In the thread "did you have a spiritual awakening", launched by snood, spendius made a remark that was unrelated to the subject, but even so a claim I think is worth some debate. What he wrote was:
Quote:Just wanna mention a thread doesn't go south by itself; it gets dragged that way by folks functionally unable to differentiate exhange and criticism of idea from personal attack.
First off, I agree with this statement. But I immediately wonder who he's referring to by folks. Wich side of the exchange are they on?
Sometimes reasonable questions are taken with great injury to our pride and our sense of achievement, and we miss the point that was made.
In failing to grasp the intended information, we grasp the insult and spin on it.
It may be pride that causes our tounges to flare with unreasonable mockery.
But is it not pride also that causes our hearts to hearken to the insult rather than to the reasonable argument that was included in the same sentence?
As I see it, the most rewarding thing to do in a debate is to disregard any insult, implied or indeed present. Sometimes it's a real challenge, but it can also be a great rethorical advantage to not lose your composition when provoked.
But it comes down to what we want to hear as much as what we want to say, and to the endurance and course of a healthy debate both is equally harmful.