h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A12024316

I think you misunderstand. Attacking someone's arguement is not the same as attacking the arguer.

Saying, "your arguement is idiotic" is one thing - particularly if you can back it up.
Saying "you're and idiot who can't argue" is what FootiNooti is against.

Nice one, Edward! and yes, I do take your point. However... the point of FootiNooti is not to stifle the debate but to rephrase the thread from personal attacks into a full-on 'rip-apart' of the issues. So where you call soemone a homophobe and spit in their face, I would tell them I find their statement homophobic and give them an opportunity to rephrase it. If they don't then I know they are not interested in the exchange of ideas so much as the 'I know better than you, you pleb/peon/insert word of choice' approach.

Potaytoes vs. potahtoes as someone far more intelligent (or not) than me once said.


W

>>I think you misunderstand. Attacking someone's arguement is not the same as attacking the arguer.

Leo...I totally agree. *However*, when one person says:
'Your argument is idiotic'
Often what the other person hears is:
'He said I was idiotic'.

Nice in principal. Open to inadvertant abuse in practice.

princpLE

>>So where you call soemone a homophobe and spit in their face, I would tell them I find their statement homophobic and give them an opportunity to rephrase it. If they don't then I know they are not interested in the exchange of ideas

But what I'm saying is that I'm *still* going to give them my ideas, even if I'm getting nothing in exchange. I'm not going to let them walk away with the idea that their entitled to their opinion.

Sure, it can get nasty. C'est la vie.

>>Your argument is idiotic'
Often what the other person hears is:
'He said I was idiotic'.<<

Yeah, but you didn't *say* it. And if he replies, "Well you're a bigger idiot" you ignore it, or point out that you never called him an idiot, etc.
__In an arguement the purpose is the fencing of ideas, and using vitriol just sidetracks people.__



>>I'm not going to let them walk away with the idea that their entitled to their opinion.<<

No offense, but You do see the irony in that, right?

Absolutely. But do you see the irony in expecting to hold a reasonable discussion with an unreasonable person?

(By the way...'unreasonable' isn't necessarily a negative term: 'All change is brought about by unreasonable men.' I hope I'm being pretty unreasonable now, in fact.)


Like I say...it's all very well meant

Then drop the arguement. If someone is unreasonable... find someone reasonable to argue with.

Shan't!

and then a for Edward