I won't comment on my views here. I've found that in other topics here, there are some posters that come for a specific poster or group of posters regardless of topic. Due to myself being in the crosshairs of one such poster, I'm going to be scarce here.

However... I have a second observation in these forums. Often people will challenge, assault, or mock other posters views without owning up to their own views. Having nothing to offer themselves, all they have is to stand against what others offer in conversations.

This topic is my challenge to anyone and everyone. The rule is simple. You are only describing and defining your own views. This means no counter arguments or why you disagree with someone else. Just your own. Whether it's about politics, justice, current events and international stuff, religion, human nature, or just your view of what should be done in the world. It doesn't matter what it is you own up to believing. Only that it is your beliefs or your views that you support, instead of someone else's beliefs and views you stand against. To show your not a hollow troll only here to throw potshots at others. Tell something that you believe. Tell at least one of your views that matters to you.

Basically, I believe in peace and bashing two bricks together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3UCAQSFxCQ

Toni, looking good there son, was that one of your more lucid moments. The hanky on the head really sets you off splendidly.

I believe for every drop of rain that falls a flower grows!

If anyone can give me a few more lines, I have a little tune in my head and I could possibly write a hit song.

"Tell something that you believe." What is the point? This is a Opinion Forum, just stating a belief and not engaging in debate or discussion about it seems pointless. "This means no counter arguments or why you disagree with someone else"

Okay play your game NNS.

I believe God does not exist.

Now where to on that. Nowhere.

I believe tomatoes are vegetables even though everybody says they're really fruit.

Yes, I support the overall context of this post. It is something I feel very strongly about and in principle I agree with. I am not going to target any person here, but to people who do not put forward a new discussion or post, I encourage these people to put forward a post of their own.

I've seen excuses from some and why they do not post, but I still encourage these people to stand up to the challenge of putting forward a post on this website.

It's not difficult.

I even appreciate those, who may only may post a few times, throughout a particular year. I see very different topics put forward online, and this is good in the context that the topic can be very fresh and if anything, quite refreshing in nature.

To those who don't post, I don't want these people forced into taking such action. It is something that needs to come from within ones own self.

I think this overall topic though is something for all to consider who put forward a position via this website.

An interesting challenge, Not_Now.Soon. I hope those to whom your post is directed take up your challenge.

In the meantime, I’d like to give it a crack if you don’t mind. Having posted on OLO for over ten years, it’s been hard to think of a view that I have not yet expressed and had challenged, but I think I’ve finally thought of one:

Since the invention of the printing press and the emergence of largely literate populations, I believe that the art of poetry and its critiquing has devolved into little more than a pompous display of pretentiousness. I believe the Ern Malley affair was a good demonstration of this.

*Ducks for cover*

Come on NNS...You are just complaining because you are continually proven wrong in your opinions by people like me and the Bible you don't know.

I'm sorry that you can dish it you but not take it...

You wrongly tried to twist what I said on Life after Death and I corrected you. You changed the word amazed to unique without any evidence for the change. You claimed I said I believed in God and misrepresented the facts.

I think you should apply the same rules in your Church as you want here...From now on Preachers shouldn't put up verses or preach because it is only their opinion...lol

I don't criticise your posts...I show where the Bible proves you wrong and you don't like it.

Believers have spent a lifetime lying to others...sorry if I show the truth from your Bible!

I will go gentler on you in the future BUT I will not stop proving you wrong with precise evidence!

Come to think of it, Not_Now.Soon, who are these people who only criticise the posts of others? I’m curious because I can’t imagine how this would be done.

Even when one does nothing more than criticise another’s claims, that person is still expressing a view of their own: that being that either they believe the other is wrong, or that they are sceptical of the other’s claims. This view of theirs could, in turn, be countered by providing sufficient evidence and/or reasoning for the opinion originally stated.

Sounds like a rather productive mode of discussion, to me.

