| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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,
We British are a subtle bunch Chris.
> refuse to
> clarify what you believe on given topics, insult as a debate tactic,
I really do not think I do "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.
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 disagree with that?
> 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 especially so.
> Right?
Wrong. It is very easy to be objective - I try to be. Bring anger /
bitterness / contempt to a debate breeds subjectivity. Do you think
subjectivity is a good think?
Subjective - influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather
than based on facts
>
> > 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.
This is a bit of a run-on. There is evidence in Larry's prattle comment
above. Further, only this week he described this as "irrelevant" and then
"disruptive":
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8203
> Have you ever thought Larry had a valid political
> opinion? What was it?
There have been times I agree with Larry. I don't think he doubts this either.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I do not. I think it is potentially very valuable. But that depends on the way in which it conducted, like all issues of debate style. If you throw out questions that seem disingenuous, people think that you're sniping. (...) so. (...) I agree (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) rights, (...) valid, (...) What does that mean? :-) (...) to (...) then (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
