You can see where I'm going with this. There are some great conversations out here, but there are also pages of pointless back & forth posts repeating the same things over & over and/or insulting and/or cursing out one another. Why? What does this accomplish? Do people get some sort of pleasure and/or satisfaction out of this? — EricH

The good discussions are had by those here for discussion. The other folks you mention arent here for discussion, they are here to soapbox, to vent their dogma, to expound on some pet argument and/or to satisfy weak/insecure ego. Also, some just cant seem to tell the difference between philosophy and therapy. So yes, its about pleasure/satisfaction, with a wide spectrum of what gives that pleasure/satisfaction. The hope is that most are here for discussion, but the discourse just doesnt bear that out.

Someone recently called me a bot. <Sarcasm> Oh no! That wounded me to the core of my being - I'm going to introspect for the next 6 months until I can figure out the errors in my thinking. </sarcasm> — EricH

Thats exactly what a bot would say :wink:

Do people get some sort of pleasure and/or satisfaction out of this? — EricH

Uh. Yeah dude. Lol. An unfortunate fact of society sure- and not just modern society- yet at least shows those who post here haven't lost touch with the world that surrounds them.

Someone recently called me a bot. <Sarcasm> Oh no! That wounded me to the core of my being - I'm going to introspect for the next 6 months until I can figure out the errors in my thinking. </sarcasm> — EricH

Maybe not 6 months, just because a guy makes an observation of questionable intent doesn't mean he was doing so to "wound the core of your being" lol. Iron sharpens iron. Critique either has a point or it doesn't. Did it?

If I'm having a back & forth discussion with someone and I see that the conversation is just looping around and/or going nowhere, I politely back out and say "I will give you the last word". — EricH

You can do better. Unless you're debating with a person of much less intellect than yourself (and who's fault is that really) - you need to be able to quickly and on the spot come up with alternate views of thinking or wording even to show the person what they're missing in your logic. Examples are powerfully effective tools to accomplish this. Compare and contrast. Like a mental Venn diagram. Who knows. They may have a point you're missing as well.

Unless the person is just rude and hostile. They show their own faith and satisfaction (or lack thereof rather) in their philosophy and life choices. It's about the crowd or others around. Not so much the individual. Depending on the age- mental and biologic- of the crowd doing so can "show weakness" or lack of ability to prove your point. These days. Which may or may not be important in what you're trying to accomplish. Most with juvenile mindsets don't really amount to much therefore it's not really of much consequence you convince them of such and such. Then again. We live in an age of democracy. Mob rule is a scary thing.

We all have a habit of responding to the style content is performed in, not just its content. How things are said matters; it invests both the sayer and the audience with emotional significance. If it has come to matter "who gets the last word" or "who wins" or "who has done wrong" or "who is most right" in a dialogue among equals, its participants have forgotten the content for the performance. Or alternatively, revealed that the performance was more important for those involved than the content to begin with! The emotional inflections of performance are also a kind of intellectual data; grist for the analytic mill. I believe it's much more important to be able to recognise when and how you are inspired to action by these non-substantive (emotional, style based) aspects than to avoid getting involved in them entirely. (Unless, for you, such allegedly "contentless performances" are dealbreakers!)

"I'm right"
"No, I'm right"

What personal investments are at stake in the discussion?

What personal investments are at stake in the discussion? — fdrake

Varies from person to person.

Ranges from just being an anti-human troll, through simple insecurity, all the way to a sincere desire to see if one's own views hold up to scrutiny and criticism.

Possibly all of that is just a continuum of insecurity. Clearly every one of us is here seeking something we can't find in ourselves alone.

But we've taken the time to learn all this terminology and think all these thoughts. What the hell else are we supposed to do with it? :grin:

That's just what it is to argue. See:

https://vimeo.com/47833797

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

And just to demonstrate that I am a man of my word?

I give everyone else responding to my post the last word . . . . :grin:

If you're entrenched in your belief structure, and use it to determine relevance, and it fails, then you could end up walking away from information that can alter your life or view of the world. Thinkers must do better than hedonism, they must have the ability to apply "intellectual standards." What you see as, going around in circles, could just be your inability to allow your belief structure to be altered by contrary information, it could be the result of a lack of objectivity in your analysis. Hence, you could end up reinforcing delusion by saying to yourself, "this isn't going anywhere, this person is just going in circles." This premise, spoken to yourself, would allow you to characterize their position in such a way that you can evade it without actually having to engage it. This is why the burden of proof is central to all discourse.

Good post. The psycholigical aspects of it are very intriguing although I haven't a clue what they actually are. It reminds me of the game - Rome Total War. There's a playable faction in that game, the Parthians. Trainable units consists of foot soldiers, cataphracts, and, germane to lastword-itis, mounted horse archers. I'm sure you know the phrase, Parthian shot, which I suppose refer to a volley of arrows shot at enemies as the Parthian mounted archers retreat from the battlefield. Given the nature of the Parthian shot, the enemy is deprived of a fitting reply and, interpreted liberally, this can be considered a "victory" or so it seems. Possibly, the same logic with lastword-itis.

Try and make sense of the following quotes:

Those who do not know, speak and those who know, do not speak — Lao Tze

Fools speak because they have to say something. The wise speak because they have something to say — Anonymous

Empty vessels sound the most — Anonymous

Speech is silver. Silence is golden — Anonymous

Silence means consent — Unknown

:chin:

I was silently giving you the last word, but JerseyFlight and The Mad Fool ruined it.