posted on October 15, 2001 08:22:20 AM new
Gee Meya, you sure do claim a great deal of expertise at imagining what I imagine--unfortunately, you are wrong.
posted on October 15, 2001 08:29:14 AM new
My post was meant to be "in general". Do you imagine yourself to be the only one who hides their insults? Since most of your posts are just links to other peoples words, why would you imagine I'm talking about you?
I did pick up a line you used, but didn't mean that to imply my post was aimed at you exclusively. If the shoe fits perhaps, but in this case it fits more than one.
posted on October 15, 2001 08:31:44 AM new
Yes, it was the fact that you used my line as example in your snipe, along with past practice that made for my assumption.
posted on October 15, 2001 08:33:49 AM new
Donny, I had to smile when I read your post about the differences between debate and argument. I was part of a group that met informally to drink beer and argue (politics, religion,art,road maintenance,etc.). No one got mad, just impassioned. One night, the group's host was asked to take the opposite view of what she had just argued and debate it. She was absolutely floored, just couldn't do it. It was so surprising.
posted on October 15, 2001 08:39:04 AM new
No one had called for Mommy=Moderator deliteful. Like all good mommies, she's been keeping her ears open, but staying out of it.
While there have been personal remarks, they've not been overly nasty, IMHO.
Alas, RL calls. Dear daughter is home with flu/sore throat, and I'm sure something needs washed or folded or dusted.
posted on October 15, 2001 08:41:53 AM newsaabsister: When I was in law school, we had something called "moot court" where you argue a fictional case at an appellate level [i.e., you have to accept the facts as they were presented at trial, and can only argue whether the law was correctly applied to those facts]. You got to argue your case three times in front of a panel of judges, who would pepper you with questions. The really hard part, though, was that on the third try you had to switch and argue the OTHER side of the case, pointing out all the flaws in your original argument and making all the points that your opponent neglected to make. And the trick was to be just as passionate each time.
It's not hard to argue one side of a debate. Seeing both sides at once, however, takes a special knack. The good news is that I excelled at Moot Court. The bad news is that I often have trouble taking a firm stance on anything as a result...
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on October 15, 2001 08:45:17 AM newat least here, if you consider that it would most often be made up of a subset who come here mainly because the protective environment keeps others from calling their idiocy to task. In fact many have found survival impossible in freer forum already and have come here because it's one of very few places in which there is a figurative mommy to call.
From what I have seen, not having a "mommy" makes those who cant self moderate go hog wild, which in turn, runs off people who are weary of the nastiness. Of course, those who get a thrill out of that sort of thing would sneer at those who dont like it all the time, 24/7. (No, this is not aimed at anyone in particular). I posted the above because that is what some actually believe...that those who get tired of it WANT a mommy. No, speaking for myself, I enjoy having someone in charge that will moderate FOR those who cant or wont do it for themselves and see a difference of opinion as "idiocy".
posted on October 15, 2001 08:51:19 AM new
Got it. And what I was saying was not for you either. Just commenting on recent developements elsewhere where it got so far out of hand, it grossed me out.
posted on October 15, 2001 08:58:28 AM new
The difference between debate and argument, in my OWN mindset so keep that in mind, is the desire to read other opinions to either confirm what one thinks, or to LEARN more of what one THINKS they think. Sort of "gee, I didnt think/see it that way, but now that so and so has brought it up, it makes sense". So arguing and debating brings up other paths one may take concerning the stance they are currently in, or leaning towards.
posted on October 15, 2001 09:59:31 AM newWhy do people get upset when the other side of an argument is presented?
Perhaps they are too closed-minded or stubborn to be open to other points of view.
Why do people assume that the arguer holds the presented position personally?
While I am not good at playing devil's advocate, I do appreciate those who do it well, just to get a dialogue going and to get people thinking.
Why are some people angered at the messenger rather than the message?
It all depends on how the messenger presents their message.
I think most people are open to the message, but if it is done with an air of intellectual superiority or condescension, then you lose those who would like to absorb all viewpoints and join in in the debate.
Just plain old common sense has its merits, too.
Of course, there are those who just don't like a messenger for whatever reason; therefore, they don't see, or don't want to see, the message for the messenger.
posted on October 15, 2001 10:18:52 AM new
I don't have a problem with someone playing Devil's Advocate, makes it interesting and helps you understand more clearly why you believe what you do.
I'm not sure where the line is between Devil's Advocate and Troll but there is a difference. Some threads are just to inflame or bait others.
posted on October 15, 2001 10:55:44 AM new
Saabsister, I identify with your friend who was at a loss when asked to debate the side of a position she had concluded was less supportable, I've found it difficult in the past. The law school solution in that situation is making use of a "public policy argument," basically an admission that the law doesn't support your position, but it would be better if it did.
