How rational human beings exchange ideas

Blogs are rarely a conducive medium for thoughtful discussions. (I do, however, think this blog’s discussions fare better than most.) The following diagram should serve as a general guide for how rational human beings exchange ideas:

Another instructive suggestion: Don’t be a dick.

Online discussions, especially those that concern sensitive issues like religion, are difficult to have. But if we’re civil and amenable to argument, such discussions aren’t futile.

I’ve invited several people to write guest posts for this blog, and they’ll likely be published over the next few weeks. Please show them the same respect you’ve afforded my posts.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged by Jon Adams. Bookmark the permalink.

About Jon Adams

I have my bachelors in sociology and political science, having recently graduated from Utah State University. I co-founded SHAFT, but have also been active in the College Democrats and the Religious Studies Club. I was born in Utah to a loving LDS family. I left Mormonism in high school after discovering some disconcerting facts about its history. Like many ex-Mormons, I am now an agnostic atheist. I am amenable to being wrong, however. So should you disagree with me about religion (or anything, really), please challenge me. I welcome and enjoy a respectful debate. I love life, and am thankful for those things and people that make life worth loving: my family, my friends, my dogs, German rock, etc. Contact: jon.earl.adams@gmail.com

32 thoughts on “How rational human beings exchange ideas

  1. I think a few more boxes could be added and a few others tweaked, but even as this now stands, I am going to have to get it made into a door poster, a towel, a t shirt, a knicknack, a bookmark, a fridge magnet, and fresco on the side of my house.

    • I agree. It’s not a perfect guide to discussion, but I like the general idea.

    • You could put this up anywhere you wanted to, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone would accept it or even begin to understand it ^.^ But it really is a good concept. Very true.

  2. Jon Adams’s reasoning reminds me of what Shakespeare wrote:

    “Out, out brief candle…! Life’s but a walking shadow; a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more… A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…!

    Well Jon, your hour is now. Enjoy it while you can, ’cause that’s all you got–and there ain’t no more for you… Or as all you college geniuses would say: “Dig it dude…!”

  3. It is relevant inasmuch as your complicated little diagram is a blueprint for prevarication. You’ve learned a lot from Obama, Biden, et. al… Keep working at it. You’ll get it someday…

    Shakespeare was more eloquent than you (or I) will ever be. Re-read his words: “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…”

  4. When reading any blog related to SHAFT, I am reminded of the old kids’ trick when flipping a coin to make a decision. “Heads, I win–Tails you lose…!” (That would be you doing the flipping.) I’m a Mormon, but not too diplomatic to tell someone when I believe his opinion is way out in left field. If you have a little trouble understanding what I am saying, why don’t you go on the internet and look up the definition of “prevarication”. It’s just a little gentler than openly telling someone that it is hard to imagine that he even believes his own words… I believe there is a five-letter word for that, but I won’t use it…!

  5. Let’s just dispense with all the charged language; terms, like “paranoia”, “fearmongering”, “meaningful dialogue,” “hate-speech,” “gay rights,” etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum…. I know that’s asking a lot, since that is your stock in trade, and the only way you know how to spread your propoganda. Gee, that’s another word you might want to investigate… But I suspect you probably know more about it than I do…

    How about I just close off our communication with a cleaner (well, maybe that’s not the right word…!), more concise, more undertsandable two-syllable definition of “prevarication” than what you’ll find on the internet: bull-shit…

    ‘Bye, y’all…! It’s been fun interacting…!

    • Right, because “meaningful dialogue” and “gay rights” are charged terms…

      Take care.

    • The terms and their precise definitions are debatable, sure, but when have I ever discouraged debate at this blog? If you’ve felt excluded from the discussions, it’s because you’ve never made an effort to respectfully engage people.

  6. Jon:

    I just spent (wasted) the past thirty minutes attempting to engage you in a manner which you might be equipped emotionally and intellectually to accept. I wrote quite a little piece: coherent, unemotional, and reasonable. I had it just down to finishing touches, when your web site suddenly terminated me. Apparently someone at your end is equipped with “spy-ware” I have seen advertized on-line–but never quite completely believed existed until today. Whoever is guarding your “back door” is pretty clever. They waited until I was completing the finishing touches, then “kicked” me off your website. The apparent rationale was that after I had spent so much time carefully crafting my answer to your latest reply that I wouldn’t be inclined to try and waste time doing it again. Funny, nowe that I think about it, this isn’t the first time…!