That aside, as wise as it would be to not saddle oneself with a burden of proof by only calling to account those who make dubious claims, personally I think that would get a little boring after a while. Nevertheless, it sounds like I would have nothing but respect and admiration for these people to whom you have directed your challenge. I hope they respond.

Or is Opinionated2 right, and you’re just complaining because others discredit your claims?

I know from experience that the complaint that some are only criticising the opinions of others, while not stating any of their own, is a tactic used to divert attention away from a recent claim that is now laying in tatters. The biggest culprit on OLO here is LEGO. Every time I corner that poor sod, he starts complaining that I never make any claims myself. It is at this point that I bring to his attention the fact that the only opinion of mine that is necessary for a debate is that he is wrong.

If you don’t like people challenging your claims, Not_Now.Soon, then either don’t make them or make sure you have sufficient evidence for them beforehand so that you can swiftly shut down those who would challenge you. But don’t sit there try to shame others out of responding to you, by pretending that what they are doing constitutes trolling, just because you cannot support your claims with sufficient evidence. That’s just a sneaky attempt at silencing opposing views.

I believe dogs are better than cats.

“Often people will challenge, assault, or mock other posters views without owning up to their own views.”

That's because the knockers on this site you refer to generally don't have any views of their own. Most of them never start a discussion: they are like rock spiders, lurking until they get the chance to rubbish someone else. They are part of a pathetic 'wreck the joint' movement. Don't bother with 'challenges'; just state your own opinions, and ignore the fruit loops. It's not your job (or mine, or anyone else's) to set people to rights.

I believe people who order their steak well done should be removed from the gene pool.

Toni Lavis,

Is there any reason why people who order their steak 'well done' can't instead just be required to order the chicken?

Ugh, there I go again!

Sorry, Toni. I didn't mean to "rubbish" you. Because, you know, an individual's ideas are so intrinsic to who they are as a person that criticising their claims is the same as criticising them personally.

Apparently.

Toni,

"I believe dogs are better than cats."

But not to eat, or so says my Chinese takeaway.

//The rule is simple. You are only describing and defining your own views. This means no counter arguments or why you disagree with someone else.//

Sir, sir, AJ's being naughty! He's criticising my beliefs, sir. You said we wasn't allowed to do that. Make him stop criticising my beliefs, sir!

//Is there any reason why people who order their steak 'well done' can't instead just be required to order the chicken?//

Well, as long as the chicken comes with a side order of compulsory sterilisation I suppose that should be fine.

//Sorry, Toni. I didn't mean to "rubbish" you.//

I rather fail to see the point of OLO without people 'rubbishing' each other. It would get very dull if everybody just agreed with each other all the time. Still, doesn't hurt to mix things up in a while.

I believe that mischievous gnomes sometimes move my keys when I'm not looking.

Sir, sir, now Is Mise is criticising my beliefs! Make them stop, sir!

After all, it's only an online "opinion". So why is it that some here insist on references, peer reviewed data and a signed letter from the Pope before the comment (opinion) is valid on this site?

O Sung Wu, Hasbeeen, Joe, Foxy, Shadow Minister and many of the other usual suspects have been gracing the pages for years now and I wonder where Mr Young is taking this, if at all, for it has had a varied cast of posters (& imposters BTW) along the way. It has and continues to be, an interesting commentary on many subjects.

The trolls are on & off with different agendas, some morph into yet another User name and carry on.

Whoever you are, thank you for your "views", weird, twisted, out there and otherwise sane as they may be.

AMID.

Albie Manton,

It depends on whether something is voiced as a claim or as mere opinion, and, in the case of the former, how trivial or extraordinary the claim is.

<<… it's only an online "opinion". So why is it that some here insist on references, peer reviewed data and a signed letter from the Pope before the comment (opinion) is valid on this site?>>

When one makes a claim, one takes on a burden of proof. Whether one wants to fulfil that burden of proof is ultimately up to the individual, but there is nothing unreasonable about requesting evidence or reasoning for a given claim, and others are within their rights to do so without being accused of trolling or having others insist that they too be foolish enough to take on a burden of proof they may not be able to fulfil.

