Ye Olde Pub (The English Pub)

[The Doctor]

You got a point there

 

I feel bad for the rest of the class speaking so horrible English. Oh god, their accents

[Gjest medlem-1432]

 

 

It ain't funny. Not at all. I swear.

 

Are you a little Scottish ore Irish?

[The Doctor]

Are you a little Scottish ore Irish?

 

 

Scottish

 

My dad's from Scotland, so my English is pretty good compared to, at least, my classmates.

[SnittLeif]

Ok.

It's more obscene language to use the word fuck, like they do in the US, I think.

Difference in opinion may be important here.

There are those who believe "pokker" to be something of the worst one can say. I remember from my youthful days at Ajer Ungdomsskole, we had this teacher who went into spasms if we uttered the dreadful phrase "Pokker ta!".

[jjkoggan]

Are you a little Scottish ore Irish?

 

 

Scottish

 

My dad's from Scotland, so my English is pretty good compared to, at least, my classmates.

 

My grandfather was born in england but immigrated to the USA as a boy . He loved both the USA and the motherland (something I am not sure many norwegians have a easy time understanding). When he turned 17 he attempted to join the US army to fight WWI but was turned down due to age. He wound up lying to the canadian army and fighting in the trenches as a member of the Scottish Highlanders (part of the canadian army), marching to bagpipes and wearing kilts. He claimed that near the end of the war his group entertained the troops with obscene plays. Wearing kilts and having no women in the trenches, he played a girl.

 

He wound up having dual citizenship in Canada and the USA and loving all 3 countries.

[jjkoggan]

I dint quite know what obscene language means, but fy faen is more like... Holy shit in american or something.

Obscene - offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.

 

"Fy faen" is the norwegian sentence saying "Bad devil, don't do that!" (faen is another name for the devil). There's no english equivalent to it.

 

I know exactly what it means and how it is normally used. Why asking the devil not to do something is obscene still makes no sense. This is what god fearing christians want to happen.

At least the word fuck is an obscene act in the way that it is meant (something close to rape)and therefore is more logical.

 

It all is an example of how we learn as children, not through just logic but through emotional queues. As adults we still carry those emotional links that can still make us cringe. It also should challenge us to review why we view life as we do. Some of our values might not be totally rational but sometimes based on irrational cultural norms established as children. Unfortunately few of us truly take the plunge and live in an environment where our values are challenged, like living in a foreign land. I guarantee it is an opportunity for real growth and understanding.

[Getingar]

This is what god fearing christians want to happen.

 

You just answered your own question. Most norweigans and scandinavians alike are atheist. We don't believe in a devil because we are superior intellectually and we use the frase "fy fan" or "fy faen" to mock Christians that belive in fairytales.

The only good religion is Asatro which should be the oficiall religion of scandinavia.

Christians are horrible. Norweigan kings killed heatans in Småland if they wouldn't convert to christianity. Birger Jarl killed heatans in finland. We loath christianity and even more we loath islam.

Christians ruined scandinavia and I personally will never forgive them.

 

And all because of Ansgar... Ansgar should be dug up and his bones desecrated for his hideous deeds.

[jjkoggan]

 

You just answered your own question. Most norweigans and scandinavians alike are atheist. We don't believe in a devil because we are superior intellectually and we use the frase "fy fan" or "fy faen" to mock Christians that belive in fairytales.

The only good religion is Asatro which should be the oficiall religion of scandinavia.

Christians are horrible. Norweigan kings killed heatans in Småland if they wouldn't convert to christianity. Birger Jarl killed heatans in finland. We loath christianity and even more we loath islam.

Christians ruined scandinavia and I personally will never forgive them.

 

And all because of Ansgar... Ansgar should be dug up and his bones desecrated for his hideous deeds.

 

Ok...Perhaps you should take your superior intellect and realize some medication and reality therapy is needed. One cannot be atheist and have a religion (Asatro), nor is the concept of intellectually superiority widely accepted by scientist (some, yes)

[Slimda]

Don't mind that poster, we have some roaming madmen in our forums too. Most of what he says is completely devoid of any sense of realism.

[jjkoggan]

Don't mind that poster, we have some roaming madmen in our forums too. Most of what he says is completely devoid of any sense of realism.

 

 

Yes, I am familiar with the tullingen. I believe it is mostly in jest, though he/she likely harbors many of the prejudices he expresses about racism/liberalism. I have found it very interesting to see the racist reaction in europe today with modest immigration/diversity compared to the USA. These are the same reactions europeans have used in the past to criticize the USA.

 

It turns out that we are not very different, no nation has moral superiority when it comes to dealing with cultural and ethnic diversity, some societies have just dealt with it for a longer period of time and have moved past certain issues.

[Rata101]

I believe it is mostly in jest, though he/she likely harbors many of the prejudices he expresses about racism/liberalism.

 

Spot on, I believe. Because they have no actual way of reasonably justifying their own views, they resort to trolling and rethorical hit & run tactics. It's a classical sign of desperately clinging to something that would be too demeaning to defend by conventional discussion.

