Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Articulating In The Debates; The Proper And The Improper.
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 136 of 192 (592484)
11-20-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by New Cat's Eye
11-19-2010 3:22 PM


Re: Reason for the Choice
New Cat's Eye writes:
I have yet to see hooah add anything substantial to a debate.
He is now another poster that I just glance over and forget about.
Yes, I have a very similar reaction.
However, I don't think this is because of his use of language. Rather, I think that it reflects his attitudes. And his choice of language is probably just another symptom of an attitude problem.
Edited by nwr, : s/system/symptom/

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2010 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 192 (592500)
11-20-2010 2:36 PM


Re: Iron Sharpening Iron
So far, this thread has made me aware of the need to improve in some areas, such as implementing spelling check and shortening sentences, etc.
Perhaps, Hooah will gain something from it as well. There's been a significant amount of constructive criticism here, well worth airing. Perhaps in time Hooah will upgrade Buzsaw from feces to turnip or something like that.
As I've noted in the past, Abraham Lincoln, at a White House ball, said to a guest, something like "See that fellow over there, I don't like him. Maybe I should get to know him." A long time ago I recall reading that in a book about Lincoln. Of course, that can work both ways. Some who leave a good first impression turn out to be devilish.
Some have chided Hooah for never contributing anything to EvC. I don't totally agree. It was Hooah who motivated me to propose this topic. Without him what some of us have learned by this discussion would have remained unlearned. I think of the old adage, "iron sharpens iron."

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2010 2:48 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 139 by purpledawn, posted 11-20-2010 4:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 142 by Panda, posted 11-20-2010 9:51 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 138 of 192 (592505)
11-20-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
11-20-2010 2:36 PM


Re: Iron Sharpening Iron
Hi turnip
Perhaps in time Hooah will upgrade Buzsaw from feces to turnip or something like that.
I had a friend who had a friend who would introduce himself: "Hi my name is Jim, but my friends call me Turbo." Once at a party, making fun of this friend he introduced himself: "Hi my name is Brian, but my friends call me Turbo." To his chagrin the nick name stuck for several years.
I'll see what I can do for ya'.

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2010 2:36 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2010 5:22 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 139 of 192 (592534)
11-20-2010 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
11-20-2010 2:36 PM


Re: Iron Sharpening Iron
Another piece of wisdom from Proverbs 27:17.
It is good to have a constructive critique every so often. Sometimes we forget we aren't writing to ourselves. We may understand what we're writing, but it's the audience who has to ultimately understand what we're trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2010 2:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 192 (592559)
11-20-2010 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by lyx2no
11-20-2010 2:48 PM


Re: Thanks But No Thanks
lyx2no writes:
I had a friend who had a friend who would introduce himself: "Hi my name is Jim, but my friends call me Turbo." Once at a party, making fun of this friend he introduced himself: "Hi my name is Brian, but my friends call me Turbo." To his chagrin the nick name stuck for several years.
I'll see what I can do for ya'.
Oh man, thanks a whole bunch, Lyx2no. Mind you, I'm not changing my avatar to accommodate some imposed nickname.
Edited by Buzsaw, : Update subtitle

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Time Relates To What Is Temperal. What Is Eternal Is Timeless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2010 2:48 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by frako, posted 11-20-2010 5:40 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 141 of 192 (592567)
11-20-2010 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Buzsaw
11-20-2010 5:22 PM


Re: Thanks But No Thanks
Mind you, I'm not changing my avatar to accommodate some imposed nickname.
Good cause i would haveto put a glass for shnops (moonshine) as my avatar then.
I would poste a pitc for it but the internet does not have one. Its a thumbs lenght long and wide as a thumb. That has bulbs on the outside like female breasts presumably so you do not drop it in the morning when your hands are shaking. (you have to be in the hand shaking stage to drink that shit)
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2010 5:22 PM Buzsaw has seen this message but not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 142 of 192 (592645)
11-20-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
11-20-2010 2:36 PM


