Subject:
|
Re: The Frog Apologizes and Shuts Up (at least for now)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 29 Mar 2003 12:58:33 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
213 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > Just remember that no one is innocent, but the Frog is even less innocent
> > than most.
> Maybe I'm thicker skinned than most.
>
> If we're all adults here, and we behave in an adult fashion in these
> discussions...
Whether any particular person has thick enough skin to not allow rudeness to
effect his emotional state doesn't change the rudeness. Richard is
traditionally much more clever in his responses to people than he has been in
the past weeks when he has resorted to the blunt tools for which he is (sort
of) apologizing.
> I dunno. I never got the 'ignore him 'cause he's no good to this group.'
How about 'ignore him because going around and around with him will only
decrease the signal:noise ratio? At various times I have chosen not to respond
to direct questions from both Scott and John because it was obviously
fruitless. I don't universally disagree with either of them, but that doesn't
mean that there are time (perhaps even most of the time) when discussing with
them is pointless. (I expect people feel this way about me too.) To figure
those times out and act accordingly is responsible membership of this
community, in my opinion.
> I find that the only thing that irks me in this group is when I, or others,
> put out a reasonable arguement that's like a paragraph or two (or more) in
> length, and a one line rebuttal
But what if a single line suffices to evicerate your argument?
> To those that can't take it, why put yourself thru the stress
Because if it were just a little different the stress wouldn't be there and
this kind of discussion is tremendously valuable?
> Now maybe Richard made some ad hominem attacks, but haven't we all, and
> isn't our skin just a little thicker than that? If I say "John, you're
> being obtuse", it's not in response to my opinion of him as a person in
> gneeral, it's about the discussion we're having.
Yes, but your assertion about John is a characterization of his behavior, not
his person. That's different than saying "John, you're stupid" which is
essentially what Richard said. Pointing out that someone is being obtuse gives
them the chance (if they're up to it) to evaluate whether they actually are and
maybe fix it. When you call someone stupid, there is no chance for positive
response.
> Who can't see that? We're
> discussing this topic over here--this is the topic--not the person. Sure I
> *should* say, perhaps, that, "Hey John, you're idea in this particuar
> instance is obtuse."
No you shouldn't! Ideas are not obtuse. People are.
If you believe that someone is being wilfully ignorant or that their
closed-mindedness is preventing them from seeing the truth as you understand
it, pointing it out is valid. Contrary to the scene in _The Shawshank
Redemption_ (movie reference thrown in for you, DaveK), obtuse is not a
viscious insult.
> But for the love of everything debateable, if we start censoring ourselves
> because "someone might get offended!" (gasp!!), what debates can we have?
We should endevour to always remain nice and polite. I have failed my own
standards here in the past. I've said things I shouldn't have to you, to
Scott, to Dave, and to Larry. But as an reasonable adult, I should be
able to disagree with you without that kind of behavior. We all should. And
to be offended at offensive behavior might not be the most productive response,
but it's certainly natural and valid.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
