Lola wrote:
Ok, let's not leave each other's style alone. That's good advice, we'll feel free to criticize the style of each other as we are, but don't claim that others are the only ones who sound "daft" doing it.
I have never ever claimed that anyone has exclusivity on daftness.
Quote:It's double irony here that you feel it's sensible when you do it, but "foolish" when others do the same.
Where did I say it was foolish? Herein, what I have called foolish is when political debate is reduced to making up names for politicians.
Quote:This is obvious and need not be repeated, but again please notice your own use of "playschool gang" talk.
I note and repeat that calling out for a name to be created to "stick it" to political opponents is reminiscent of a playground.
Quote:Again, "foolish" is your value judgement.
When I said it it certainly was, there are others who have said it as well.
Quote:You're right, I used the wrong word. Not censorship, absolutely not. Not the right word. So I can tell you that I think you sound daft when you rant on about the small things.
Sure, but it comes across as tit for tat if you do it immediately afterward.
Quote: In the meantime, you don't apply the same minutely focused logic when you're defending behaviors that are chronically insulting to individual a2k participants of all political persuasions.
Yes I do.
Quote:Have you been drinking, Craven? Have you noticed that you sound as drunk and as loud as the rest of us?
No I have not been drinking Lola. This, I didn;t expect from you.
Quote:This is your opinion and judgement of the nature of Tartarin's suggestion. I don't see it as "childish" any more than I see these things that you've said here to be. If you call it childish, you'll have to accept the same label for yourself. Let's be fair and logical now.
That's some pretty convoluted logic. There is nothing logical about simply reversing an accusationa nd demanding it's acceptance.
I never said Tartarin should accept that her call to start insulting people and make up names to "stick it" to them was childish. I am under no illusion that she will accept that definition. It's just an opinion.
You are quite obviously just reversing the accusation. But let's run with it, I'll entertain it if not buy it wholesale.
What is so offensive and childish about wishing that a level of discourse beyond namecalling be maintained?
Quote:I didn't say your expectation was offensive. I said that if you apply it to others, you have to apply it to yourself.
Ok, if I start telling people to make up names to "stick it" to others here I will apply the label to myself. In that I agree wholeheartedly and if you see me telling people to come up with names to use for people here please do call me on this.
Quote:Your communications are identical in tone and content to Tartarins.
Wishing something doesn't make it so. I had a specific qualm with Tartarin in that she wanted people to start making up names for each other. No, I have not made identical appeals. I have in fact lamented the use of political nicknames. That is the opposite. An opposite is usually not "identical".
Quote:I suggest that it's the way we are and we should just do it and enjoy it......stop taking insults to politicians personally and begin to distinguish that from insulting each other.
I don't take insult to it at all. I just think it weakens the arguments and lowers the level of discourse. It's embarrassing to the left to have people undermine the ideology by using poor arguments and tactics.
Those on the right feel the same about their own members who do the same..
It doesn't bother me at all if someone calls Bush or Clinton a name, it does undermine their argument and persons such as Tartarin shouldn't need this. This is not her only stock and store. She is knowledgable enough about politics not to need the names. She can, and has, contribute arguments without the names.
I don't know why expressing a very simple opinion that namecalling is not a suitable substitute for reasonable discourse is either a rant or annoying.
You've piqued my curiosity, why does it annoy you Lola? Do you assert the opposite? That namecalling is meaningfull discourse? If not, I fail to see your qualm. As my singular point here is that namecalling undermines arguments and lowers the quality of the discourse.