 

Unfortunately, this forum has set the threshold of acceptance regarding the quality of posting at what I believe to be naively low, so to ensure that their fear of being percieved as "elitist" can be held at bay. Thus, making this a trollers paradise.

 

Unfortunately, the side effect of that is sensible people pulling out, and trolls moving in.

[jjkoggan]

Spot on, I believe. Because they have no actual way of reasonably justifying their own views, they resort to trolling and rethorical hit & run tactics. It's a classical sign of desperately clinging to something that would be too demeaning to defend by conventional discussion.

 

Unfortunately, this forum has set the threshold of acceptance regarding the quality of posting at what I believe to be naively low, so to ensure that their fear of being percieved as "elitist" can be held at bay. Thus, making this a trollers paradise.

 

Unfortunately, the side effect of that is sensible people pulling out, and trolls moving in.

 

 

My experience is that debate fora are full of extreme views regardless of the forum rules. THis is likely due to both the anonymous nature of the internet, and because those on the fringes tend to be more upset with the status quo. I also think that europeans aren't as knowledgeable about what racism and its ramifications are. I have never read in any norwegian debate forum a comparison, for example of immigrant crime to native born citizens who live in similar socioeconomic environments. The comparison is always immigrant to native born, no consideration of environment is ever evaluated. No serious discussion today in the USA would evolve without evaluation of these environmental factors.

[Anarkhos]

One thing is certain: Internet debates tend to be full of statements like "X are a bunch of morons" and "Y is nonsense". Ideally, it wasn't tolerated as it adds nothing to the debate.

 

(EDIT: Primarily thinking of posts with just one or two sentences or otherwise devoid of arguments; though of course, personal attacks are always bad)

 

Let me also complain about the system of rating posts. Let's imagine that a group of people only had theoretical experience with a subject, and that they were debating each other using only this experience. Then, a person who happens to have practical experience voices his/her opinions on the subject - only to have them voted down. Why?

 

Because the people with only theoretical experience didn't like what it he/she said - it did not conform to their expectations of what reality is like; even though this person was the only one to have the slightest idea of what he/she is talking about.

 

I am not having a particular debate in mind here, but this is why a rating system is bad. It is not how many people that like a view that determines whether or not it is correct, but whether the arguments hold water. You may not "vote down" posts on this forum, but that you may "vote them up" is bad enough.

Endret 19. februar 2011 av Anarkhos

[Rata101]

I agree that the rating system needs a revision. I think the sentiment among the forum brass is that "this system will work itself out". I believe that to be an at least, partial misconception, since this forum is actually comprised of several different forums. The rating system is essentially superficial, and won't be beneficial unless the forum is themed accordingly. Additionally, the nature of the rating system is prone to being misleading if it's not handled in a mature and responsible fashion (i.e. not abusing it), and this forum apparently has a large share of young users and/or immature members. I think it's obvious that having a system that lets users virtually pat each other anonymously their backs, without having to give a reason or justification, is counterproductive to the ideals of an intelligent debate.

 

The sensible thing to do, would be to limit the rating system to the areas of the forum where it would be constructive.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure what you're thinking about with your issues with practical knowledge versus theoretical. But, personally I think it's important to make an effort not to generalise on isolated events. They certainly give interesting insights and helps to flesh something out in ways that theory can't, but they are limited in terms of actual proof.

 

For example, a guy on this forum used his experience of meeting one chinese family as means of underlining his views on chinese culture and mindset in general. That's just plain wrong. It's like claiming to know a billion people, on account of having met one of them. It's not really a valid reason for making blanket statements. It is interesting, and adds depth to the discussion, though.

[Anarkhos]

I'm not entirely sure what you're thinking about with your issues with practical knowledge versus theoretical. But, personally I think it's important to make an effort not to generalise on isolated events. They certainly give interesting insights and helps to flesh something out in ways that theory can't, but they are limited in terms of actual proof.

 

Well, OK. It is my example that might be confusing. I was just trying to show how a rating system could be "abused". For instance, the "theoretical group" are those who read a book about the Amazon Rainforest that tells legends about two-headed humans in a particular city in the forest etc. whereas the experienced person is someone who has actually been to that city and could see for himself. He didn't find any of those humans, only "normal" looking people, but the book readers refuse to believe him.

 

There is of course no guarantee that, at some point, two-headed people did actually inhabit the city, but that likelyhood has just been severely reduced. Long story short: the experienced person knows more about the topic - he/she represents those who talk with some sort of knowledge, while the rest represents those who are just "guessing" (and thus naturally less likely to say something that is true).

 

The key about theoretical knowledge is that it must be verified through contact with reality.

 

I agree that the rating system could work in some parts of the forum. I do, however, also think that it only works properly if an OK percentage of the voters know enough about the topic - regardless of what it might be (duh!). This might be hard to guarantee some of the places.

