I hold the belief that 'personal' attacks in a debate are expected. As long as they are just opinion (you're a dumbshit!), and not defamatory (you're a child molester!), I think that they should be accepted. And as long as it is realized that they are not personal, but are merely a result of a heated and tense argument. In otherwords, it's OK to insult in public, but you should not carry the grudges into private conversation.
I reckon that anyone who sinks to the level of throwing personal attacks in a debate have lost. I mean if you think about it, after a reasonable point has been made, the other person just doesn't accept it and flies into a fury of insults. Maybe they realise their opinion is wrong? maybe they don't like this... etc etc... Having said that it could be a number of reasons why, but its certainly pretty appaling. I can't talk in the same thread as one particular person without being called a retard many times. Sure i might have graduated from the University of "Duh" (holds hand up in spastic way), but my qualifications shouldn't be up for discussion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
May I present the alternative theory to the theory that you automatically lose a debate when the opponents start throwing personal insults. If you are being called a 'retard' by many different posters you might be one. The probability of this being true increases with the frequency this occurs and the unrelatedness of the posters that use personal insults. Not in your case of course. I would never for instance call you a retard. Just someone with suspicious moral values. But is that a personal insult? More like a personal subjective observation. The same can be true of course for the 'retard' classification.
I can name more than one person here who pretends to be on the side of the mainstream of science, and they start hurling the insults first.
They seem to be the worst. I don't visit the others as much. We have several people here who think that they are qualified and claim to have paper qualifications, but they start insulting people by calling them names or questioning their intelligence the minute they write any rebuttals to their ideas.
Yeah, me too. I hate it when I post some simple physics observations and get bluntly told I don't know what I'm talking about. Sheesh.
Transcript ensues. Physics observations only. MK's response: Personally insults SL's intelligence because SL presented physics argument against a hypothesis. SL's response: SL requests support for the earth stopping hypothesis. MK's response: 1) Uses "shame" and accusations of "magic" as inflammatory attacks. 2) Entire paragraph is slanderous against scientists in general and has no other purpose but to inflame. Discussion degenerates form this point forward.
Well, it's tough to be a kewl and uber scientist. Like, you know, oooh-ahh, saying things like: You know, this bloody Gödelian trap makes me sick. or And then that mofo of an absolutist self-view believer showed his ass in that thread, spouting on some bullshit about the provability of the existence of an absolute, finite and context-independent self. Bugger. or Where could that be, in your miniature excuse of an objectivist brain? or Pshaw QM! Hah. Eh. Because saying things like "On the basis of [insert valid, qualified argument], I disagree with ..." just gives so damn little ego gratification!
...thus you are insulting them in return. Eye for an eye, Eye for an eye, Eye for an eye, It makes the world blind.
It's one thing to say someone is ignorant and explain why. It is another thing to call someone stupid with no evidence of such. I think it is much easier to prove someone is ignorant than it is prove they are stupid. Ignorance needs only one dislay of such... stupidy shows over time.
you are stupid, absane. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! oh..fuck off, too!!! MUUAAAHAHAHHAHAAA! dude, i just took your whole argument apart!! uh...hmm...maybe not. SHUT UP!!
