| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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?
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.
> > 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
I agree with the definition above. And I think, in general -- where
appropriate/possible, objectivity is a good thing. But then, in the case of
what society should strive to provide, and at what cost, how can you claim
objectivity? Obviously, you think the majority should dictate theft from the
people to help some subset of the people because it's the right thing to
do...by the nature of this very idea, it is subjective. I'm not opposed to
your claim that others have subjective opinions, I'm opposed to your claim of
objectivity on matters where the continuum of objectivity<-->subjectivity
doesn't mean anything.
How do you know when one brings anger/bitterness/contempt to the debate? Do
you think it is impossible to have those feelings sometimes and debate
objectively?
> > 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.
I phrased that poorly. I have no doubt that you actually agree with Larry
about 99% of stuff. (e.g. It's easy to agree that in general, people shouldn't
kill one another.) What I really meant was, can you cite an instance in which
you disagreed with Larry (on specifics, or in general) and then because of the
argument presented, changed your mind at least in part?
If you claim to listen to what others say, and test your own belief structures
against that, but can't cite any instances in which you actually changed, and
then have the bravado to call the rest of us (or some subset thereof) too
pigheaded to debate properly because our opinions can't change, I think that's
the height of hipocracy. I can cite changes that my stances have taken because
of debates in general and because of .debate in particular.
Further, it doesn't seem at all -- from your communications here, that you
actually do seek to understand the points of others. You make derogatory
comments about my distaste for democracy, and in particular taxation
(thievery), but there is no indication that you attempted to see it from my
side of things. Maybe you did. But how would I know that? (I'm just using
this as one example.)
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) "theft"? (...) If others have opinions which are based on emotion, rather than reason, it does not assist understanding. One should have a reasoned argument, not just gut feelings. To call taxation “theft” is not helpful. (...) Oh yes. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