    There are a few tell-tale indications when such a system is in use, because I suddenly see “funny” things happen–like my cursor moving of its own volition, the window in which I am presently typing jumping up or down a page or two, or the cursor suddenly jumping to a different paragraph when I am typing–and in the middle of a sentence that I am typing, etc. You might remember that I mentioned sometime ago that I spent 24 years in law enforcement–so I am not unfamiliar with similar goings-on, but nothing ever this dramatic or obvious.

    Clever boy, Jon…! I just wanted your fans to have something to think about…

    Oops…there it goes again… So goodbye, and have fu-u-u-u-u-u-u-un………………….!

  7. Old Jon’s just like the kid who got caught with his hand in his pants… He was just in there checking to make sure no one else had been in there fooling around without him knowing it…!

  8. Harland, what the hell is up? You just started lashing out a Jon like gangbangers on some random civie.

    • He sure is a fine example of this post though, right? It doesn’t really get better than this.

  9. I like that…! When people start with all the name-calling, it means I’ve touched a nerve. It means that some collective group has to drop all their narcissistic reciprocal praise of each others’ profound wit and logic about the world and society in general long enough to try and defend some idiotic religious/social/political rationale to which they all subscribe. Ah, the good old college days…kids full of piss and vinegar and ready to whip the world…! Too bad the crusading kids don’t concentrate on what counts. Instead of straight vs. gay, Obama vs. Beck, religion vs. atheism, socialism vs. capitalism, pornography vs. prudism, sexual freedom vs. commitment, etc., why don’t we hear a little about solving a few problems…? Flash: Beck and the Tea-Party aren’t the problem. Neither is established religion, nor radicalism of the “left”. Ditto for the economy, inflation, energy, etc. Oh, there are reasons, but I’ll leave it to all you geniuses to figure that out…

    An example of how petty and trivial all your “discussion” seems to me: I’ll bet not one of you can figure out why Obama/Holder backed off on closing Gitmo–and trying terrorists in New York . It wasn’t a political decision, I can tell you that–although it does play right into Obama’s hands for his re-election. He just blames it on Congress–and the “radical” right. But he’s being disingenuous. If you want to know the REAL reason, read the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution–very carefully… I could tell you the reason, but that would take all the fun out of knowing you guys have to figure it out on your own. I know that’s a tough read, 80+ words all packed into one sentence. Hint: It has something to do with all these guys being captured on foreign soil, and being detained outside of the United States. Holder has been arguing (mostly with himself) for months about the need to move these guys to the States, to treat these men as common criminals, and not enemy combatants, and try them where the crime(s) were committed, in civil court–with all their Constitutional rights guranteed. Gee, I wonder why we didn’t try all Hitler’s henchmen on U.S. soil…! And why didn’t we guarantee all THEIR Constitutional rights…? (Damn…! I gave you too much of a hint…!)

    Anyway, it’s been fun guys…! I didn’t even finish college, but I enjoy watching the antics of kids who think they know it all, and are ready to take on the world…

    I won’t be bothering you anymore. But I have a suggestion that might improve your “discussion”: Drop all your trite, hip, slick vocabulary and rhetoric, and try to be a little more original and imaginative…

    • what does any of this have to do with the discussion? I never said I knew it all, if you actually asked me I’d probably tell you I’ll never know enough. But I sure as hell know what I know. And when somebody brings up a more logical option I’m not too closed to consider it. Original and imaginative? I don’t believe that anything is original or imaginative due to the fact that there are millions of people in this world, and also before us. Everything has been gone over over and over again. Nothing is original.

  10. I apologize for showing up on your site again…but I have something constructive to offer. When I hear (or read) something as depressing as Stephanie Blackman’s last comment: “I don’t believe that anything is original or imaginative…” and then her rationale for saying that, I really feel for the up-and-coming generation of America. Do you all REALLY believe that…? God, we are in a lot more trouble than anybody imagines…!