Re: Iron Sharpening Iron
Buzsaw writes:
So far, this thread has made me aware of the need to improve in some areas, such as implementing spelling check and shortening sentences, etc.
Bloody hell - I hate having to agree with you.
But you are currently speaking too much sense for me to contradict you.
We all have something to learn from the most surprising of sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 11-20-2010 2:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 143 of 192 (592695)
11-21-2010 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
11-19-2010 2:13 PM


Emotionally Detached Not Lack of Emotion
quote:
Debate is not just a process where I try to convince you to think I'm right. It's a process where I also have to try to convince you to feel that I'm right. And emotion-charged language is necessarily going to play a role in that, regardless of how Webster's defines "debate."
I think you're confusing emotionally detached with lack of emotion. This article, The Metaphor Rant, on why not to use metaphors in debate says it better than I can and he makes a good point about metaphors. I added the bold.
The problem with the academic debate model is that it assumes that both "debaters" are fully rational, emotionally detached human beings that are trying to come to some sort of mutual understanding or settlement in the most efficient and correct way possible. I can count on one hand how many debates like that I've managed to be a part of; most people can safely set the count at precisely zero, since both sides have to cooperate and very few people are emotionally capable of detached debate at all. (Note that "emotionally detached" does not mean "not emotional"; I get emotional about many issues such as "abortion", but that does not mean that in the debate I let my emotions, such as anger at my opponent, frustration, etc., play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc. Not that I'm perfect but I do try.)
I don't see how profanity makes one "feel" you're right.
Another issue he points out is that on a board like this our opponents don't usually back down. (That's why we keep having the same debates over and over. Sometimes we get a new face.)
In addition to the fact that few debaters even remotely approximate this model, in the real world, debates are never between two parties. A handful of people may be debating but the number of people lurking dwarfs that count. It is impotent to remember that those are the real targets in a debate; again, I can count the number of times I've seen a person back down and reconsider a position on my fingers.
Given the multiple failings of the standard debate model, we should expect that what the model tells us to do is incorrect. It is. The fact of the matter is that most people on the Internet are actively hostile to accepting or even considering new ideas, on both a conscious and unconscious level, and will aggressively misinterpret what you are saying, through both ignorance and malice.
We have seen all this play out here at EvC.
The point of rule #10 and the quote is to remind members to not let their emotions play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc.
On this board we are writing to a general audience. It isn't a closed club. Anyone can read it. Even professional writers have to decide how much profanity is honestly needed, if any, to make the point?
If we're already in a hostile environment, does profanity help sell the point or just escalate the hostility?
Wiki on profanity: Profanity are words, expressions, gestures, or other social behaviors which are socially constructed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or showing disrespect.
Edited by purpledawn, : Removed sentence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2010 2:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2010 1:32 PM purpledawn has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 144 of 192 (592711)
11-21-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by purpledawn
11-21-2010 6:42 AM


Re: Emotionally Detached Not Lack of Emotion
I think you're confusing emotionally detached with lack of emotion.
No, I think that you've mistaken calls for "emotional detachment" as having validity, instead of as always being a fallacious attempt to poison the well, which is what they are.
Anybody who is emotional about any issue - which is everyone, on every issue - is subject to accusations that they're not "emotionally detached" enough. These accusations should never be taken at face value, and I'm disappointed to see that you've fallen for the ruse.
I mean even your source admits that he can't maintain emotional detachment, that nobody is truly capable of it. How reasonable is it, purple, for you to expect debaters to cleave to a perfectly impossible standard? And why would the proponents of "emotional detachment" want people to do something they know is impossible? How can that possibly be taken in good faith? Clearly, it's a ruse.
I don't see how profanity makes one "feel" you're right.
Well, it's quite simple. Humans are herd animals. The Milgram experiment proves that most people will determine right or wrong based on cues from the people around them. If I make you feel that I really feel like I'm right, my conviction - as evidenced by my passion, which is evidenced by my word choices - will be one more thing that eventually adds up to convincing you.
The point of rule #10 and the quote is to remind members to not let their emotions play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc.
And everybody understands that's a rule honored only in the breach. I mean, especially these days. Coming back was a bit of a shock because of the marked decline in administrator activity in regards to personal attacks. It is what it is, but maybe you had to be away during The Purge to see the dramatic difference in the tenor of the board simply due to the nonenforcement of rule 10.
Even professional writers have to decide how much profanity is honestly needed, if any, to make the point?
You're right. Writers have to decide on their own how much profanity to use. That's always been the case.
They don't need you to decide it on their behalf.
If we're already in a hostile environment, does profanity help sell the point or just escalate the hostility?
It helps sell the point. That's the purpose of profanity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2010 6:42 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 11-21-2010 2:01 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 147 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2010 4:04 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 145 of 192 (592714)
11-21-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
11-21-2010 1:32 PM


