It'd Be Better If You Wrote Nothing At All

I believe that I simplified my definition of flaming a bit too much because I view it as the least important component of conversation and preferred to keep my discussion focused on the other topics. I intended to portray flaming as simply any sort of comment that has little logical basis, does not contribute to any future discussion, and is aimed at causing other posters to abandon helpful discussion, including but not limited to personal insults to try to provoke a poster to insult back. It can be implemented with proper grammar and impressive vocabulary. Paragraphs that only deem a poster an "idiot" are obviously inflammatory. However, if you instead take the approach of pointing out why you find a poster to be an idiot by opposing his/her flawed ideas and offer sound reasoning for your opposition, then you have successfully countered that user's misinformation while avoiding an inflammatory response.

I'm partially confused on issuing personal attacks. It seems like in the first couple of sentences you were opposed to defamation of character. But you issue the condition that when a stupid statement is made, it is okay to insult their character as a consequence of their own statement. The following criterion you listed for flaming: little logical basis, no contribution, and abandonment of helpful discussion are fine from a personal perspective. But how do you work out a proper judgment when both people feel like the other person is flaming them? How about dealing with differences in people with different standards?

Religion was a poor choice as a counter-example. There are reasons that religious arguments are not valid in professional communities and many organized debates and are disallowed on Southperry from my understanding. If I get a "go ahead" from a moderator, I will elaborate further. I am currently making no personal statement of the validity of religion and would like to emphasize that fact to any reader.

I think religion is perfectly valid. There are plenty of creationists such as Ken Ham who are trying to prove biblical truth via chronology and archaelogical data. When it comes down to the creation of the universe, no one presently alive witnessed the creation of the Earth. The only reason why religious discussion is prohibited is not because religion itself is inherently an evil subject. The main purpose is to monitor immature responses and heavy arguments that tend to be a natural consequence of such discussions. You stated before that flaming was low in this forum and that there was plenty of "constructive criticism." Yet you feel compelled to follow the rules for unexplained reasons. In addition you felt compelled to state that religion was a poor example. Yet you failed to provide a better alternative. Certain people would consider this as being non-constructive. But I'm not making a personal statement of the validity of constructive criticism and would like to emphasize that to the universe at large.

Many discussions have no right or wrong answer. However, when that is the case, there are solid arguments for both sides, and either side must be willing to acknowledge those arguments.

Many discussions do have right and wrong answers. Take for example the issue of stem-cell research. I make the argument that promoting stem-cell research will promote abortion among females because they will not feel guilty as their embryonic fetus will be used for medical treatment and saving lives. I reference a psychology paper about guilt and making ethical choices. It sounds like a fairly solid argument. But it's wrong. Research regulations stipulate that am embryo used for stem-cell research can only be 2-3 days old invalidating embryos from aborted mothers. Strong arguments are dependent on a multitude of factors. The more you address the holistic truth of an argument the less strength it appears to possess.

I disagree with your statement that irrationality rules the world. Affirmative action, for example, is only entirely irrational to those who oppose it and refuse to acknowledge other arguments.

Affirmative action was intended to help a very focused group of minorities. Despite 50 years of action, affirmative action still exists. Professor Neil Sheflin, an economics professor has take numerous data on work unemployment and discrimination in the labor force. The result of his data explicitely indicates that the ratio of black to white unemployment has not changed since World War II (1939). This is particularly alarming. Especially since affirmative action is intended to have a multiplying effect if not an exponential effect. If you accept an applicant based on affirmative action to medical school or law school, they become an alumni. This makes their sons and daughters open to legacy preference giving at least a 1:1 ratio most of the time. Assuming only a 1:1 ratio is maintained, we should look at why I advocate an increase in minority success. The fact is that being a lawyer or a doctor allows you to set up your own practice and influence other people in the community. For example, there are many independent firms in New York City. It is natural to help out the community or your family. Thus giving other fellow minorities to intern and give them experience that make them better applicants to admissions comittees for those explicit fields. In addition, having such jobs comes with a six-figure salary giving their own family the privilege to pursue knowledge and get similar educational opportunities. Despite this, affirmative action is still in effect. Unemployment ratios are still maintained. And the principle of countering discrimination with a discriminative policy is at the purest form of hypocritical policy.

I could have just retorted, "Affirmative action is only rational to those who benefit from it." But this stems from the assumption that people choose to believe only in things that will benefit them. It assumes that humanity is blind and stupid. A fact that I fight by being honest about my opinions for once, for trying to expand conversation, and trying to find novel thought that isn't simply regurgitated mainstream opinion. I'm opposed to affirmative action not only because it's philosophically flawed (population statistics to justify past history of discrimination) but also does not realistically achieve notable results from a macro perspective. I'm sure there are small, heart-warming stories of minorities coming out from the ghetto and getting into notable schools on scholarship basis. But the fact is that in order for them to succeed someone else had to fail. And we will never hear that side of the story. In the instance of a zero-sum game there are winners and there are losers. The people who should get their jobs should be the people who deserve their jobs. But that's not how the world really works and affirmative action is a reminder that irrationality will always perpetuate irrationality on a daily basis.

Off Topic: This thread is really starting to feel better suited for the "Rubik's Cube".

Threads placed in the Rubik's Cube should contain intelligent comments.