Some claims align more closely with the facts than others. There’s no harm in determining which ones they are, and doing so only becomes inappropriate when the individual voicing their opinion has already acknowledged that they have no evidence or sound reasoning for their opinion.

To Toni. Good Job on getting the point of the challenge. Write about something you believe in. Sorry not going to police any of this. (Even if you were serious). If anyone starts a fuss, but refuses to offer anything tangible that they believe or support, then their view is like a person who refuses to vote but complains about the results.

To Paul. You almost had it. But instead of saying what you believe in, you said what you don't believe in. Don't make it complicated, it's simple really. Say something you support. For instance saying you are against the labor party is misses the point, but saying you support the choice of abortion (or whatever else) says what you are for. It's that simple. The point is that people debate everything under the sun. But if they have nothing to offer that they support all they have is a ripping of other people's views, with nothing to offer on their own.

To Nathan. Good idea. Just have more people start discussions of their own. I like it.

To AJ. I doubt the people that fit the criticism of having nothing of their own to say (only say something about someone else's position) will change. But thanks for the encouragement. As for poetry and it's critics, that's a spot on observation. Seems very true. That said, it doesn't sound like a topic you are fond of or support. Is there something that you do? (Go ahead and reuse a topic from the past if you'd like.)

To Opinionated. Congratulations, you've figured it out. Your the inspiration of this topic. Having never said anything you actually believe in, support or are fond of, your views measure as nothing of value. But to say you've proven anyone wrong is to add more lies to your squadron of fables. I'd like to see you actually read someone's comment and reply to what they actually said instead of making up your own version of crap. But that's a different topic. Do you have anything you actually believe in, support, or are fond of? It's a sincere question. (Watch as you disregard it).

To ttbn. Well said and good advise. Thanks.

To AMID. .... thank you? I think?

____________________________

That should clear up the premise of this topic. If there're still confusion, that's on you not me. Go ahead and state at least one thing you are for. (To be clear, that list does not include things you are against).

Well said, Albie. It's not as if anyone here is going to be called upon to sort out Australia's or the world's problems. I particularly agree with your comment on posters insisting on regaling us with references to 'prove' their point. They are not even expressing their own opinions, but somebody else's.

//Having never said anything you actually believe in, support or are fond of, your views measure as nothing of value.//

I think it's fairly obvious what Op2 is most fond of: himself.

If you really want to get fired up and throw abuse at other posters, like me give up this political, religious, social, economic forum OLO, and like me joint the 'Flower Arranging for Beginners' Forum, where you can really get stuck in!

To give you and example, just the other day Betty Bolter from Bognor, had the audacity, the unmitigated gall, to post that gardenia's are a nicer flower than the petunia's! Did I see the frangipani in that statement. I let her have it with both barrels, the disgusting bitch. Its people like BBB who make those kind of false claims that are undermining the social, political, economic and religious fabric of society. After that statement I accused Betty of everything, being a Nazi, a Communists, a racists, a member of ISIS. I even thew in the ultimate of hate speak, yes I have to admit it, I wished for Lace Bugs to invade Betty's prize display of camellias! That got me a 12 month ban from the forum. So I'm back here to annoy you fellas.

Well I believe there's a genuine place to embarrass, make fun of, ridicule and humiliate others; but never harass.
Just as BDS might be considered a non-violent form of protest to some, I see this practice as a non-violent form of correction.

- Correcting stupid and idiotic logic and behaviour.

I was raised in a way that if you did something stupid you'd get called out for it and laughed at, which had the effect of making you wise up to said issue.

- So said frowned on behavior has a place and it makes us all wiser.
But some can take it and others cant, and you need to be mindful of that.