Endret 19. februar 2011 av Anarkhos

[jjkoggan]

Well, OK. It is my example that might be confusing. I was just trying to show how a rating system could be "abused". For instance, the "theoretical group" are those who read a book about the Amazon Rainforest that tells legends about two-headed humans in a particular city in the forest etc. whereas the experienced person is someone who has actually been to that city and could see for himself. He didn't find any of those humans, only "normal" looking people, but the book readers refuse to believe him.

 

There is of course no guarantee that, at some point, two-headed people did actually inhabit the city, but that likelyhood has just been severely reduced. Long story short: the experienced person knows more about the topic - he/she represents those who talk with some sort of knowledge, while the rest represents those who are just "guessing" (and thus naturally less likely to say something that is true).

 

The key about theoretical knowledge is that it must be verified through contact with reality.

 

I agree that the rating system could work in some parts of the forum. I do, however, also think that it only works properly if an OK percentage of the voters know enough about the topic - regardless of what it might be (duh!). This might be hard to guarantee some of the places.

 

 

Are you saying that practical experience is more valuable than theoretical knowledge? I have lived in the USA for many years and therefor have alot of "practical knowledge" of the realities of this great land. This does not mean, however that those that live in Norway and have studied about the USA from afar do not have more knowledge about many things that I do not regarding things here. Even though I live here I am still limited in my ability to observe and understand everything that goes on here. I have a pretty good grip on my own microenvironment but the larger picture can be fuzzy from my limited experiences.

 

What matters in the debate is not who has practical knowledge or not but rather the better logic, the more convincing argument. Einstein developed his theories using thought experiments, not in a laboratory combing through data. He had the advantage that his theories could be objectively verified and are something that should be done when presenting a compelling argument, at least as much as possible. If there was objectively verified data showing two headed men in the amazon rain forest, then it really doesnt matter that someone who visited the rain forest didn't see it. His practical knowledge is irrelevant just as my opinion on the USA is irrelevant if there is data indicating otherwise.

[Anarkhos]

What matters in the debate is not who has practical knowledge or not but rather the better logic, the more convincing argument.

 

Yes! I am sure we agree on this matter; it's just me who picked a most unfortunate example; and I appear to just dig myself deeper and deeper in.

 

Let me try once more: the problem is that if you only read that something is true in a book, then you often have no chance verify the truth of it. So when someone who has conducted his own surveys on the matter finds out that the text in the book is just a bluff, then it might be tempting to just trust the trusted publisher of the book - after all, why should you trust the individual instead?

 

The individual may well be "voted down", even though he is the one telling the truth. We are the all-knowing observers, so we know the truth. I just created the example(s) to show how credibility may hinder truth - not to demean theoretical knowledge.

 

The example of two-headed people is something I read somewhere; I believe explorers of medieval times were telling tales about them, among other bizarre (seemingly nonexistant) creatures. Looks like they were bluffing.

[jjkoggan]

Let me try once more: the problem is that if you only read that something is true in a book, then you often have no chance verify the truth of it. So when someone who has conducted his own surveys on the matter finds out that the text in the book is just a bluff, then it might be tempting to just trust the trusted publisher of the book - after all, why should you trust the individual instead?

 

 

The key is to have verifiable sources for the "survey". It so turns out that I am very knowledgeable about Madonna's early life because I dated one of her sisters for a while. Still, I have no way of proving it to others in electronic fora if someone published some inaccuracy about her teenage years. So yes, this is a problem in many ways, though I think that you cannot be uptight about being "right or wrong" or winning a debate. To me it is about sharing perspectives than either convincing others or being right. My experience is not that some will suddenly realize they are wrong and you are right, but more likely a small shift in a broader perspective about how different people think about different things.

 

 

BTW you write excellent english, I can barely detect any "norwegian-ness" in your prose. Are your language skills from practical experience or only "theoretical knowledge"! My english is just OK in a grammatical sense , but is excellent in a vernacular sense, not least of all because I am a native speaker.

[Anarkhos]

It is good to hear that my written English isn't all that bad.

 

My primary experience with the English language comes from reading and writing, rather than through talking ("physically") to native speakers - though I'd say both of these categories are practical, don't you agree?

 

I personally think it is possible for a non-native speaker to master a language at a native level - though it may take a lot of effort, and probably comes easier to some peple than others. I mean, after all, as a native speaker of Norwegian, I will plead guilty to every now and then coughing up sentences that are grammatically incorrect, or I will use a word wrongly. That is sort of how languages develop, too - though it is probably the new generations that are the primary drive for the changes. -- So while a non-native speaker is prone to mistakes, so is a native speaker to some extent.

 

To me it is about sharing perspectives than either convincing others or being right. My experience is not that some will suddenly realize they are wrong and you are right, but more likely a small shift in a broader perspective about how different people think about different things.

 

Absolutely. At the same time, it is my personal hope that debates may help us arriving at something that makes sense; and I do not think that the rating system will aid that goal.

Endret 20. februar 2011 av Anarkhos

[Rata101]

The key about theoretical knowledge is that it must be verified through contact with reality.

 

That sums it up nicely. Agreed.

 

Edit: provided that the contact is done in an empirically (sp?) sound fashion.

Endret 20. februar 2011 av Rata101