Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 27th, 2009, 11:04 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 862
The alternative to insults.

I was recently advised that I should take a passive-aggressive approach to debate in which I dance near the edge of insult, stopping just barely short of the line, so as to bait my opponent into crossing it. At that point, I could cry foul and inform the authorities. A win!



I refused this advice. Instead, I insisted that if the debate had ended but my opponent kept babbling, I am then free to insult this person outright, hopefully ressulting in their silence, but definitely allowing me to vent any exasperation caused by their inability to either gracefully lose or at least shut up.



The third choice, of course, would be for moderators to intervene and shut the loser up. But that's not going to happen around here.



The final choice is to silence them by sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "I'm not listening". This is what the Ignore feature does, but I'm not going in that direction. I'd rather stick with the second choice, even though it allows someone to use the first one against me and get me banned.



TC
ThoughtCriminal is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 12:11 AM   #2
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal
I was recently advised that I should take a passive-aggressive approach to debate in which I dance near the edge of insult, stopping just barely short of the line, so as to bait my opponent into crossing it. At that point, I could cry foul and inform the authorities. A win!



I refused this advice. Instead, I insisted that if the debate had ended but my opponent kept babbling, I am then free to insult this person outright, hopefully ressulting in their silence, but definitely allowing me to vent any exasperation caused by their inability to either gracefully lose or at least shut up.



The third choice, of course, would be for moderators to intervene and shut the loser up. But that's not going to happen around here.



The final choice is to silence them by sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "I'm not listening". This is what the Ignore feature does, but I'm not going in that direction. I'd rather stick with the second choice, even though it allows someone to use the first one against me and get me banned.



TC
Thank you for showering us with your great wisdom. If only we had the intellectual ability to abide by the standards you set forth.
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 01:32 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman
Thank you for showering us with your great wisdom. If only we had the intellectual ability to abide by the standards you set forth.


Blow me.



See what I did there? You used irony to insult me, which is an under-the-covers attack. So I brought it out in the open by insulting you explicitly.



Note that at no point did you offer a legitimate argument or engage in debate, so I wasn't using insult to derail a genuine discussion. Rather, I used it to show everyone what sort of raging asshole you are.



Now, quick, you "made" me say "raging asshole", so report me and get me kicked off. Come on, you can do it. Fool them!



TC
ThoughtCriminal is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 01:45 AM   #4
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal
Blow me.



See what I did there? You used irony to insult me, which is an under-the-covers attack. So I brought it out in the open by insulting you explicitly.



Note that at no point did you offer a legitimate argument or engage in debate, so I wasn't using insult to derail a genuine discussion. Rather, I used it to show everyone what sort of raging asshole you are.



Now, quick, you "made" me say "raging asshole", so report me and get me kicked off. Come on, you can do it. Fool them!



TC
I'm very confused. What's the difference between a "raging asshole" and just a plain asshole? Does this make me superior to the ordinary assholes?
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 04:07 AM   #5
man
 
onthefence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: laying on the fence
Posts: 5,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by pensacola_niceman
I'm very confused. What's the difference between a "raging asshole" and just a plain asshole? Does this make me superior to the ordinary assholes?


Far superior!
onthefence is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 04:59 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal
I was recently advised that I should take a passive-aggressive approach to debate in which I dance near the edge of insult, stopping just barely short of the line, so as to bait my opponent into crossing it. At that point, I could cry foul and inform the authorities. A win!



I refused this advice. Instead, I insisted that if the debate had ended but my opponent kept babbling, I am then free to insult this person outright, hopefully ressulting in their silence, but definitely allowing me to vent any exasperation caused by their inability to either gracefully lose or at least shut up.



The third choice, of course, would be for moderators to intervene and shut the loser up. But that's not going to happen around here.



The final choice is to silence them by sticking my fingers in my ears and shouting "I'm not listening". This is what the Ignore feature does, but I'm not going in that direction. I'd rather stick with the second choice, even though it allows someone to use the first one against me and get me banned.



TC
For someone as intelligent as you I find this thought pattern to be very revealing of your sincere belief that you are the deciding judge of correctness in all debates. You decide which information confirms a win and then you are free to dismiss all other information presented and then insult the opponent. If the US Supreme Court were to hear cases under your rules and you had first hit as deciding the case any jurist who presented a differing opinion after observing the same information should be insulted since that person didn't acknowledge the correct position has already been presented by you.



Your inability to see yourself less than perfect will drive you insane if you don't open your mind to the possibility another view may have equal value to yours. The entire purpose of debate is not for the debater to win by self acknowledgement but to present his/her position with as much information supporting that position... each side does this and "the people" viewing the debate decide whose position comes closest to their own, or which select information from each position has merit... perhaps both sides will offer information of merit and the reader of the debate will form an entirely different opinion than the original two debating to be presented to the former two positions.



You are not the judge of debate... the reader is the judge.
Zack is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 05:12 AM   #7
Nomad
 
fxashun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ga
Posts: 23,114
I don't think anyone here has ever declared victory. I can recall a few times where a few people have come to an agreement on a topic though.
fxashun is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 12:59 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
For someone as intelligent as you I find this thought pattern to be very revealing of your sincere belief that you are the deciding judge of correctness in all debates. You decide which information confirms a win and then you are free to dismiss all other information presented and then insult the opponent. If the US Supreme Court were to hear cases under your rules and you had first hit as deciding the case any jurist who presented a differing opinion after observing the same information should be insulted since that person didn't acknowledge the correct position has already been presented by you.



Your inability to see yourself less than perfect will drive you insane if you don't open your mind to the possibility another view may have equal value to yours. The entire purpose of debate is not for the debater to win by self acknowledgement but to present his/her position with as much information supporting that position... each side does this and "the people" viewing the debate decide whose position comes closest to their own, or which select information from each position has merit... perhaps both sides will offer information of merit and the reader of the debate will form an entirely different opinion than the original two debating to be presented to the former two positions.



You are not the judge of debate... the reader is the judge.


When I've refuted an argument and there is no rebuttal, there's no question about who has won.



TC
ThoughtCriminal is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 02:27 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Zack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal
When I've refuted an argument and there is no rebuttal, there's no question about who has won.



TC
Where do the insults enter in in the above as it relates to me? Have I failed to rebut one of your positions with logic and reason? If I've missed one of your posts and have failed to respond it is truly an accident due to me missing the post.
Zack is offline  
Old June 28th, 2009, 03:04 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack
Where do the insults enter in in the above as it relates to me? Have I failed to rebut one of your positions with logic and reason? If I've missed one of your posts and have failed to respond it is truly an accident due to me missing the post.


Responding is not the same thing as addressing. Repeating a refuted argument, for example, does not constitute addressing anything. Rather, it's an example of not shutting up after you've lost, which is where the "shut the fuck up already, you asshole" comes in.



TC
ThoughtCriminal is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
alternative, insults



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
an alternative genesis. hot dragon Other Religions 7 June 5th, 2012 10:08 PM
The GOP alternative to Obamacare garysher Healthcare 15 November 12th, 2010 12:35 PM
An Alternative to Religion... tadpole256 Religion 0 July 9th, 2009 03:03 PM
Guy Insults Bush on Live Television tadpole256 Political Talk 135 July 15th, 2008 03:37 PM
Who is the next alternative for Baghdad? Alborz Taha Warfare 0 September 1st, 2007 11:41 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.