Vat? Vat is dis you are sayink? I wouldn’t say I’m “no fan.” You’re obviously an extremely intelligent poster who knows his stuff, and I have the greatest respect for that. Any day, I’d take a cranky guy with a brain in his head and the sense to use it over some undeniably sweet piece of fluff LOL’ing and {{hugging}} his/her way around Great Debates. I am, in fact, a fan of many of the things you post, and the obvious exerience that you post with, because I am almost always a fan of people who know their shit.
That said, I think it’s undeniable that you very often come across as [sub]oh, what’s the term . . .[/sub] an ascerbic bastard. And not a humorous A.B. like the Great And Powerful Cecil; just a A.B., period. You post like you’ve got a big ol’ chip on your shoulder amd like stupid little peons who might have the temerity to disagree with you piss you off. So, yes, I think you are frequently guilty of the conduct referenced in the OP. That doesn’t mean I’m not a fan of the things you post – I very much am. When I can manage to swallow the way you post them.
You are, in fact, wrong. As I stated in my first post, I had not entered your debate. I don’t know what I said that could have been construed as argument, or taking a stance on the issue. I was simply chatting, as one is wont to do in chat. If you don’t want the random (or in this case, maybe not so random) noise of disinterested parties interrupting your debates, I suggest keeping them on the boards.
Actually, my argument wasn’t destroyed so much as (rightly) called on the fact that the burden of proof was on me and I didn’t have any data available to assert.
And to say “I still don’t understand why women’s suffrage is a good thing” is presumptuous.
I don’t have much interested in my thread other than to point that out - and didn’t ask mswas to use me as an example.
In defense of Collounsbury’s posting style, while he often employs a de haut en bas tone in his posts, it is usually to people who richly deserve it. He definitely knows what he’s talking about, and it must be infuriating to be contradicted on MENA matters by people a)who have never been there (as Collounsbury has) b) who cannot read Arabic (as Collounsbury can), and c) who have no business and political contacts in the Middle East (as Collounsbury does).
In Collounsbury’s defense, it takes a lot of different pieces for a chess game. Yes, he is occasionally more abrasive than I think wise. This, however, is not because I’m a naturally good person, it’s because I’m timid. By sarcastically savaging a poster’s position, he paints a big bull’s eye on his forehead and dares people to hit it. This adds a certain spice to the discussion. He infuriates certain posters because, despite their best efforts, they can never lay a glove on him.
He is usually a sport, though. If you do land one, he’s not above admitting it.
Contrast this to the posting style of some equally erudite posters like Tamerlane. Having a discussion with Tamerlane is very different than having one with C, yet no less entertaining or thought-provoking. I, for one, greatly appreciate the variety.
Well. first of all, lemme say that I’m honored, mswas. I personally find my writing dry and too wordy. I certainly don’t consider myself in a league with the top GD posters (I would name Coll, tomndebb, MEBuckner, Gaudere, Polycarp, Tamerlane, and others, but that is just the tip of a large iceberg and those posters are just the ones that I run into the most often). But I don’t want to be clique-ish here. Many, many posters in GD are very good and bring excellent points into debates.
I personally don’t think that ad hominems are that much of a problem. In GD, they usually are mild insults of another poster’s intelligence (which are usually called out quickly) or the Wally Putz smiley. I personally avoid these, but it often is tempting when someone shows up not to debate but to lecture. The simple act of conceding a point in GD IMHO would prevent 90% of all Pit threads. Those with odd viewpoints are tolerated – I’ve been through the mill with Olentzero quite a few times – when the poster is willing to stick around, debate, and learn.
If someone is continually obstinate, that is one of the reasons that on the 8th day the Mods Created the Pit. It is a useful release valve and a necessary partition between threads based on logic versus threads based on intelligence. OK, I’m being reductionist but I’m also getting over a migrane.
Of course those instances are remembered because those were the occasional instances where the majority was wrong.
The implication of the statement disturbs me. Let me ask mswas again. In your perfect world, how would the SDMB work? Would “debates” put forth by Seethruart stating that there are miniature structures visible in the moon landing photos, be given the same level of serious discussion as a debate on Palestine? How are the argument supposed to be handled when posters put for valid arguments that are ignored? And finally, why would your system work any better than the current system?
mswas, what you refer to as “presenting alternate viewpoints” can sometimes be hard to distinguish from “saying something stupid just to get attention”. The Woman’s Suffrage thread is a good example – the OP offered no evidence to support his inflammatory position, and no indication that he was actually interested in a logical exchange of ideas. Moreover, “debating” whether a group of people are worthy of the same rights as others is both insulting and threatening to that group of people, especially when it wasn’t that long ago that they were denied those very rights. So people quickly became impatient and irritated with the OP, and told him so.
Every OP does not have an automatic right to careful consideration and logical deconstruction. The democracy of a message board does not mean that all ideas are inherently equal. It means all posters have the right to throw their ideas into the arena and try to fight for their survival. If they are truly good ideas, they should have a natural advantage over inferior ones.
If you are making a strong argument for your idea, and the only response is name-calling, then that can either mean you have won the debate or you’re so obviously wrong as to make people impatient with you. It’s your job to decide which is the case, not ours.
Hey, don’t bother defending C’bury on my account. I’m not trying to attack the guy; to the contrary, I was only explaining why it’s not accurate to say I’m not his fan.
I’m a fan of thinkers and brain-users, no matter what their presentation. I’m not a fan of idiots or palavering morons, no matter how nice they might be. I can respect someone and disagree with them at the same time. I suppose I can also agree with someone but have no respect for them at the same time, too, but why bother?