I think the main difference between a devil's advocate and a troll is our own perception. If we like the guy, he's a devil's advocate. If we don't, he's a troll.
It's no secret, we like people who treat us and the people we like well, and that they don't treat people we don't like well doesn't diminish them in our eyes. Like my friend puts it, quoting someone else, I think - "If you go out to lunch with a guy, and he treats you great, but he's nasty to the waitress, he's not a nice guy."
We'll condemn someone as "snarky," and, at the same time, applaud someone who is "snarky" to the person we condemned. It's not so much a case of whether or not a person is unpleasant, it's who they're unpleasant to.
As far as political discussions go, maybe that old line, "All politics is personal," fits.
posted on October 15, 2001 11:04:35 AM newwe like people who treat us and the people we like well, and that they don't treat people we don't like well doesn't diminish them in our eyes
No, not necessarily. Hypocrites and cowards tend to treat certain people well to their face. Sometimes the true gauge to evaluating a person is how you see them treat those they don't like (and whom they don't mind admitting they don't like).
posted on October 15, 2001 11:30:26 AM new
"Hypocrites and cowards tend to treat certain people well to their face"
True enough. But part of the equation is that we don't find egregious behavior that's directed at someone we don't like, while we roundly condemn the same behavior when it's directed at someone we like. When we label some people as hypocrites and cowards because of their behavior, and applaud that same behavior in others when it has a different target, that's our own hypocrisy.
Me, I don't mind mean people. To me, the most interesting combination in a person is smart and mean. As far as I'm concerned, Dorothy Parker got it right when the embroidered pillow on her couch said - "If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, come sit next to me."
"Sometimes the true gauge to evaluating a person is how you see them treat those they don't like (and whom they don't mind admitting they don't like)."
Heh. Umm.. no Lots of times, that's just a device used to couch an insult, and portray it as a virtue. "Gee, I usually think you're a real jerk, but this time, I've got to say, I agree with you." Then we all think - "Wow, look at that person, able to overcome his own personal feelings to acknowledge the value in that other person's position. What high-mindedness."
posted on October 15, 2001 11:39:10 AM newSometimes the true gauge to evaluating a person is how you see them treat those they don't like (and whom they don't mind admitting they don't like.
I took this to mean...watch how they're both willing and capable of flaying those they don't like...and thus determine their true character.
phooey...ubb
[ edited by toke on Oct 15, 2001 11:40 AM ]
posted on October 15, 2001 11:44:55 AM newLots of times, that's just a device used to couch an insult, and portray it as a virtue. "Gee, I usually think you're a real jerk, but this time, I've got to say, I agree with you." Then we all think - "Wow, look at that person, able to overcome his own personal feelings to acknowledge the value in that other person's position. What high-mindedness."
In your opinion, maybe. In mine, I see it as someone being honest to say "gee, I think youre a jerk most of the time, but sometimes you can get it right on, and I agree with what you said this time around". Its the ability to admit something out loud, instead of being stubborn and refusing to acknowledge what they said that you DO agree with but just for orneriness, wont. Virtue IS acknowledgement, if it goes against your initial gut instinct of dislike for that person. Doesnt mean youre buddy pals..it means you acknowledge.
posted on October 15, 2001 11:55:30 AM new
"Virtue IS acknowledgement, if it goes against your initial gut instinct of dislike for that person."
Yes, I agree with that completely. It is a virtue to publically agree with someone's position in spite of your personal dislike for them. There's an overcoming there that's admirable.
It's when the next part comes in - "(and whom they don't mind admitting they don't like)" that the virtue is diminished.
posted on October 15, 2001 11:59:52 AM new
Let me put it more simply. If you see someone lovingly pet the dog they like...and kick the dog they dislike unmercifully...what does that tell you about the person?
posted on October 15, 2001 12:02:43 PM new
The part I find interesting is the "dont like". My nit picking brain wants to disect that. Why the "not like"? In short, what makes someone tick to even bring about such an emotion to or from them. Words? Attitude? Difference of opinions or how they express themselves? Perceived insults? Or does it reflect on the mood of the poster and postee or all the above? Probably. Human nature.
posted on October 15, 2001 12:04:54 PM newLet me put it more simply. If you see someone lovingly pet the dog they like...and kick the dog they dislike unmercifully...what does that tell you about the person?
What does it tell me? It tells me to beat the crap out of that person. (toke, you KNOW I am an animal lover...you would have used that scenario, lol).
Seriously, it tells me that the person is not to be trusted because if they can turn on a stranger dog or disliked dog, what will they do to the dog they like when they decide they dont like it afterall?
[ edited by Hepburn on Oct 15, 2001 12:07 PM ]
