If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Edgar on November 29, 2007, 6:50 pm
>
>>
>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>
>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>>
>> What's so extreme about:
>>
>> carrying personal nukes,
>>
>> abolishing all cities,
>>
>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>
>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to tweak
>> the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher education
>> because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at 12, and no
>> one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds there own
>> business until he thinks they aren't living up to their patriotic
>> duty.
>
> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things when
> he's frustrated.
>
> Personally, however much you think certain discussions are a waste, what I
> see as the most wasteful is name-calling, and time wasted on personal
> attacks. If you disagree with something someone says, fine, say so, but
> forgoing a critique in favor of name-calling and all fo this "So-and-so is
> a such-and-such" behavior is really kind of childish.
>
Hasn't the discussion already entered that arena long before we even posted
our childish remarks? I don't see him treating Amy or even you much better
than I have been treated in the past. Your taking my remarks personally,
except they weren't aimed at you.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 30, 2007, 2:48 pm
>>
>>>
>>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>>
>>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>>>
>>> What's so extreme about:
>>>
>>> carrying personal nukes,
>>>
>>> abolishing all cities,
>>>
>>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>>
>>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to tweak
>>> the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher
>>> education because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at
>>> 12, and no one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds
>>> there own business until he thinks they aren't living up to their
>>> patriotic duty.
>>
>> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things
>> when he's frustrated.
>>
>> Personally, however much you think certain discussions are a waste,
>> what I see as the most wasteful is name-calling, and time wasted on
>> personal attacks. If you disagree with something someone says, fine,
>> say so, but forgoing a critique in favor of name-calling and all fo
>> this "So-and-so is a such-and-such" behavior is really kind of
>> childish.
>>
>
> Hasn't the discussion already entered that arena long before we even
> posted our childish remarks?
I was speaking generally. The operative Old Saw is "if the shoe fits,
wear it", but I have the same opinion of name-calling no matter when or
where it happens and who does it <shrug>.
> I don't see him treating Amy or even you
> much better than I have been treated in the past.
I guess I just don't take Don's peroverbial "bark" to heart (referring to
that old saing about "the barkis worse than the bite"). Maybe becasue
I've know too many *real* psychos in my time...? Maybe because I
expended so much energy in my 20's through early 40's getting all riled
up about so many things, that I now do not have enough energy-reserves to
waste on getting riled up...? I dunno, really, it's just how things
currently are on Planet Kris ;)
> Your taking my
> remarks personally, except they weren't aimed at you.
>
Personally? I dunno, not really. I commented on a comment. I'd have
made the same comment (and have, in the past) regardelss of who made
it...
|
|
Posted by Warm Worm on November 29, 2007, 9:00 pm
Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>
>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>> What's so extreme about:
>>
>> carrying personal nukes,
>>
>> abolishing all cities,
>>
>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>
>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to tweak
>> the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher education
>> because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at 12, and no
>> one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds there own
>> business until he thinks they aren't living up to their patriotic
>> duty.
>
> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things when
> he's frustrated.
I suspect that too:
Instead of some saying, "Hey! I resent that! And this is why:...", and
owning up to their own inner emotions, they'll append them onto the
subjects like a sticky note and say stuff like, "oxymoron!".
> Personally, however much you think certain discussions are a waste, what I
> see as the most wasteful is name-calling, and time wasted on personal
> attacks. If you disagree with something someone says, fine, say so, but
> forgoing a critique in favor of name-calling and all fo this "So-and-so is
> a such-and-such" behavior is really kind of childish.
Actually, I think the children might (sometimes, if not always) get it
from the adults.
You also lob snarl-words of your own in your posts about "third
persons", do you? ...You... you fu(îdgñöl you...
...You're such a fu(îdgñöl. ;)
|
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on November 30, 2007, 11:34 am
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>>
>>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>>> What's so extreme about:
>>>
>>> carrying personal nukes,
>>>
>>> abolishing all cities,
>>>
>>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>>
>>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to tweak
>>> the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher education
>>> because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at 12, and no
>>> one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds there own
>>> business until he thinks they aren't living up to their patriotic
>>> duty.
>>
>> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things when
>> he's frustrated.
>
> I suspect that too:
> Instead of some saying, "Hey! I resent that! And this is why:...", and
> owning up to their own inner emotions, they'll append them onto the
> subjects like a sticky note and say stuff like, "oxymoron!".
Be that as it may, in the context of a discussion, saying what you mean,
meaning what you say, conceding when you're mistaken, and generally
recognizing the difference between fact and opinion, are essential
prerequisites of credibility. IMHO 'discussions' with persons without
credibility is useful only as a kind of sparring- a contest of rhetorical
skills- but not really otherwise. Discussions with such persons who do not
even possess significant rhetorical skills will often just degenerate
quickly into something like, "All blue should be abolished, and anyone who
doesn't realize that is a plain poo poo head!"
Saying something stupid (whether frustrated or not), and then defending that
position just because it's yours (for whatever emotional reasons), is not a
discussion IMHO. It's stupidity followed by rationalization. Threatening
people who disagree with you is bullying, and I can't stand it. Never could.
