| |
I think it is possible to discuss things and disagree in a civil manner. I
do it in real life all the time. I think I have done it here before.
I hate to use a pop psychology term here, but all I ask of other
participants that they "fight fair." In this context, all I mean is that
accept there is a pretty well defined objective reality that we all share
and debaters should accept it. We can certainly debate the meaning and
conclusions drawn from evidence presented in different arguments, but I am
tired of the way some debaters continually quote things out of context and
contrary to well established authorial intent to prove their points made in
error (false and misleading evidence leads to false and misleading
conclusions). This is sort of the debate equivalent of suborning perjury.
If I see someone do it, or if that person refuses to see the light of it
once the error is explained, then I will assume that person is a troll
incapable of seeing reason and intent on creating false and misleading
evidence from which they can draw false and misleading conclusions.
FWIW, I don't expect a troll to take my word for anything. But absent their
own knowledge of a thing -- because they have read it, studied it, or
researched it rather exhaustively for themselves -- I also refuse to even
consider the troll's understanding of anything.
I, at least, I have done much of the needed legwork; as have others here as
well -- we can debate amongst ourselves and still disagree. Such
disagreement is honest, and not born of mere obtuseness or flat out and
ignoble ignorance.
To give one example: many of us having been trying to convince a single
debater of a rather simple point concerning a particular author, or set of
authors. The simple fact is that this debater clearly has no idea what s/he
is talking about, and while the rest of us have tried to set the matter
straight for this person, this person refuses to see the "light." This is
Room 101 logic where 2+2 is seen to equal possibly 3 or 5, and sometimes
even 4 -- whatever the good book or big brother says it should equal, right?
That is not joining in with objective reality, that is religious or
political irrationality. Frankly, I don't care if that's the way that
person wants to view the world. I just don't want to debate anything with
that kind of person.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Troll Alert
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> Good advice but the problem I have is that you can (in this debate) apply that definition to a number of people... some more than others, maybe but we all have preconceived notions, ne? (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
