I’ll also add that IMO opinion, the cool thing about being a reasonable person is that other reasonable people behave reasonably toward you. So, you reciprocate. If they mess up, you cut them some slack, no biggy. Surely you’ll mess up at some point, right?
Ain’t that (wait for it,) reasonable?
The other thing that’s cool is that when somebody is consistently unreasonable, it is no longer reasonable to reason with them. Then you can safely ignore them. If you make an error here, people will generally point it out reasonably and suggest you give another chance. Also, if that person again acts reasonably it would be reasonable of you to be willing to reason with them again.
However, if that person follows you around for six months like a FUCKING PSYCOPATH taking unrelated potshots at you from out of the blue, than you can be pretty sure that that person is not reasonable and you made the right decision to ignore them.
I don’t see the significance of this at all. Obviously you cannot conduct yourself in a debate - or in your life, for that matter - according to purely objective criteria. You do your best, and decide on a case by case basis whether the consequences of others disagreeing with you are worth changing for.
Scylla, here’s a review:
-You made a statement.
-I posted my opinion of that statement.
-You said that it is unreasonable for me to state my opinion, because it is based on events more than six months old, while in the very same post presenting your own opinions.
-Seeing that you were claiming to not want to discuss the issue (albeit immediately after actually discussing it yourself), I moved back towards the issue of the OP.
-You pursued the issue, posting an implication that I should for some reason change my opinion to agree with yours, simply because of the passage of time.
-Apparently deciding that was not enough, you continued to discuss the issue while at the same time implying that I should not be discussing it, repeated your baseless and paranoid accusations, and added an insult in violation of forum rules.
And you expect me to take advice from you on how to act reasonably?
Well, yes that’s my point. This is largely a case by case process, so if we were to discuss a particular case, there would be a lot to say. When discussing general principles, there is a lot less to say.
You could not ask for a better demonstration of the complete futility of never leaving a point unanswered, or even attempting to get the last word. The subject matter of the discussion is peripheral by the kindest possible assessment, and the logical importance of the views displayed is tenuous to say the least.
Neither participant is able to simply stop responding, for fear of being the looser in the argument, and so each forfeits any possible degree of dignity, and should have been posting more honestly, “I know you are, but what am I?” The choice to leave the issue alone is a very hard one to make.
A statement without logical intent does not merit a logical reply. Authoritative cites are not germane to refute emotional assumptions presented without evidence. No answer is the correct answer to the absence of significance. Argumentum ad hominem is not valid, even in reply to the same.
Tris
" It is no profit to have learned well, if you neglect to do well." ~ Publilius Syrus ~
I have found that there are times though, when having asked a question, or having started a thread, posters respond by asking for clarification of your position. In some subject areas, these requests can achieve ‘onslaught’ status.
When you then engage in an attempt to clarify (as requested or challenged) as many of the requests as merit a response, you are left liable to the accusation that you are using the debate to preach rather than engage in a two-way debate.
It’s the fine line between ‘willingness to engage’ and ‘over-contributing’ that I personally am trying to wrestle with (as an SDMB newbie). Any good tips?
I also agree with Stoid that sometimes, I may never return to a thread and so am unaware of questions asked since my last visit.
[slight hijack] However, just recently, I discovered that a whole debate had been going on in the Pit relating to an observation I had made in a GD thread. I came by the discussion purely by chance. It was well into two pages and I had not contributed because I didn’t know of its existance.
Interestingly enough, when I finally did contribute, the thread appeared to stop with the OP not responding? (Is this a body odour thing perhaps?)
How do you monitor references to yourself in other threads? Is it the done thing to search on your own name everday to see if you’ve been included in another discussion or is this verging on paranoia?
If someone is to open a debate that names you specifically, is it reasonable for them to alert you via email so that you can contribute? What’s the SDMB deal on this etiquette?[/slight hijack]
Since this is pretty clearly a reference (at least in part) to my own interactions with walor in another thread, I think I should add some clarifications:
walor, I said you were preaching instead of listening for more reasons than just because you were clarifying your own position. A large part of the reason I accused you of preaching is because your questions to the atheists were so loaded with your own preconceptions. Instead of saying, for example, “What do atheists base their morality on?” you instead say things like, “There’s no reason to be moral without God, so why not go out and murder and steal?” Plenty of people start a thread asking for information and end up facing an “onslaught” of questions directed at them, but that alone doesn’t garner them any accusations that they’re preaching.
I would say that if you (Notice: All “YOU”'s are generic, not aimed at anyone in particular) make a statement, particularly directed at another poster, and you are asked for clarification/evidence/explanation/cite/proof of that statement, it is your obligation to provide it. Failing to do so reduces your statement (if directed at a poster) to nothing more than a personal attack, which is supposed to be against the rules. Making a general statement and refusing to back it up when called upon to do so reduces your statement to sheer uselessness from a debate standpoint, and reduces your standing in my eyes to someone not worth paying further attention to.
I take your point and agree with it. I guess the difficulty arises when responses to questions posed are either sniping or dismissive or themselves state or imply a pretty loaded position.
In my relatively short time on these boards I have detected and observed varying degrees of reasonable and unreasonable behaviour between posters. I would sincerely like to believe that whilst my views and opinions may be different from other posters, that I would be able to conduct myself in a manner that focussed on the issues and not the personalities.
If you believe in something with a passion, then the temptation in these situations may be to respond with an equally challenging (or loaded) question back. This has the potential to be inflamatory and I agree with you that this is not helpful.
Whilst any of us could be accused of over reacting or over responding sometimes, I suspect that all of us could also cite occasions when we have chosen to not respond at all… even though this may create an impression of submission or concession.
Ben, we may not agree on a variety of issues, but I genuinely appreciate your willingness to engage. If that is the shared value of all posters, then at least we all start with some common ground, whatever the issue.
There is almost nothing that impresses me more than someone in a debate acknowledging an excellent point made by the other side. I know sometimes it’s a “blowing sunshine up their crack” sort of thing, just trying to take the sting out of the rebuke to come. But when it’s genuine? It always raises my respect for the Doper another notch or two.
I wish I saw it more often, instead of nitpicking, insults, glossing over points one can’t rebut, and desperate clinging to one’s position because s/he thinks to concede anything is a wrenching loss of face.