8
   

To Those Who Ignore Folks, A Question (Not About Your Motives)

 
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2010 03:57 pm
@dyslexia,
Oh, lord, which lily. The orange one with the purple throat?

You mean that we argue nicely here? I'll agree that's a gilding with unlikely gold. But we do have - or some of us do - real pleasure in good arguing. Not that I'm part of that, but I enjoy reading as it happens, and it happens many times in small ways. It's part of why I'm here. Learning how to disagree is a ******* big deal in life. Maybe I should write a book and earn a million, but I'm missing a lot of the advice part.

Mostly we are not in favor of multiple ad hominem production.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2010 04:16 pm
I am less patient these days. When I perceive that I and a member will never play nice together, I ignore them. I don't claim that I am being fair and I don't necessarily even dislike every person I do that to. I just don't want the bother.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2010 04:43 pm
There are a number of posters here on a2k who are known for their honesty, forthrightness and knowledge, they are also known for their strong opinions and not at all uncommon use of ad hominems.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2010 04:57 pm
@dyslexia,
well yes....I'll have to watch the ad-homs
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Oct, 2010 04:58 pm
@dyslexia,
Yes, true.
0 Replies
 
electronicmail
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Oct, 2010 10:09 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

Is there some reason you are repeatedly nasty on posts?


Ma'am, all I said to you was: "Thanks". You thought that was nasty, I take it back and apologize. If you thought something else, how's with explaining it?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Oct, 2010 10:33 am
Ad hominem is about the most abused online concept. Argumentum ad hominem means that you attack your interlocutor rather than the position taken. So, for example, one might say: "FDR wanted the Japanese to attack us, so he didn't tell Admiral Kimmel that the Japanese were going to attack.""

If your response is: "You're a fuckin' idiot."--that is ad hominem, to use the silly online shorthand.

If your response is: "You're wrong: after consulting with the Secretaries of State, War, the Army and Navy, as well as General Marshall and Admiral King, FDR sent out the war warning message on the same day that Nagumo's fleet left port and began steaming for Hawaii."--then you're arguing in a normal and civil manner.

If your response is: "You're wrong: after consulting with the Secretaries of State, War, the Army and Navy, as well as General Marshall and Admiral King, FDR sent out the war warning message on the same day that Nagumo's fleet left port and began steaming for Hawaii. . . . You ******* brain dead, right-wing idiot!"--then you're arguing in a normal manner, with the added benefit that you get to let your interlocutor know just what kind of great, braying jackass you consider him to be. This is NOT argumentum ad hominem, but you still get to enjoy it as though it were.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 03:23:58