I believe that it's up to everyone to 'get and stay on top of things' and 'not let others get the best of you'.
If you've allowed someone here to get the best of you and you want to wave the white flag, thats your business.

I'd consider Toni my biggest nemesis of this forum, the person who challenges my comments and frustrates me the most.
But I don't cry or get upset about it, I'm glad of it.
I don't get scared to say what I think for fear Toni will respond, I'll say what I'm gonna say anyway, and ultimately its just as much a friendly battle of wits that any real serious animosity.
I don't go to bed all worked up and hating him, though I may have once or twice.
The point is I don't get to say whatever I like without someone else keeping me in check too.
That if I say something stupid I know I'll get called out for it, and thats a good thing really, because it keeps me grounded.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, but no-ones 'stupid' should go unchecked.

"....you did something stupid you'd get called out for it and laughed at...".

That's called humiliation; not a very nice way to treat a person no matter how 'stupid' you think they are.

<<Even when one does nothing more than criticise another’s claims, that person is still expressing a view of their own: that being that either they believe the other is wrong, or that they are sceptical of the other’s claims. This view of theirs could, in turn, be countered by providing sufficient evidence and/or reasoning for the opinion originally stated.

Sounds like a rather productive mode of discussion, to me.>>

Firstly if people took the above comment down to the dot point, I could argue this website address be changed to: www.onlineopinionthatisproductive.com.au

Secondly what is productive and taken into context regarding this website?

Definition of productive, at a basic level:

1. Doing or achieving a lot
2. Working hard and getting good results
3. Producing or able to produce something especially in large amounts
4. Causing or resulting in something

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/productive

A better option than a 'productive mode of discussion', is for people to have well defined position put on this page, and this includes well defined points if someone is to start a new discussion, leading to people wanting to put down a position of their own for example.

I know there are plenty who could create a well defined discussion, for the betterment of this website.

To put defined into perspective, in terms of a well defined position:

1. To determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defined

So to those who choose not to put forward a well defined discussion topic on this page, it is clear this does create a very unproductive environment to discuss matters on this website, simply because a person may put forward a position, that isn't well defined. This is where those who don't put forward a new discussion point, have an important role to play.

Help fill the void!

Not_Now.Soon,

I made it abundantly clear for a few years there that I support marriage equality. Plenty of people on OLO (one individual in particular) tried countering the reasoning behind my support. They were fun times.

--

Not very easily, NathanJ.

<<… if people took the above comment down to the dot point, I could argue this website address be changed to: www.onlineopinionthatisproductive.com.au>>

Because at no point did I suggest that opinions had to be productive.

<<Secondly what is productive and taken into context regarding this website?>>

This question makes little sense, so I’ll assume you’re just asking what constitutes a productive discussion on OLO.

A productive discussion could simply be defined as one in which at least one participant learns of a new way of viewing something - even if they still don’t agree with it. This adheres to your fourth definition of ‘productive’.

<<I know there are plenty who could create a well defined discussion, for the betterment of this website.>>

Stating that one is sceptical of another’s claim is both well-defined and incites discussion. But I don't know what you mean exactly by a "well-defined discussion". There are plenty of discussions started on OLO that are not well-defined, and the first few responses are consequentially spent seeking clarification or testing the boundaries of what the OP is wanting to discuss.

If you don’t like people challenging your opinions, then don’t post them. But there is no rule on OLO that states that participants must start the occasional discussion thread. In my experience, the expectation that certain others start their own discussion threads on the odd occasion is only used as an ad hominem attack by people who have grown tired of having their arguments discredited:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7795#240102

<<Sounds like a rather productive mode of discussion, to me.>>

Was this well defined as a point, something put very simplistically, something very general or a throw away line?

So how any initial point is put, is important. How a person then sees, reads, views and assesses the words put, will be defined by that individual.