The measure of “fan-dom” in my case is not dislike, but disrespect. (Which is not to say I dislike C, because I don’t; I don’t know him well enough to dislike him.) And the bell-weather of disrespect, at least in my case, is not whom I clash with, but whom I ignore. And with any luck, the only person paying attention to that little detail is me.
one other little correction to make - not being named by the OP neither caused jealousy or what the hell was the other claim? (scanning up) oh yea, animosity.
Nope. Just when you’re OP is ranting about, say liberal actors and their ‘pet’ causes, then go on to do a ‘OTOH’, I’m impressed by the actions of Charleton Heston, Tom Selleck and Alec Baldwin, I’m gonna say “Alec- I’m so left I have no right turn signal- Baldwin”, WTF?
(and it still wasn’t intended to be a slam on Col so there!)
[hijack]
I came in here to figure out WTF “Ad Hominem” was, now I find this:
If “fighting ignorance” means sending monolinguistic dopes like me running to the dictionary or translator every five minutes, you people are the fucking Navy Seals.
[/hijack]
Heh Sgt J. Apparently I didn’t know what Ad Hominem was either. I thought it just meant personal attack. Ah well.
As to the question about credibility to arguments that you think are stupid and when you should give it or not. My answer to that is, you should not enter into the debate if you do not feel that it’s worthy of an answer. The person didn’t post the thread for you to tell them they are hopelessly stupid for posting it, they posted the thread to ask you what you thought about that particular subject. If you don’t think the idea is worth any credence at all, then why bother posting in their thread at all?
To address the Ms. forum attacks. If a feminist were to come on Great Debates and start a thread about orgasms oppressing women, then by all means rip her to shreds, this is the appropriate forum. It is perfectly reasonable, and oftentimes best to rip someone who is spewing hate for no reason at all when they are standing on a soap box on a street corner. However, I do not think it is appropriate to kick their door in to go and tell them that their beliefs are inappropriate. The Ms. Forum was designed for FEMINISTS ONLY, and by going to the Ms Forum you violate the sanctity of their right to have a discussion amongst their peers without hearing other opinions, and this is oftentimes necessary to making a more coherent argument. I am sure some of them post on public boards like the SDMB and some do not. Do you run into a church to tell christians they are morons? When you agree to join the Ms. forum it specifically states that the board is for FEMINISTS ONLY. Invading their board en masse from another board is just a form of high brow superiority, where people feel that they have some god given obligation to stop a foul message from being spread. When you are preaching against what someone is saying the point is to deflect it away from their audience, if they have no audience but themselves, what do you hope to accomplish?
I’m curious how you define “feminist.” If you mean people who believe that women should have the same opportunities for career advancement as men, the same pay for the same work as men, and that women should be treated as equals in every sphere of activity, then I’d venture that everyone here qualifies.
If ,however, you mean of bunch of intolerant, misanthropic leftist women who practice reverse sexism in the guise of protesting the “phallocratic patriarchy,” that’s something else again.
But that’s not fighting ignorance, now is it? If someone starts a thread titled “should we lock black people up in cages at the zoo?”, why should it be their right to only hear opinions from people who think the question is worth discussion? If you only want certain people’s opinions, call a friggin’ meeting. If you want an open discussion on a public message board, be prepared to defend why you asked the question in the first place, as well as whether or not you’re right.
This debate has now crossed over into the idiotic.
What if a feminist were to come on Great Debates and start a thread about orgasms opressing women and they didn’t post the thread for you to tell them they are hopelessly stupid for posting it, they posted the thread to ask you what you thought about that particular subject.
That’s right. In one paragragh you are advocating that they should not be ripped to shreds, and in the very next paragraph you are advocating that in a similar situation they should be ripped to shreds.
You’re going to have to take some time, and think about what you really believe in. You should also brush up on the concept of rights. The Ms. boards are a public board just like the SDMB. I mean it’s one thing if they only allowed magazine subscribers to post. Since they are one a public board on the Internet, they don’t have some mystical right to air their views without opposition.
Hey now Truth Seeker! What are you implying? I am SO not the tempermental antithesis of Coll.
I…I…I’m dark…and mysterious…and…and…dangerous. Yeah, that’s it! DANGEROUS! You all better just watch out! Because I…ummm…uhhh…have cake! And none of you is getting any!
So there.
Tamerlane
p.s. - Thank for the kind words, especially from Edwino who is twice as articulate as I am on my best day and his worst. Especially when it comes to fruit flies ;).
Dammit, I wasn’t soliciting praise. The critique that I can be too acerbic is spot on and I’ve been trying, not with a great deal of success, in moderating myself. I am hurt by the accusaiton that I lack the same entertainment value as Cecil, old washed up whanker that he is. Shall have to work on that. Haven’t been creative enough I suppose. I once had a real edge there.
[sub]And I don’t mind being slammed, I only rather thought that if I was going to be a negative example, I could at least have the glory of being so named, being a egoist in the final analysis.[/sub]
However, in regards to the MS. question:
Precisely.
On one hand the poster who posted the x-link was a fool, an innocent fool perhaps, but a fool.
On the other hand, it’s a public message board.
Further, that set of women are sadly enough nothing much better than a photo-negative of misogynism, for whatever good or bad excuses they may have.
Sadly, I see such unrational radicalism (there is in my mind rational radicalism) as hurting their ostensible cause. There are ways to approach such issues. Surely I would not be a good ambassador as it were in this case (well given the right incentices I am quite capable of being so, but it is all about incentives), but it does seem to me that laying aside the links few of the SD people were anything but rational interlocutors, if somewhat ascerbic from time to time.
Actually, CollounsburyisTamerlane. Have you ever seen them simulpost?
Tamerlane drinks this potion, see, and . . .
Tamerlane, advance congratulations on your upcoming 1000th post. I know you are planning something spectacular and meaningful to commerate this event. May I suggest this thread?
