Real-world sensitivities and game names

[Omnirizon]

yummmy.

tastes like zen.

[HoneyBadger]

But the point is, I can argue something, and the argument I'm trying to make can be criticised, and I can take that impersonally enough to deal with it, rather than feeling that it is a personal attack on myself and my integrity. I can be judged "wrong" without my integrity as a person called into question. In other words, an argument can be debated, even heatedly, without resorting to gunfire, if we maintain our cool.

[Omnirizon]

There's but one flaw in the premise of your argument,
and that, sir, is that you are a(n)...

aww, forget it. I already got in trouble once for that line.


so you are mature, stable, and confident enough for that. but other people blow their lid when you attack them/their arguments. I don't really think their is a difference between people and their arguments, and there's not a difference between a person and what that person does; I guess that's my only point.

I would say that the only ad hominem (a _personal_ attack) that is possible is relating a person's beliefs to some unrelated action; and from my experience that's pretty accepted in most academic debates (not that they are for any reason a great standard, just saying). There are words in science that are more accepted than others for using as insults, but in the end saying so and so is incompetent is no different than saying that he is an idiot, or a stupidhead, or whatever. And dealing with these types of insults and oppositions are just life. The only ad hominem is when people say such and such's ideas are worthless because they like to sleep around, or are gay, or something. Certainly promiscuity or sexuality can influence a person's ideas, but you're attacking the idea on the basis of an insignificant relationship to that person's ability to create contextually sound ideas.

the other type of ad hominem is limiting peoples freedom to act, my other point. How would you like it if someone locked this thread in the middle of our conversation?

[JimMorrison]

If someone locks this thread, I'm gonna end up banned from these forums..... WHO'S COMIN WITH ME?!


Anyway - the predilection for the average person to get offended in an argument, speaks to the overall general immaturity of the human race. The fact that people invest so much emotion into things barely understood, or improperly digested, is a somewhat childish act.

When someone is intellectually evolved enough to properly see the separation between themselves, and the thoughts that drift through their heads - then they can debate honestly and fairly. Part of it is based on a simple assumption - that by the time you hear or read my words - I am no longer the same person who spoke or wrote them. Granted, I may not have changed much, but that is irrelevant, as my actual being is not defined by those impulses that your brain is receiving.

It is the lack of understanding of this basic fact, that makes people get so bent out of shape about "flip-flopping". They'll criticize a politician (for example, they just get more intense long-term scrutiny than other people) for endorsing a position that is opposite of something that they said, or did, or voted for 10 or more years ago. I'm sorry, but really that goes back to the failing of Democracy at large - people who are unable to comprehend that someone might actually grow as a person, and change their mind on an issue in the span of an entire decade, then they really shouldn't have the same influence on the "big picture" that more rational people have.

Everyone should have a voice, but until we resolve the issues of widespread ignorance and incompetence, we're not just suffering from the "blind leading the blind", we're stuck with the "blind leading the 20/20" - and that's not a positive situation for anyone.

[HoneyBadger]

I'm mad as a hatter, Omnirizon, but I do try to separate criticism from insult.

[Agema]

It's important to remember that people are not perfect and that shades of grey exist. A person can make a hypocritical argument, but not be a hypocrite, a person can make a stupid or bull**** argument without being stupid or a bull****ter. It is is fair to call an argument what it is, without extending the description of the argument to the author. Some more immature people will instantly transmute a criticism such as "That's a stupid opinion..." with "You are stupid". However, if on the receiving end, most of us I think could just take that for what it is - a comment on what we said, not ourselves.

However, an author could defuse even the possibility two ways, a nice idea with people he/she don't know. Firstly he can use non-inflammatory language in the first place, say maybe "I think there's an error in your logic". The second would be to remove the possibility of personal criticism or to compliment first, such as "I don't think you're an idiot, but that opinion is stupid" or "You've made some good points, but opinion X is stupid."

A final note is tone. If you call someone's opinion stupid in what is mostly a calm and balanced comment, they don't generally get bad feeling from the whole and are less likely think it is an attack. If you call someone's opinion stupid in a comment that's polemical, sarcastic, or mocking, it is likely to *feel* like an attack.

Some people can be flagrantly disrespectful of others in that sort of way, and I find such excuses as "I didn't call you stupid, just your argument" and "if you're offended that's your problem" just bull****. Tone and context are as vital to communication as the literal meaning of words themselves. People who don't seem to realise that can be split into two camps: those who are genuinely unaware, thus socially inept and need to learn; and those who are aware and want to troll with disingenuous claims of innocence.

[johan osterman]

This thread could provide the lift for a medium sized blimp.