As a kid, if I saw some bully picking on someone else, often before I could
stop myself, I'd end up 'having words' with the bully. As an adult, I've
taken down a couple of big ones over the years, usually on election for that
purpose by groups to which I belonged.
Anyone with youngish kids is familiar with the recent efforts to reduce
bullying, which identify permissive 'bystanders' as an essential part of the
bullying cycle. In a community (something I believe in) we're better off if
a bully is marked as such, and if persons who promote violence against
others know that they do not have the support of the group, which is what
these types really need. Silence can be seen by them, and later by history,
as consent for their cruelty.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 30, 2007, 1:43 pm
>
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>> How long is this thread gonna go sheesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> It really is funny listening to Don argue. He loves to argue how
>>>>> stupid "what ifs" are, and how bringing up the extremes is not
>>>>> answering the question. That is until it suits his purposes.
>>>> What's so extreme about:
>>>>
>>>> carrying personal nukes,
>>>>
>>>> abolishing all cities,
>>>>
>>>> and slaughtering all (what was it again?) (everyone in the herd?
>>>> conformists?) ( I can't remember the slur.)?
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like you haven't been to Don-U-slavia. (I've decided to
>>>> tweak the name as this more aptly describes it.) No one has higher
>>>> education because everyone is home-schooled and then put to work at
>>>> 12, and no one needs psychotropic prescriptions, and everyone minds
>>>> there own business until he thinks they aren't living up to their
>>>> patriotic duty.
>>>
>>> It's my impression that Don, like most people, says extreme things
>>> when he's frustrated.
>>
>> I suspect that too:
>> Instead of some saying, "Hey! I resent that! And this is why:...",
>> and owning up to their own inner emotions, they'll append them onto
>> the subjects like a sticky note and say stuff like, "oxymoron!".
>
> Be that as it may, in the context of a discussion, saying what you
> mean, meaning what you say, conceding when you're mistaken, and
> generally recognizing the difference between fact and opinion, are
> essential prerequisites of credibility. IMHO 'discussions' with
> persons without credibility is useful only as a kind of sparring- a
> contest of rhetorical skills- but not really otherwise. Discussions
> with such persons who do not even possess significant rhetorical
> skills will often just degenerate quickly into something like, "All
> blue should be abolished, and anyone who doesn't realize that is a
> plain poo poo head!"
As I've emllowed with time, my increasing reaction tothose who make their
attacks personal is to say "Well, that's your opinion, enjoy stweing in
your own juices, but as for me, I'm OH..."
>
> Saying something stupid (whether frustrated or not), and then
> defending that position just because it's yours (for whatever
> emotional reasons), is not a discussion IMHO. It's stupidity followed
> by rationalization. Threatening people who disagree with you is
> bullying, and I can't stand it. Never could.
I'm not saying that I perosnally approve of extremism/stupid statements,
not at all. It's mostly that, as I've gotten older, I've become less
reactive, mostly becase I don't have enough spare energy to squander.
One of the side benefits is that it allows my more rational mind a bit
more of a chance to step in and say, "hmmmm, now just *why* is that
person saying something stupid, when it's clear that s/he is not a stupid
person?"
My assessment of DOn (sorry to talk about you in th ethrid person, DOn,
it's just the specific situation here) is that he is not a stupid person,
but he sometimes peaks from emotion rather tahn from logic. As do we
all, at some time or another. Many people react badly to that, but the
longer I've corresponded here with him, the more I realize what's going
on.
I've sometimes chided others (including Don) for resorting to name-
calling, and IIRC, you were one of the recipients of such verbiage. Just
as I assess you as being an intelligent person who sometimes says
impulsive things, I also assess Don as being similar in that regard.
Noen of which changes the fact that, IMO, name-calling is childish and
only closes off communication/idea-exchange.
Furthermroe, I've found, in general, that if one can get past all of that
and pose a question which tries to address the *root* of the frustration
that's causing the impulsiveness, things calm down and additional ideas
are revealed.
>
> As a kid, if I saw some bully picking on someone else, often before I
> could stop myself, I'd end up 'having words' with the bully. As an
> adult, I've taken down a couple of big ones over the years, usually on
> election for that purpose by groups to which I belonged.
Nothing wrong with that, and I've also had a strong tendency to do the
same (often too strong for my own good), but I'm not convinced that this
is the same sort of situation. Given that I'm not good with things
social, I don't know how to explain the difference, jsut that I do see a
difference (at least, on my better days ;) ) between bullying, and
someone who is just blowing off steam. Again, tho', the main reason I'm
(finally) learnign to even see the difference is, as I've said, I simply
don't have enough energy to waste it on fighting/upsets/bellicosity/etc.
any more than is absolutely necessary. IOW, it takes a whole huge hell
of a lot for me to get really *angry* wioth someone - yeah, I get
irritated, sometimes POed, but that usually lasts all of about 10
minutes, and is quickly forgotten. For me to *remember* I'm angry with
someone takes a great deal of ef | |
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