So you don't have to suggest anything. A person's position or words put, that are not well defined or clear enough, will lead to statements or questions being put.

So is this productive in terms of any debate? Some of it yes, but a lot of it no, when one assesses the high levels of the same people putting a lot of new discussion topics on this website.

So with a lack of new opinion pieces from others, this often leaves people in an environment such as the following:

1 : to ask a question of or about
2 : to interrogate intensively : cross-examine
3 a : doubt, dispute
b : to subject to analysis : examine

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/question

This unfortunately leaves people who may wish to put forward a position, opinion or viewpoint in an environment full of excessive and petty questioning, with a limited focus on opinions, and a turning of this website into a de-facto courtroom.

<< In my experience, the expectation that certain others start their own discussion threads on the odd occasion is only used as an ad hominem attack by people who have grown tired of having their arguments discredited>>

That's your own spin on this topic and completely irrelevant here. So I'm making a judgement and ruling that one out of order.

For example Yuyutsu, only puts new discussion posts, on this page rarely, but ttbn puts forward a lot, leaving others who post no new discussion topics at all.

A new discussion post on this website, will not see the website crash or fall apart. Think about it.

To NathanJ. I still like your idea to have more people post discussions, but that isn't what I'm focused on here. Essentially what I'm seeing is that there are certian people who do nothing to show what they are for, but are ready on the keyboard to put someone else in their place. As well as argue about what they are against.

It reminds me of a meme I saw. Saying
"Arguing with a fool is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you argue and how well you play, the end is the same. The pigeon craps on the board and struts around like it won anyways."

Challenging and critizing isn't an issue if that's not all they do. If there is a point where they say what they are for and accept any challenges coming back at them then they are filling in the other half of the discussion that they usually put so much effort to tare down.

Filling the void is more then just ripping a new one into another. That should be the rarity is ever at all. Not the norm and only piece of conversation one contributes.

To AJ.

Good to hear what you are in support of. I fully expected you to pass this small challenge. (I actually expect everyone to be able to pass this small test. But surprisingly it's apparently more difficult then I assumed.).

As I said to NathanJ the challenges aren't the issue if that's not the only thing they contribute to any discussion.

For anyone interested. This is how easy it is to answer the topic challenge.

•I believe ...
-In God
-That trust initially isn't earned it's given freely, then can be grown or taken away depending on the other person.
-That habits are a good thing if they help people behave the way they want to be, as well as to provide structure to a person's life. For the same reasons traditions can be good and serve the same purpose.
-That all people have a bit of good and evil in them, but we all reap what we sow.

•I support...
-Adoption
-Young parents holding on to their children even though it'll be harder.
-Test what you know or others know, but give it a chance to pass before discarding.
-The Olympics
-Living within your means instead of accruing debt (even student debt).

•I am fond of...
-Board games, video games, friendly competitions, soccer, pingpong.
-Science fiction, crime/detective shows, history, and shows that say how something is made, or how it's done.
-My wife, and both of our families.
-Dogs, cats, birds, fish, .... Most animals.
-The things that make people smile.

ttbn,
I don't think I've humiliated anyone on the forum ever. Usually I let the egotistical fools dig their own holes, but sometimes I'll give them a nudge to start digging as well.

Sometimes people continue to stand behind flawed logic but will continue to defend their egos because I said something which makes them look and feel stupid.

NathanJ

It's "Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

"Don't interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" also comes to mind.

Well, it wasn’t a throwaway line, NathanJ.

<<Was this well defined as a point, something put very simplistically, something very general or a throw away line?>>

Possibly a “well-defined” one, depending on what exactly you mean by that.