    Jon, here’s something you can really explore, and get your teeth into. You mentioned that you play a little guitar. That’s something that we share in common, though you might find that hard to believe. Guitar was half my living at one time, for more than 20 years. We probably don’t share a lot in common on types of music, but there is common ground, if you hear me out.

    I found it difficult for a number of years to even find anyone proficient enough as a guitarist, i.e., bass, lead, rhythm, whatever, that could even play accompaniment with me–not even a few chords, let alone jam…! (Incidentally, one of the largest crowds I ever played for was a pre-Christmas bash on campus at BYU, your most un-favorite place on God’s green earth… The second largest was probably the Telluride, Colorado New Year’s Eve celebration for the whole town, a long time ago. But that is neither here nor there… Let’s get down to business.

    Grab your guitar and try this. It will take a little work, so concentrate. Finger #6 string at the 10th fret with your second finger, #3 string at 10th fret with your 3rd finger, and #2 string at the 10th fret with your pinky finger. Notice that ALL the fingered notes are at the 10th fret… Gently, slowly, strum all six strings, leaving 1st, 4th, and 5th strings open.
    Listen carefully, because this one of the most colorful and explosive sounds you will ever hear. It is a D minor 9th–but one you won’t see in any class or instruction book.

    What has this to do with anything…? Get on YouTube and look up “Time in a Bottle”, recorded by Jim Croce, in 1973, and a chart-buster–three months after his death. There isn’t a video of how he did it, and I’ve watched a dozen guitarists try to duplicate his licks. Almost everybody has his idea of how to do it–and some sound pretty convincing. But–

    I mentioned before that I’ve been TOTALLY unable to find anyone I could “jam” with for a long time. That is no exaggeration. And everyone out there seems to be emulating Clapton, or Santana, or Garcia, or some other genius who seems to like to disguise his lack of real proficiency with fuzz, distortion, overdrive, hyperdrive, death-metal– whatever… What comes out of their speakers sounds like guitar syrup… Personally. I try to listen to Segovia or Christopher Parkening, if I want to do something more edifying. Everybody to his own taste, I guess…

    So, I figured out a way that I can provide all my own accompaniment (with a little help from Digitech, up in your neck of the woods). They probably don’t like what I’m doing, but that’s their problem…!

    Enough rambling. The chord I just described forms the whole intro to my performance of “Time in a Bottle”, as well as the ending. Naturally, you can’t just sit and strum that one chord for two or three minutes, and sing “Time in a Bottle” and have it sound like anything but noise… But that’s a start. I recorded it on CD, solo, along with an hour or so of other numbers. It’s nothing like anyone else has ever done–or probably ever will do…

    Music is like that–especially the guitar–and so is the science of politics. Don’t EVER get stuck on the idea that nothing is new, that old ideas are just hashed over and over. With that attitude, you’ll only experience hell for the rest of your life…! As I read somewhere in one of those books you like to belittle, “…If in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable…” Especially if we have have the attitude that nothing is new or original…!

    • You play guitar, eh? Cool to know that we have something in common–one thing among many, probably. I’ll be sure to look up that song.

    • A comment by you that I like! Minimal heckling, minimal “get off my lawn, you kids”. Thank you, sir!

  11. Jon: Something you might experiment with while playing that D min 9 chord I just described. Instead of just strumming, try a RASQUEADO. That’s a Spanish word that most English-speaking people can’t get their tougue around–anymore than than they can teach their fingers to execute it on the guitar… Roughly, in English it translates to “scratch”. Properly executed, it’s a Flamenco lick that requires all the right hand fingers in a complex down-up / up-down (or up-down /down-up finger roll pattern with the right hand.(Assuming of course you play guitar right-handed.) Each finger plucks each successive string in a rapid pattern, one finger after another, all the way across the neck. You can begin with either 1st or 4th finger, starting with 1st or 6th string, all the way across the neck. It sounds best if you begin going one direction, then repeat the process the opposite direction. Either way, properly executed, you get a smooth arpeggio sound, going first down, then up ( or up, then down). Practice slowly, until it comes out smooth. When you get it polished, you’ll be rippling a series of notes at the rate of 48-arpeggio notes a second (and that’s doing it slowly). I do it up-down / down-up on my ending for “Time in a Bottle”, with the chord I described for you. Try it–don’t take my word for it…!

Leave a Reply to Harland Carpenter Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>