Rules

sideshowbob said:
A fat man has no right to be insulted if somebody points out that he's fat.
Click to expand...
True. You are fat (descriptive phrase) of the truth, then truth is what it is

He might complain of being insulted but there is nothing to hang the complaint on

:)
 
sideshowbob said:
A fat man has no right to be insulted if somebody points out that he's fat.
Click to expand...
Sure he can be insulted. He can feel however he likes about other people's comments. If he's a sumo wrestler, he might take pride in being fat. If he's on a diet, he may be insulted. Up to him.
 
sideshowbob said:
Pointing out a lie is not "calling people names". And the only way a lie "builds learning opportunities" is if it's exposed as a lie.
Click to expand...
If you call someone a “liar,” you’re going above and beyond the topic that you’re discussing with that person. “I think you’re lying about (insert topic)” is a way to make your point and refrain from labeling the person a liar, as in they lie about everything.
 
wegs said:
If you call someone a “liar,” you’re going above and beyond the topic that you’re discussing with that person. “I think you’re lying about (insert topic)” is a way to make your point and refrain from labeling the person a liar, as in they lie about everything.
Click to expand...
I think if you have gotten to the point of considering them to have deliberately told a falsehood then the discussion is pretty much over, regardless of whether you call them a "liar" or just "lying about the particular topic" (if one wants to make that distinction). The better way would surely be along the lines of "I'm not sure that's correct..." or "did you mean to say X..." or some such. I.e. bring attention to what you perceive to be their error without stating that it was deliberately done, even if you privately think that.
 
Michael 345 said:
True. You are fat (descriptive phrase) of the truth, then truth is what it is

He might complain of being insulted but there is nothing to hang the complaint on
Click to expand...
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, being insulted is in the determination of the one the comment is aimed at, not who threw it at them. One may not intend an insult, yet one may be taken. And it should be for the one who threw it, intention or otherwise, to assure the other that there was no intention etc.
It is not to be left to those who throw comments to determine whether they are insulting or not.
 
Sarkus said:
I think if you have gotten to the point of considering them to have deliberately told a falsehood then the discussion is pretty much over, regardless of whether you call them a "liar" or just "lying about the particular topic" (if one wants to make that distinction). The better way would surely be along the lines of "I'm not sure that's correct..." or "did you mean to say X..." or some such. I.e. bring attention to what you perceive to be their error without stating that it was deliberately done, even if you privately think that.
Click to expand...
Agree. There is a saying that if you have to call people names, you’ve lost the argument. I’m not entirely sure about that lol, but cooler heads tend to prevail in arguments.
 
Yeah, showing disgust with someone isn't helping any argument ("did you follow me" "are your panties in a bunch" "are you still upset" "I trust that's not too hard for you to follow" etc).

It's generally just a sign of a lack of social skills.
 
wegs said:
This sometimes feels like a reality show on Netflix. :cool:
Click to expand...
People (human nature I guess) tend to have selective memory.

It can take one of two forms. One person says I don't follow the logic with your last point and the reply might be "Well ADHD could make that difficult I guess. Let me simply it for you and try to keep up..."

The first person may now say that autism may be making it difficult for you to follow me.

Now the second person says "Hey, don't get personal, it's against the rules" or someone else comes along and says something similar. Selective memory. You remember the second comment and not the first.

The other approach taken by some is to start off with "Yep, I agree with your first point" and then they proceed to go on a rant about Republicans spent more or said this or did this and then they end with "unless you meant that our public debt is too high and I agree with that".

So, in other words they agreed with everything you said but just wanted to imply that you meant all this other nonsense even though you said none of it.

In comedic form listen to old Norm McDonald clips of where he trashes someone but in the end says "but John Doe, he's a good guy..."

Dramatic sports commentator Steven A Smith does something similar. His intention is to trash Lebron James but first he sets it up with "Some people are hard on Lebron. You won't get that from me. That brother is a world class athletic, possibly the G.O.A.T., that man's special and a class act. But he is choking at the end of games lately and I think his best days are over and the Lakers are never going to win another championship as long as Lebron is on the team but that is one talented brother and others may try to put him down and others may say negative things about him but not me!":)

It is what it is...
 
sideshowbob said:
I keep saying, "expose a lie" and you keep saying "call somebody a liar".
Click to expand...
Oops, my bad. I read the back and forth between you and Seattle on the first page of the thread, and he suggested that calling people names (“you’re a liar!”) is poor form, then you stated that exposing a lie isn’t. And that’s true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top