Debating vs argument

Debating should be allowed on this site as long as the debate does not turn into a heated argument. It is very challenging to Debate sensitive issues without becoming angry. I have to wait to calm down after the fire rushes to my head in order to not seem disturbed in an out of control manner.
The Monks over in Tibet have debating contests. I think it is an excellent anger management tool. Especially when we have the option of editing our words before posting them.


I’m guilty of stirring the pot on a few occasions…

anyways, people do seem inclined to discuss everything on here. To me that’s the sign of a real community.

This is however a forum about schizophrenia. People lose sight of that. We should be talking about what we all have in common and not things which will put us at odds with each other.

It’s inevitable though. It’s also nice to get one’s opinion on something out there and to find like minded people.

Over time though if your thinking about it properly you learn what to say and what not to say.


I still say that this is a forum For aand About sz…evident because of the different categories :slight_smile: I think mods and such should be a bit more tolerant and maybe adress people who are “stirring ■■■■ up” like you and me, privately to sort things out when discussion/flaming gets too extreme

BarkingDog, conforming to humanity (lol)


That’s putting a lot more work on them to have them sort it all out personally. The flag system works pretty well also just calling for a thread to be locked via the @(mod’s name) mentioning.

Glad to see your back on here.

still think they should be “seen and not heard” more than they are now. maybe moving delicate topics to the correct categories and such. (which I know they do)

The private thing is when they intend to ban a user, a more progressive method I think is justified
No lashing out at mods intended. just trying to be productive :slight_smile:

1 Like

That’s because you keep getting yourself banned lol

1 Like

Seen and not heard?! The most active moderator on this site suffers from the same illness as the rest of us!

1 Like

I know, lol, but last time I wan’t even told… which I think is pretty arrogant :slight_smile: still, I think anyone who gets banned deserves an explanation… This forum was a big part of my daily life, and will be again (sorry guys/ettes, lol)

1 Like

Well that’s a nice qualification for a moderator :stuck_out_tongue:

if I was a mod, this outta be moved to beta

A debate based on rational facts is fine. Debates based on beliefs are more problematic as we’ve seen with the religious and anti-psychiatry stuff that swirls around this community. Since I’m guessing you’re referring to a locked thread, a debate that runs along the lines of "we are running the planet just like they said in The Terminator movie is going to be a problem unless you also produce facts from outside of the movie.

No matter how much I enjoy Crank 2 with Jason Statham, telling me that I can ‘recharge’ my pacemaker just like Chev Chelios ‘recharged his heart’ in the movie using sundry and various external electrodes will earn you nothing more than a horse laugh. I need to get cut open every 8-10 years for a battery replacement. Doing what is shown in the movie would either stop my heart, cook my heart, or cause my pacer’s battery to explode (according to pacemaker clinic staff who I asked out of morbid curiosity).


1 Like

Yes, we do need moderators on this forum. All forums I’ve been on have rules. I think when they lock the threads, it is like ringing the bell to end round two or three, deciding by how much time is spent on arguing our own negative views.

I think some people insist on posting in a way that will get a thread shut down despite copious evidence of the likely outcome of their behaviour.

If your winning, it’s called a debate.
If your losing, it’s called an argument.
source: my ex.


And the key word here is… beliefs. I say that because beliefs are at the core of our illness. We do not see, hear or feel “actualness” all that well.

(And actually, most people have some degree of inability in that regard. Is the concept of “reality testing” is more of social convention inside the box of the mutually agreed “consensus trance” than a measure of multi-sensory connection to what is?)

Yes, I do have a (hopefully useful) point. And it is this: One can train oneself to be in better multi-sensory connection with what is. One could start with the currently popular Ekhart Tolle or Jon Kabat-Zinn, but there are gobs of “training manuals” out there these days.

I love Eckhart Tolle, though I think one should be moderately healthy before reading it. I was in the grips of a violent psychosis when I read him. I would cut my Mom off when she started talking about tomorrows plans and say “Mom, what day is it? Today.” Like I was big ■■■■ because I read Eckhart Tolle and I “knew everyone was outside of the Now”.

I still read him occasionally, but as I get healthier I agree less and less with some things he says. I do think you have a great point about actualness. That’s something I barely feel. Problem is I don’t know how to get there.

I’m a Christian, and I do believe there is a future (not concrete) and God wants us to think about the future at times.

I think a debate is more formal and usually has rules.

1 Like

I’m trying to spend more time living in the land of the probable and less in the land of ‘possible, but improbable’. That, and Occam’s Razor is the bee’s knees. I use it to slice everything, including my luncheon meat. (But not my wrists, I’m past that stage, thankfully.)


[quote=“notmoses, post:15, topic:27346”]
And the key word here is… beliefs. I say that because beliefs are at the core of our illness. We do not see, hear or feel “actualness” all that well.
[/quote]I think that we don’t always stay transfixed in actual awareness because we are too busy trying to become what we aspire to be instead of the actualness we always revert back to as the default mode. Realizing that we have that common ,presumably, but at varying times of our days. And I think we also maintain that “delusional possible reality” along with the actual one at all times just to have an escape mode in place. Is this a good description of what you are describing?

A debate is simply a arguement without emotional interference and considering that we are a little off balance naturally there should be more consideration to this.

I mean someone (pixel) shutting things down on a whim seems kinda short sighted.

I’ve had my account suspended for a few days because I was belligerent and insulting to another member which I can fully appreciate.