Re: Emotionally Detached Not Lack of Emotion
crashfrog writes:
How reasonable is it, purple, for you to expect debaters to cleave to a perfectly impossible standard?
If we don't set our sights higher than what is "possible", how can we ever improve ourselves?
crashfrog writes:
It helps sell the point. That's the purpose of profanity.
I wonder why Wal-Mart doesn't train its greeters to say, "What the fuck do you want, you bastard?"

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2010 1:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by frako, posted 11-21-2010 2:24 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 148 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2010 6:40 PM ringo has replied
 Message 151 by Straggler, posted 11-21-2010 8:27 PM ringo has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 146 of 192 (592723)
11-21-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by ringo
11-21-2010 2:01 PM


Re: Emotionally Detached Not Lack of Emotion
I wonder why Wal-Mart doesn't train its greeters to say, "What the fuck do you want, you bastard?"
I dunno the guy in this video had me convinced in no time i would buy anything he sells.
Since using wbbj my buisness has grown 500%
Since using wbbj my fucking buisness has grown fucking 500%
Witch statment would you be more inclined to believe.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 11-21-2010 2:01 PM ringo has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 147 of 192 (592731)
11-21-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
11-21-2010 1:32 PM


Re: Emotionally Detached Not Lack of Emotion
quote:
No, I think that you've mistaken calls for "emotional detachment" as having validity, instead of as always being a fallacious attempt to poison the well, which is what they are.
Anybody who is emotional about any issue - which is everyone, on every issue - is subject to accusations that they're not "emotionally detached" enough. These accusations should never be taken at face value, and I'm disappointed to see that you've fallen for the ruse.
What accusations are you talking about? Emotion is fine as long as it doesn't play out in the debate in the form of insults, slurs, intellectually dishonest accusations, etc. Emotional detachment is not lack of emotion.
quote:
I mean even your source admits that he can't maintain emotional detachment, that nobody is truly capable of it. How reasonable is it, purple, for you to expect debaters to cleave to a perfectly impossible standard? And why would the proponents of "emotional detachment" want people to do something they know is impossible? How can that possibly be taken in good faith? Clearly, it's a ruse.
The point of showing you the article is to show that the ideal setting for a debate is not in an internet debate forum because the sides aren't trying to come to a mutual agreement. We are in a hostile environment.
You feel it's impossible not to intentionally insult someone in a written forum?
quote:
Well, it's quite simple. Humans are herd animals. The Milgram experiment proves that most people will determine right or wrong based on cues from the people around them. If I make you feel that I really feel like I'm right, my conviction - as evidenced by my passion, which is evidenced by my word choices - will be one more thing that eventually adds up to convincing you.
You didn't really answer my question and your explanation seems to support what I've been saying.
Since we supposedly take cues from those who are similar to us; and we are more likely to follow those who are very similar to us, then odds are your powers of persuasion using profanity will only work on people who use profanity or aren't offended by it.
When an opponent expresses that profanity offends them, that is a clue to change tactics if one's purpose is to persuade that opponent or people similar to that opponent.
quote:
And everybody understands that's a rule honored only in the breach. I mean, especially these days. Coming back was a bit of a shock because of the marked decline in administrator activity in regards to personal attacks. It is what it is, but maybe you had to be away during The Purge to see the dramatic difference in the tenor of the board simply due to the nonenforcement of rule 10.
Are you saying you do or don't like less administrator enforcement of Rule #10?
quote:
You're right. Writers have to decide on their own how much profanity to use. That's always been the case.
They don't need you to decide it on their behalf.
Why do you keep implying that I'm deciding or demanding something for anybody or from anybody? I haven't asked anyone to refrain from profanity in this thread. I don't think I've ever asked anyone to refrain from using profanity when responding to me.
quote:
It helps sell the point. That's the purpose of profanity.
But by your own explanation, profanity would not help sell the point to an opposition who is offended by profanity or people similar to the opposition. It would only sell the point to the people who probably already partially agree with you anyway.
I need an example of how profanity sells a point more so than not using it, especially to an opponent who is offended by it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2010 1:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2010 6:52 PM purpledawn has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 148 of 192 (592746)
11-21-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by ringo
11-21-2010 2:01 PM


