So how does difference of opinion stifle consensus-forming discussion? Surely that's what drives consensus onwards, if consensus is even supposed to be the goal.
If there's no difference of opinion, there's no consensus-forming discussion because consensus exists and discussion is therefore unnecessary.
If there's no difference of opinion, there is a discussion leading to consensus, so therefore difference of opinion stifles consensus-forming discussion. You can't have consensus without a discussion
If there's no difference of opinion, there is a discussion leading to consensus, so therefore difference of opinion stifles consensus-forming discussion. You can't have consensus without a discussion
That's your logic fail right there. One doesn't follow from the other. Just because lack of differing opinion may lead to consensus-forming discussion, it doesn't mean that differing opinion stifles it. There's no logical basis for that step whatsoever- you've just plonked your faulty assertion there and put "therefore" in front of it like there's some sort of causal relationship, when there plainly isn't.
What exactly is the relevance of this latest blind alley, by the way?
Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.
Yes. You were being pedantic. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back at you.
Nonsense again, If you say 'I like kids', and on the basis of that everything thinks you're a paedo, it's not pedantic to point out that you are not a paedo
Total rubbish, if you want to reach a consensus of opinion, then you have to have a discussion
Did you even read the post you quoted? That's not the part I was taking issue with. The point is that it doesn't follow from that that "therefore difference of opinion stifles consensus forming discussion". The truth of one does not in any way prove, or even imply, the truth of the other.
BTW, you can have assumed consensus in exactly the same way you can have tacit approval.
Did you even read the post you quoted? That's not the part I was taking issue with. The point is that it doesn't follow from that that "therefore" difference of opinion stifles consensus forming discussion.
BTW, you can have assumed consensus in exactly the same way you can have tacit approval.
I'm not talking about assumed consensus, I'm talking about consensus forming discussion
I'm not talking about assumed consensus, I'm talking about consensus forming discussion
Again. Did you even read the post you quoted? Try reading the bit BEFORE the "BTW". It's the main part. Hence the "BTW", indicating a side-point.
And BTW (look! this is a side-point!)- if you're talking about consensus-forming discussion and asserting that you need consensus-forming discussion in order to have it, then I'll agree, but question what exactly is the point in such a redundant argument?
Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.
Nonsense again, If you say 'I like kids', and on the basis of that everything thinks you're a paedo, it's not pedantic to point out that you are not a paedo
Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.
Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.
Honestly you lot! I leave you on your own for a morning and look at the state you get yourselves into. Il see if I can make time to pop in later and help you guys out. It's reached the point where a level head is needed. I have been pleasantly suprised by some posts. I may have underestimated Hobbit feet. Peace.
Again. Did you even read the post you quoted? Try reading the bit BEFORE the "BTW". It's the main part. Hence the "BTW", indicating a side-point.
And BTW (look! this is a side-point!)- if you're talking about consensus-forming discussion and asserting that you need consensus-forming discussion in order to have it, then I'll agree, but question what exactly is the point in such a redundant argument?
I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.
I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?
I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.
I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?
I must have missed that argument. Which I disagree with. They're not 'living legends' and I don't know anyone who would claim that they are. Certainly, no-one on this thread has done so.
Unfortunately, the argument (if there was one), has since been derailed by assertions that argument stifles discussion and that all discussion must lead to consensus (which is completely wrong. Sometimes it does. Sometimes people agree to disagree even after discussion.
Which is basically what everyone else has been saying. .
I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.
I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?
I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.
I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?
You really have no idea what you're wittering on about do you? You've painted yourself into a corner and are trying desperately to come off as intelligent. It's not working.
I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.
I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?
Comments
Ever heard of irony?;)
Yes. You were being pedantic. Don't dish it out if you can't take it back at you.
It's not pedantic to say that "what stifles discussion (or even consensus-forming discussion) is difference of opinion" is a nonsense.
If there's no difference of opinion, there is a discussion leading to consensus, so therefore difference of opinion stifles consensus-forming discussion. You can't have consensus without a discussion
That's your logic fail right there. One doesn't follow from the other. Just because lack of differing opinion may lead to consensus-forming discussion, it doesn't mean that differing opinion stifles it. There's no logical basis for that step whatsoever- you've just plonked your faulty assertion there and put "therefore" in front of it like there's some sort of causal relationship, when there plainly isn't.
What exactly is the relevance of this latest blind alley, by the way?
Nonsense again, If you say 'I like kids', and on the basis of that everything thinks you're a paedo, it's not pedantic to point out that you are not a paedo
Total rubbish, if you want to reach a consensus of opinion, then you have to have a discussion
Did you even read the post you quoted? That's not the part I was taking issue with. The point is that it doesn't follow from that that "therefore difference of opinion stifles consensus forming discussion". The truth of one does not in any way prove, or even imply, the truth of the other.
BTW, you can have assumed consensus in exactly the same way you can have tacit approval.
I'm not talking about assumed consensus, I'm talking about consensus forming discussion
Again. Did you even read the post you quoted? Try reading the bit BEFORE the "BTW". It's the main part. Hence the "BTW", indicating a side-point.
And BTW (look! this is a side-point!)- if you're talking about consensus-forming discussion and asserting that you need consensus-forming discussion in order to have it, then I'll agree, but question what exactly is the point in such a redundant argument?
Cool story bro.
Ummm right.
What a random example.
And you're being pedantic right now.
No rush.
Great. Soupbowl's back. Let joy be unconvincing.
Actually I'd rather not know.
Please don't bother. You're a rubbish troll.
I'm glad you'll agree, that is what I meant. It was a throwaway remark, it wasn't an argument.
I presented what I thought was an interesting argument about Carr, Venables & Thompson being living legends earlier this morning, hoping for some discussion on that leading to a consensus. Should I assume consensus that they are living legends, on the basis of there being no arguments made against it?
Wouldn't that be a Womble??
I must have missed that argument. Which I disagree with. They're not 'living legends' and I don't know anyone who would claim that they are. Certainly, no-one on this thread has done so.
Unfortunately, the argument (if there was one), has since been derailed by assertions that argument stifles discussion and that all discussion must lead to consensus (which is completely wrong. Sometimes it does. Sometimes people agree to disagree even after discussion.
Which is basically what everyone else has been saying. .
Not sure what Wombles actually are...apart from, well, Wombles.
I should have said "Don't bother, you're a shit troll". Which he is.
No...
but keep digging.
You really have no idea what you're wittering on about do you? You've painted yourself into a corner and are trying desperately to come off as intelligent. It's not working.
"Assume". lol
I was always taught to never assume.