I must protest-your link had absolutely nothing to do with masturbation at all.
What aim does a parent scolding a child serve? What aim does embarrassment before peers serve?
The link I provided tried only to deal with matters of fact. If you claim an exception to the Pythagorean theorem in plane geometry, you’re wrong. I will not sugar coat my correction of you: you’re just not thinking; don’t be stupid.
Treating someone as if they’re being reasonable when in fact they are being totally unreasonable is what fails to serve a purpose. The incantations and ritual of hospitality will not turn their ignorance into insight. Where reasonable people can disagree, let’s be reasonable. Where they cannot, there’s no need to continue the pretense that we could.
To make the person being scolded or embarrassed defensive and to make the onlookers wonder if the person doing the embarrassing is only doing it because they lack the ability to simply and concisely correct the mistake.
In that case, nothing could be better than to embarrass the idiot with a simple statement of the facts; trying to be any more insulting than that would only serve to blunt the impact of the factual takedown.
You neglect the role onlookers play in most discussions: Without them, indeed, there is no reason to even have some discussions. For example, I’m never going to convince a Creationist that natural selection through modified descent is the only plausible theory for how life on Earth came to exist in its present form. However, I might well be able to convince someone who was unsure of the biology and relatively uneducated on the topic that, no, there really isn’t a debate, merely facts and logic on one side and willful ignorance on the other.
I can only do that if the onlooker doesn’t feel the need to defend the Creationist from my withering onslaught of sarcasm and finely-crafted invective. Further, my best tactic from the emotional standpoint is to let the Creationist hang themself: If I remain calm and polite, and the Creationist shouts and accuses me of being horribly and unutterably rude, I win victories without much effort on my part. You might be amazed at how often that works.
Finally, if there is no audience, or if the audience is just as dumb as the person I’m going up against, I don’t bother. I don’t need the frustration.
Here it is in context (1933 article in what is now The New Statesman):
It never ceases to amaze me how often people rely on rhetorical fallacies one way or another, yes. Again your example is simply loaded to poison the well here (or actually, um, sweeten the well, in this case), like tomndebb’s. Acting reasonable by staying “calm and collected” is incidental to actually being reasonable. All your examples just happen to sweeten the well and not poison it, but it is the same kind of rhetorical fallacy. This is the typical anti-Dawkins sentiment. Because he is blunt and direct about people’s factual errors, he’s just rude and anti-religious. But being rude and anti-religious have nothing to do with matters of fact. The “I-don’t-have-to-listen-to-this-abuse” rejection is exactly designed to protect people who want to retain their position without discussion, which was the claim my link made in the first place.
Perhaps, tactically, you’d suggest to not use rudeness so that this lame defense is unavailable. If so, we just disagree on the tactics of a debate. The willfully ignorant have no shortage of “reasons” for their lamentable and pathetic state.
Dawkins isn’t rude. At all. At least, not that I’ve seen. If that’s what you’re calling ‘rude’, or even ‘blunt’, then I don’t know what to say.
If you’re trying to convince the person you’re arguing with, you’ve likely already lost. Aim for the people watching, who might actually be on the fence, and convince them by making your opponent look stupid, or at least uneducated. Don’t make them look like the victim; make them look stupid for claiming to have been victimized.
It is not what I am calling anything. It is what I have heard called rude.
If he is stupid, I will just say so. If he is wrong, I will just say so. But hoping to win over my audience with appearances is not something I ever aim at. If they can be convinced that way, then—as you say—I’ve already lost.
So do you have an example of successfully being rude to win a point? Has rudeness ever persuaded a person to embrace civil rights? Choose peace over war? Choose good economic policy over bad? Where is this need to be rude or uncivil successfully employed in the real world?
I recall a lot of rude people, (generally from the counter-cultural groups), decrying the Vietnam War. The government finally decided to get out when more mainstream people expressing themselves more civilly began to argue that we needed to get out.
It would seem that you want to claim the virtue of rudeness while pretending that simple objective statements are, somehow, rude. That is simply playing semantic games from my perspective, (as is your odd claims that my argument or Derleth’s is wrong-headed simply because we use extreme examples to make the point clearly, (with an added attempt of your part to do that of which you accuse us–poisoning the well).
So, your whole argument is based on acceptring the definitions of unreasonable persons. I addressed thatr in the last paragraph of my first post:
Since my position is that being rude or polite has no bearing on matters of fact, such an example on my part would be both pointless and surprising.
Peace over war! Holy shit. I mean, we can be at war, but let’s be civil about it?!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
I don’t know whether rudeness in correction is a virtue or a vice but I do believe it is a tool that is not sufficiently wielded.
You are both discussing winning the argument by virtue of its form. You do it again in this post, with respect to Vietnam. Such rhetorical fallacies may win you rhetorical points but they’re pathetic support for what is ostensibly the more “reasonable” position. It is not about the extremity of your examples but the fact that they coincidentally support your position fallaciously. They may be sound, but they are not valid and this is the point: rudeness and civility have no bearing on matters of fact. What we are discussing is not a matter of fact, but a tactic. Tactically, I agree with Mr Naggum on the matter: reserve civility where reasonable people may disagree, but do not cage rudeness where reasonable people don’t disagree.
