18 May 09
Originally posted by whodeyI think I read on these forums somewhere that someone said (don't remember who) the main point of debating is not convincing others, but convincing yourself that you are right. I think one should question ones own ideas and ethics at all times.
Interesting. I often wonder what is more important, the ability to make ones point or the ability to stand on ones convictions. For example, I think we have all been apart of debates that seem to be on the loosing side only to be proven correct after the fact. It reminds me of the song by Sting which is about the ability of politicians to rape people using ...[text shortened]... o say to you" because they refuse to let their arguements over turn their convictions/beliefs.
18 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaNo arguement there. On more than one occassion I have been caught flat footed regarding my positions on matters, but later, after careful consideration, have been able to better defend those positions.
If you can't defend your opinion properly, then you should at least stop to think about the grounds on which it stands.
18 May 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI always said that someone is a wise old soul.
I think I read on these forums somewhere that someone said (don't remember who) the main point of debating is not convincing others, but convincing yourself that you are right. I think one should question ones own ideas and ethics at all times.
18 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoIf he is serious in his comments, then no. He is unable to justify his position and fails to answer relevant questions.
Yes, or No, and why?
this is not a personal attack, it just about transparency.
If he is playing some kind of game, that is, if he is a wind-up artist, then he answer is still no, but he has got wind-up down to a fine art.
18 May 09
He's entertaining and, sometimes, reasonably informed. I think he suffers, if anything, from a common deficiency on these forums: having the same self-assurance on topics he doesn't know much about as on those about which he is well informed.
I tend, though, to agree with the suggestion above that, here on this forum at least, debating is as much a matter of style as of substance, and he has certainly got a recognisable and effective style. Particularly if his sole aim, generalissimo, is to make you hopping mad 😉
18 May 09
Originally posted by DrKFI think that he is far more than reasonably informed. The problem for most Americans on this forum is that he takes a consistently anti-corporate, anti laissez faire, anti libertarian point of view, which sees him cop a lot of *abuse*.
He's entertaining and, sometimes, reasonably informed.
Now whether or not that justifies him returning the favour to his *attackers* I suppose is part of the reason for this debate. I think to be fair though, his stock of vitriol has hardly been unleashed on those who have not been fully deserving to have administered on them, the full measure of his wrath. At least to some extent. 🙄
19 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyNo 1's seems to be one of the very few people who do any kind of
I've NEVER seen someone 'fold on any point' here.
This forum could well be renamed to the Pontification and Propaganda Forum.
preparation before they post.
I'd say that you come in a near second. Maybe it's becuase you take
off after No1?
19 May 09
Originally posted by DrKFParticularly if his sole aim, generalissimo, is to make you hopping mad 😉
He's entertaining and, sometimes, reasonably informed. I think he suffers, if anything, from a common deficiency on these forums: having the same self-assurance on topics he doesn't know much about as on those about which he is well informed.
I tend, though, to agree with the suggestion above that, here on this forum at least, debating is as much a matter of ...[text shortened]... nd effective style. Particularly if his sole aim, generalissimo, is to make you hopping mad 😉
well, he spends a lot of time doing that.
20 May 09
Originally posted by generalissimoNo.
[b]Particularly if his sole aim, generalissimo, is to make you hopping mad 😉
well, he spends a lot of time doing that.[/b]
Somebody doesn't make you mad.
You make yourself mad and blame someone else.
It's called projection.
Generally it's got something to do with an "allergy" and equally generally, you should be learning from it.
Unless, of course, we're talking about right-wing Christian, capitalist pro-lifers. They're just asking for it.
20 May 09
Originally posted by shavixmirIts pretty hard to make myself mad.
No.
Somebody doesn't make you mad.
You make yourself mad and blame someone else.
It's called projection.
Generally it's got something to do with an "allergy" and equally generally, you should be learning from it.
Unless, of course, we're talking about right-wing Christian, capitalist pro-lifers. They're just asking for it.