<<This unfortunately leaves people who may wish to put forward a position, opinion or viewpoint in an environment full of excessive and petty questioning …>>

Personally, I can’t remember ever seeing “excessive and petty questioning” on OLO. I think you might be getting a little precious there. I have, however, seen the logic behind, the veracity of, or the factualness of many claims put to the test, and this can only be a good thing. There are some very easy ways to avoid butthurt when on the receiving end of this:

1. Withhold forming an opinion until you have all the facts;
2. Even when you believe you have all the facts, express your opinion carefully and cautiously;
3. Remain open to the possibility of being wrong and convey this through your language;
4. Start discussions by simply asking what others think about something without colouring the tone of the discussion from the get go with your own biases.

<<That's your own spin on this topic and completely irrelevant here.>>

I made it clear that that was my experience. I even provided an example to prove it. There was no spin involved.

If those who do not start discussion threads are attacked or ridiculed for not doing so, then my point was utterly relevant. You don’t get to claim otherwise just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. You need to provide reasoning as to why my point was irrelevant. You have not done this.

<<So I'm making a judgement and ruling that one out of order.>>

How arrogant of you to take that upon yourself. You are not the arbiter of this thread. Even if you were, the level butthurt experienced by yourself should not come into play.

<<A new discussion post on this website, will not see the website crash or fall apart.>>

No one has suggested that it would.

AC,

I didn't say you had, and I agree that you have not. I said that laughing AT people for saying something which could be regarded as wrong is humiliating and, if you want to 'turn' them, humiliation is not the way to go. Mind you, most people never change their opinions anyway, so I suppose anything goes; although just ignoring people is generally better than upsetting them - and yourself - for no tangible reason.

Hello Not_Now.Soon,

My point having new discussion posts put forward, is to see others put a position forward. That's what I'm questioning. Those who don't wish to go down this pathway, that's their choice, but will easily set their own essentially 'guidelines' like what comes across re the following:

I could set these as guidelines, where one shall/shall not:

1. Withhold forming an opinion until you have all the facts;
2. Even when you believe you have all the facts, express your opinion carefully and cautiously;
3. Remain open to the possibility of being wrong and convey this through your language;
4. Start discussions by simply asking what others think about something without colouring the tone of the discussion from the get go with your own biases.

So having an discussion with some can be extremely difficult, because some are expecting individuals to live up to set standards, and if these people don't they will be questioned excessively, including some of which is overly petty and I stand by that. The discussion on any overall discussion posted, can then be predictable and somewhat limiting.

This is where I encourage people, to put forward a new discussion on this page, leading to more balanced discussion on this website and see some people, putting a viewpoint forward, that they actually believe in or accept as fact.

For those who don't start new discussion posts, these people don't have the opportunity to 'defend their own views', because I simply I don't know they are, regarding a broader range of issues as they simply respond to those who put forward new discussion posts regularly.

I'm not uncomfortable, if others do not post new discussions on this page. What makes me feel uncomfortable, is that someone would even suggest that in the firstplace.

Finally, regarding 'spin', Politicians do this a lot. It can involve putting out one line sentences or selectively attacking and questioning others who they disagree with. It's a very easy thing to do, rather than putting forward, a clear, precise and new discussion point, via this website for example.

I think people should rejoice in their own limitations as long as they avoid depressing others with the reality their presence brings.

If humility is seen as a good thing; to cause one to reflect on their own words or actions, then why should humiliation (to cause humility) be seen as a bad thing?

To Armchair Critic. You said,

[If humility is seen as a good thing; to cause one to reflect on their own words or actions, then why should humiliation (to cause humility) be seen as a bad thing?]

Humility is not just reflection of their words or actions. It's more of a not thinking that you are better then others. Somethimes humility is about seeing others as better then you, but at the very least it's about not raising your own self image up. Also could be counted as being the opposite of arrogance.

Humiliation on the other hand isn't about making others humble. It's about drop kicking someone down a notch. Even to kick them while their down. If this is all a person has to offer, and nothing they positively support, then they have nothing of value to offer. Instead act as an erosion on other people. Only to humilate and tare people down.

An erosion, a poison. Not a positive attribute to help them be humble or to grow.