Basically, you appear to be arguing that we need to be rude on some vague occasion that you cannot identify. (You are also throwing around a claim of “fallacies” that appears to be irrelevant to the discussion.)
We are back to you making a claim that we need to be rude, despite its obvious drawbacks, (accompanied by an odd claim that it does not matter, either way).
The example of Vietnam is not a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument; it is reality. The country widely supported the war. Despite rude protests, support for the war continued for a few years. Later, other people began to put forth reasonable arguments and facts in a civil manner. The tide of opinion changed. The people I knew whose views changed from strong support to strong opposition were persuaded by reasonable discourse. The people I knew who encountered only the loud protests were still defending the war years after we had withdrawn.
You are making some great (and nebulous) claim against “form,” but the form is the point of the OP’s claims and the form is what actually provides the context in which the facts can be examined. On the one hand, you claim that neither rudeness nor civility make any difference, but you ignore the process by which facts or evidence need to be conveyed. I go back to my first response: a demand to let rudeness flow is nothing but a rationalization. It allows people to act out instead of doing the hard work to actually persuade others of their views.
OK, I’m curious. Which, if any, of these statements is ‘rude’ by your estimation?
[ol]
[li]Since the early 20th century, Earth’s average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[/li][li]In the field of the Reals, 0.999… (with nines repeating to infinity) is exactly equal to 1.000… (with zeroes repeating to infinity); they are simply two ways to write the same value.[/li][li]Prior to the third trimester, human fetuses don’t have the neural development to survive outside the womb.[/li][li]The Exodus described in the Old Testament very likely never occurred; there is absolutely no solid archaeological evidence of it, and no documentary evidence outside of the Bible itself.[/li][li]There is no evidence to convince a reasonable person of the existence of a deity.[/li][/ol]
I don’t believe it is an argument of necessity. I believe being civil for the sake of civility in matters of fact is counterproductive. If you think there’s an exception to the Pythagorean theorem in plane geometry, you’re an idiot. I’ll say so. The quality and severity of the remark is in proportion—in my view—to the quality and severity of the error. If I am merely civil in my refutation, and leave the acerbic comments out, I believe this creates an improper analogy to situations about which reasonable people can disagree, where rudeness has no function, because there is no standard of error.
Obvious drawbacks? I see obvious drawbacks to discussing things politely as if there were actually something to discuss when there is nothing to discuss.
The reality is that things happened in that order. Your position is apparently that when politely non-protesting people entered the national dialogue, the government changed its course. I doubt it had anything to do with their civility, rather than their number.
But, in regards to the example in general: I’m sorry, but are you using this example as a matter of fact? Is your position “As a matter of fact, the US should not have been involved in Vietnam”? Because my position is regards to matters of fact, and this smells a bit different than fact.
I provided a link with a quote that I believed was on-topic. You responded to it. Here we are. But anyway, it isn’t an argument against form. It is in fact an argument for a specific form: being rude, when the error is clear, to distinguish it from cases in which we disagree but such disagreement and discussion is healthy and productive. It is the verbal smack on the hand.
So, we are back to you believing that rudeness serves some purpose, but, appearently, that service is simply to make you feel good.
Meh. That seems like a pretty silly proposition.
We are now back to rationalizing counterproductive behavior, now with the reason provided that it makes you feel good.
Nah. You see a drawback to behaving with civility when your emotions are out of control.
It is not a big deal; it just fails to prvide a legitimate rationale for your behavior.
Ahh! The moral superiority of the True Believer–which comes across as mere self-righteousness.
As Robert Howard once said:
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
Why is that apparent, exactly?
I lol’d. Do you also find lost car keys and predict lottery numbers?
Moral superiority?
If your audience is composed entirely of mentally healthy Vulcans, then by all means be as direct, blunt, concise and dispassionate as possible.
If you’re dealing with humans, you cannot ignore the fact that - as well as thinking - they are emotional, feeling beings.
Some topics lend themselves to dispassionate speech. Most don’t. In most cases, there will be an element of persuasion, request or reasoning. You may be asking your audience to imagine something new, possibly alien - or indulge what at first might not strike them as intuitive or reasonable. Politeness and proper crafting of words is not redundancy here - it’s a necessary component. If you leave it out, you fail to fully make your point.
Just dropping in because I saw the OP title and was thinking of ‘wild’ as in the sense of cards and poker - jokers wild, twos are wild, etcetera, which made me thinking of the fact that words can mean different things to suit the context and the words that they’re close to.
Which is borne out by the fact that nobody inside the thread is using the word ‘wild’ in that sense. 
“Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says: ‘Do you know how to drive this thing?’”
That was how I read the title, but I’m pretty sure the OP means wild in the sense of unrestrained.
Two parrots on a perch - one says to the other: “Do you smell fish?”
Maybe, but remember: no matter how far you push the envelope, it’s still stationary.