| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > Some others hold far different views, that it's appropriate for states to
> > > ban things that they personally find objectionable, for example, or that
> > > things that they don't personally care for, but which don't threaten • rights,
> > > are morally wrong and have to be banned.
> > >
> > > Many of the second class don't grasp the distinction or don't find it • valid,
> > > that is, they are perfectly OK with a might makes right worldview in which
> > > the majority impose preferences by force.
>
> <tummy tuck>
What does that mean? :-)
> > > Further, they don't even get that
> > > they are *taking* this worldview, they prattle about society taking
> > > decisions and unconstrained majority rule being fundamentally just.
>
> > Bad! Bad Larry! Go sit in the corner. Prattle is not a constructive word • to
> > use. It would have done your argument no harm to use 'talk' instead and • then
> > it wouldn't be a thinly veiled insult. (But other than that, I'm still in
> > agreement.)
>
> Chris,
> The paranoid part of me makes me think that Larry’s text above is, at least
> in part, aimed at me. The irony is, off course, that Larry’s well chosen
> words are nothing but contradictory subjective prattle themselves.
Scott, I think that Larry meant you specifically, and others who behave
similarly. I think that's clear. But at least his insult to you was thinly
veiled. It would be nice if either one of you would stop it.
And partly I agree. The thing that I find frustrating about debating with you
is that you allude to points instead of asserting them firmly, refuse to
clarify what you believe on given topics, insult as a debate tactic, and then
act like you're smarter than me because I have not f-ing idea what you're
trying to say. Generally Larry doesn't do that, but in particular, against you
lately and against a few others in the past with whom he seems to get
exasperated, he does. In both cases prattle might be a reasonable descriptor.
But in neither case is it in any way constructive to call it so.
Once you have assessed that a particular person is incapable of discussing
things with you in a way that you can handle constructively, then just don't
reply. At all. Please.
> This may
> be deliberate on Larry’s part – but, if so, it hardly adds weight to his
> opinion.
Just like the fact that when you claim Larry's, or my (or anyone's who
disagrees with you) opinion is subjective, that doesn't make it espeically so.
Right?
> As far is improving debate is considered, the difference between my outlook
> and that of others is that I am willing to listen to other’s points, and
> concede that they may have valid opinions and weigh them up against my own -
> rather than just call it ‘prattle’.
When? I haven't noticed any evidence of this, but maybe you only post when you
want to confront someone. Have you ever thought Larry had a valid political
opinion? What was it?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) We British are a subtle bunch Chris. (...) I really do not think I do "insult as a debate tactic". (...) It is pertinent to highlight that an individual may not have a belief on an issue, but may still question that of others. Or do you (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) <tummy tuck> (...) Chris, The paranoid part of me makes me think that Larry’s text above is, at least in part, aimed at me. The irony is, off course, that Larry’s well chosen words are nothing but contradictory subjective prattle themselves. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
