I also have this, related question to Set - I'd typed it out before but hadnt posted it yet, as I didnt want to distract attention from the other question straight away.
----
Earlier in this thread, Phoenix asked why you used certain words that are guaranteed to upset the other party, when you could just as well have used a more neutral word that means the same thing. She wrote:
Phoenix32890 wrote:Setanta wrote:In real life, no i would not barge into someone's imaginary friend superstition classroom to point out to them that that is what it is. By the same token, if some joker shows up on my doorstep or accosts me in public (and both of those circumstances are sufficiently common that i speak from a long experience), they have created the situation, and needn't whine if they don't like being told that their imaginary friend superstition is a superstition.
Setanta- Your post illustrates exactly to what I am referring. [..] Here is how it could be reworded, saying basically the same thing, but, IMO, not geared to eliciting strong emotional reactions from the reader.
Quote:In real life, no i would not barge into someone's religion class to point out to them that I believe that I think that their beliefs are superstition. By the same token, if someone shows up on my doorstep or accosts me in public (and both of those circumstances are sufficiently common that i speak from a long experience), they have created the situation, and needn't whine if they don't like being told that their beliefs, IMO, are superstition.
Your response to Phoenix was short, clear, and to the point:
Setanta wrote:Those are distinctions without differences, Phoenix
Well, quite. I think that was her point. There is indeed no difference in the
meaning of what is said here.
The only difference between the two versions is their effect. Your version is guaranteed to immediately make the opponent stop listening and revert to a defensive grouch/crouch right from the bat. Her version says the same thing, without immediately triggering personal anger.
So there you are. You say yourself that there is no difference in
meaning between the two versions. So seeing that, why do you then actively choose the one that is certain to offend most?
In all fairness, further down in your post to Phoenix you do submit this argument for doing so:
Setanta wrote:[Religious people] can avoid that unpleasantness very easily by not accosting me to discuss their superstitions with me. I don't go looking for fights to pick about religion, but if such are forced on me, i will use every weapon at my disposal, and i will hope to draw blood.
But this explanation doesn't hold for most of the A2K discussions you're in. Unless someone comes into a thread you're in and addresses his religious argument at you, like you say Snood and Intrepid have done, this is not a fight that came
to you.
When you click on a thread by RexRed or whoever in S&R, in order to tell them that they are bone-headed and deluded, you are quite voluntarily entering the fray of your own volition; nothing is being "forced on you".
So why, then, the attempt to "draw blood" straight away anyway?
You're picking up on this rather than having to answer a simple friggin' question?