Re: Emotionally Detached Not Lack of Emotion
If we don't set our sights higher than what is "possible", how can we ever improve ourselves?
Certainly not by faulting others for not achieving the impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 11-21-2010 2:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ringo, posted 11-21-2010 7:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 149 of 192 (592750)
11-21-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by purpledawn
11-21-2010 4:04 PM


Re: Emotionally Detached Not Lack of Emotion
What accusations are you talking about?
The accusations I referred to. The accusations made against women advocating for the right to choose, for instance, by pro-life men who insist they're the only ones with the distance to approach the issue objectively since the issue doesn't affect them.
Emotional detachment is not lack of emotion.
"Emotional detachment" is when you're supposed to be utterly without emotional reaction no matter how the issue is of practical importance to you personally, but it's ok if I display the emotions of callousness, disinterest, glibness, or skepticism.
It's a ruse. It's a way to poison the well.
You feel it's impossible not to intentionally insult someone in a written forum?
No, I feel it's unwise to refuse to countenance intentionally insulting someone in a written forum or using profanity.
You didn't really answer my question
No, I directly answered your question. You asked how profanity can be persuasive, and I answered. Profanity can be persuasive because profanity indicates the extent to which I believe in my position.
Since we supposedly take cues from those who are similar to us
I never said that we "take cues from those who are similar to us." That's not what I said at all.
Are you saying you do or don't like less administrator enforcement of Rule #10?
I don't believe that I said that I did or didn't like it, did I?
Why do you keep implying that I'm deciding or demanding something for anybody or from anybody?
Because you keep on deciding for other people when they should or shouldn't use profanity. There's nothing implied about it - you keep deciding for other people when they should or shouldn't use profanity, when in fact that's something only they can decide. They don't need you to decide for them.
But by your own explanation, profanity would not help sell the point to an opposition who is offended by profanity or people similar to the opposition.
It's precisely by that explanation that profanity is most likely to sell the point to those who view it as transgressive, because it indicates so much conviction that one must transgress the boundary against profanity to express it. That's a lot of conviction! People who are blase about profanity don't find it startling or convincing. They may not even notice its presence. But people who do find profanity offensive are far more likely to be convinced by it, because to them it indicates a substantial degree of conviction if one must transgress the boundary against profanity to express its extent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by purpledawn, posted 11-21-2010 4:04 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2010 7:45 AM crashfrog has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 150 of 192 (592755)
11-21-2010 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by crashfrog
11-21-2010 6:40 PM


Re: Emotionally Detached Not Lack of Emotion
crashfrog writes:
ringo writes:
If we don't set our sights higher than what is "possible", how can we ever improve ourselves?
Certainly not by faulting others for not achieving the impossible.
Nobody's doing that here. The criticism is contructive. If somebody like hooah wants to be taken seriously, he needs to raise his own sights. Nobody will do it for him.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2010 6:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2010 11:33 PM ringo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024