Earth was the center. Then came Copernicus. And until these past days "scientists" have claimed that there is no water in space, whereas The Bible has proclaimed for thousands of years that there is. And now, finally, man found it.

Cool I'm glad you took it the right way

Although I have to take issue with this part as you contradict yourself. You say science does not accept that it is wrong. You then immediately go on to give examples of science being changed when new evidence is presented.

I'll take a look at that link you provided thanks

[Kiz ●]

Although I have to take issue with this part as you contradict yourself. You say science does not accept that it is wrong. You then immediately go on to give examples of science being changed when new evidence is presented.

I think this shows that as soon as science is proven wrong, they change the facts so they're right... I think. It basically means that they support what they have evidence for, whereas religion can say things without a base - regardless of whether they are right or not.

[Musicman247 ●]

The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.
—Aristotle

So what does that say for those who think they know everything?
— Musicman

[Jeff ●]

I believe it goes like: "The more you know, the more you realise how much you don’t know — the less you know, the more you think you know."

Which by quoting the whole thing, answers your quote.

[Musicman247 ●]

Rackin' frackin' critics.

[Gideon Dragontongue ●]

Us literary types just can't get a break, eh?