Debate Quality

Depends who I'm talking to...

Post 1

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 12:08pm

It doesn't seem particularly good. Generally, name calling shouldn't happen in a debate. On this site, no debate happens without name-calling...

Post 2

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 1:05pm

I don't know. On most boards I'm ostracized for being an Objectivist. Here I'm not. To me that's already a big improvement (^______^)

Post 3

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 1:40pm

Vertigo, if you mean name-calling such as "you're a stupidhead!" or "you smell!" then yes, you're absolutely right. That particular type of name-calling should be left in grade school.

But if you mean "socialist scumbag" or "fascist ass---" then you're wrong. Labeling things within philosophical context and accurately is the Objectivist way. LoL. Certain persons in particular are particularly proficient at placing poetic pejoratives upon people's names.

While others are rabid second-handers and can only attempt to imitate said person's style. :)

Post 4

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 4:06pm

I strictly wasn't talking about myself when I replied there, just wanted to mention that.

Quote: "Certain persons in particular are particularly proficient at placing poetic pejoratives upon people's names."

I don't know who you mean. But I've seen recently Francois got called some interesting things, and he was dishing them out happily aswell. I won't quote an example, there are many instances, check out his conversation with Ed in the other thread.

I don't like the way people make replies like 'you are a dualist' or such, instead of 'you are thinking like a dualist'. This is my point.

It is true that I said 'yuo are a dickhead' to Bernard. This was name calling, however he wasn't participating in a rational debate. It was also fitting in the context.

Post 5

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 4:11pm

Also, you seem to be implying something about me, although I can't work out what it is. Do think I am 'imitating said person's style'? Was that directed at me?

I certainly don't think I am imitating anybody. Most of my views are the same as before, but with some slight changes, although I have been more subtle at expressing them. There's no need to offend people.

Post 6

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 4:15pm

Good point about the "I think you...", vertigo. Certainly I don't mean to equate anyone with a specific idea that they hold. I respect most people here as individuals.

As long as it stays respectful and honest, I don't have any problem in general.

Post 7

Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 10:55pm

vert, my man. Relax. No, I wasn't talking about you.

J

Post 8

Sunday, January 18, 2004 - 1:06pm

J, I didn't think you were. Usually I wouldn't have responded, I was feeling a bit short-tempered at the time. Sorry for that.

Post 9

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 1:15pm

Just one observation - this group sometimes suffers from a lack of 'devils advocates'. It's good to have someone trying (rationally, not emotively) to pick holes in an argument, to see whether it stands up to serious criticism.

Dunno how we could deal with this, but we should consider it, as unchallenged arguments tend to lead to groupthink - just go ask NASA :-)

Perhaps we just need to be more critical?

The problem with this is that it might drive off less thick-skinned contributors. Also, taken out of context, critical analysis can appear quite bad. E.g., imagine I write a devils-advocate critique of an article espousing ownership of ones body, which is then read by someone who doesn't understand the context, who then decides I'm not an Objectivist, & starts ranting, which leads to emotive flame-wars ... :0(

Suggestions, anyone?

Post 10

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 1:23pm

I'm always willing to be a devil's advocate. I tend to be the odd man out. And of course I'm always right (^______^)

Post 11

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 7:52pm

My take on it:
Vertigo, even though the debates DO tend to get a bit fractious at times, we are VERY MUCH more civilized than most other boards that I've seen. (For one thing, most of us can actually spell. We don't do this godawful stuff like 'Kan u tel me wut itz 4, homey?' 'nah. u here it l8r.'
Sorry, but that's not clever, creative slang, it's just stupid. You get a lot of that on other boards.
Secondly, you'll notice that most of the time that you get that name-calling you don't like (IE "you are a socialist dumbass", or some such ting, directed at somebody), it's in a situation that is contextually similar to that thing between you and Bernard. Sometimes we get people who not only DON'T agree with Objectivist principles, but aren't even attempting to debate them in a reasonable way. Read back over the thread, and check for these names: You'll see what I mean:

Supreme chairman
Coyote
Steve M.
Mary

Those were people who couldn't even BEGIN to have a reasonable debate. They came in with an agenda, and as such, some of us are willing to play by THEIR rules, if they want it that way.

Vertigo, I will repeat again: I (and some others here, too) misjudged you at first. We figured you for a troll of some kind. I am reminded of a particularly brutal series of exchanges involving you, myself, and Ed Thompson. There was a significant amount of unfriendliness involved, and for that I (for one) have to sincerely apologize. It was nasty, but there WERE a large number of trolls and lurkers and such around at that time, and those type people bug the HELL out of me.

But overall, the debate-quality is very good here.

Post 12

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 8:04pm

Actually, you're lucky in terms of trolls and lurkers, for a board that does no moderation. Then again, Objectivism is rather specialized a subject.

On my board, I had a rash of statists, but I banned their ringleader for a month (he was starting trollish threads, so there was my justification) and they pretty much all went away. Poof ! No more trolls. Still a couple of crackpots, but they're amusing.

On most boards the troll problem is omnipresent. On most atheist boards, they always have Christian trolls around. And of course on Usenet trolls are a fact of life - they're part of the ecosystem. So I think it depends on visibility and topic, mostly.

Post 13

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 1:29pm

While reading this thread I noticed my name came up a couple of times. This could mean one of 3 things:

1. I am generally rude to others
2. I go where the action is (I seek controversy)
3. it's mere coincidence

I think (hope!) it's a combination of 2 & 3 above. I know that I will not back down from confrontation (mixed blessing), but I often try to offer people a way out of a dilemma (help them to save face) by asking several questions before I get "rigidly, rationally realistic" with them.

Ed

Post 14

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 1:40pm

Ed:
If you're referring to my post above, I didn't mean to imply that YOU were neccesarily being brutal with vertigo without percieved cause. Several of us thought he was a wonk at the time.
(Read back into the metaphysics thread a few months....it's kind of sad, really.)

Post 15

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:27pm

Henry:

Thanks for your clarification (clarity is something that I feel that I can "count on" from you - hope you don't mind the pressure!).

As far as "the metaphysics thread" - something which I prefer to refer to as: "the thread from hell" - I, sir, do not need to go back and look at it in order to bring its essence to my mind!

No sir, vertigo had my blood boiling as I'm sure he had yours - but with one wolf/shark on him already (namely you, my friend!), I tried to throw him a line and get him the hell out of the "path" of your "wrath"!

Ed

Post 16

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:17pm

Now, now, Ed,
Don't be making out like I'm some kind of "hardcore". I most assuredly don't want anybody here to think that I'm some sort of resident "head-cracker", who pounces on trolls, worms, cretins, ad whatever else comes across my path. It just ain't like that, far as I can see.
I just have a really low tolerance for overt sloppiness (as will be evidenced by the "homosexuality" thread, and me and Ol' Firehammer, for example.) It doesn't much matter WHAT your personal stance is on homosexuality, but his argumentation is just so bad, that I can't quite resist jumpin' in.

Thanks for the 'clarity' compliment (I assume it was meant as such?) :) The metaphysics thing did get bloody, yes, but our pal Vertigo has definitely shown himself (at least to my satisfaction) to be a very sincere, and rational person, all in all. (But yeah, the way he started off just 'tripped my trigger'. it was just so -- Postmodern?? (yeeech!)

Anyway, I didn't particularly set out to be known as an "ass-kicker", and that's not my reason for being here, as such. But when you get people like Supreme Chrairman (for example), or Mary, somebody just HAS to slap 'em down HARD (metaphorically speaking.) Folk's gotta stand up for their convictions, by gum, and if that involves a bit of 'controversey', then so be it! (as Objectivists/interested bystanders, we should all be courageous enough to take a few licks, as needed.)

Cheers, ed! Keep up the good thoughts!

Post 17

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:09pm

Thanks Henry,

The 2 compliments I gave you last post were sincere (and one is indirect - "encrypted")!
Ed

Post 18

Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:33pm

Ed, I have a question:
What exactly is up with Reginald Firehammer? All I did was try to get him to explain WHY he was against homosexuality (which he failed to do, coherently), and now he's all on this "well you really hurt my feelings" kick. It was not my intention to do any such thing. Moreover, it wasn't my intention to have Sam Erica think that I (or anybody else of us "two or three posters" he was referencing) were "hogging the board." If anybody wants to post, then by all means they should do so.
(Can't help it if some of us are more active than others, right now.)

What I want to know, Ed, is why can Mr. firehammer 'dish it out', but never seem to TAKE it? How often have you run into similar things in your dealings with Objectivists?

By the way (if I have the right guy): congratulations on your Libertarian gubernatorial run! 7 percent is pretty darn good, all things considered! :)

Post 19

Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:25am