When we disagree or argue, it's nothing personal

[Taverner]

Hell, you might be right and I wrong...

I am open to new ideas - that is what I think makes a Liberal a Liberal

However, sometimes when we discuss something on a thread, I hear responses that start with "How could you be so stupid to..." or "What are you a teabagger?" or "You're an idiot if you think..."

This usually derails the discussion, and at that point, it just becomes a shouting match

When's the last time the proportion of voice volume corresponded to its veracity?

[LWolf]

1. Absolutely. Within limits.

I am not open to ideas that increase the power of big corporations, that decrease the power of the people, that privatize public services for profit, that violate civil liberties, that enrich the already wealthy and powerful, that limit or oppress those with fewer resources.

[Taverner]

4. Granted I can't think of a single example to refute that point...

But I'm not sure if it would be correct to use it as a litmus test...

But who knows?

When I hear someone trying to convince me to kill a perfectly happy, healthy and friendly 2 year old, I usually use a litmus test in that case...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. After 24 hours I don't have a clue who I was arguing with or even about what

so I agree with you it's never personal and I kick and recommend your thread through the goal posts of life.

[tabatha]

3. Hell no.

If we disagree with something then we drop turds of childish, badly spelled, totally off topic nonsense comments all over a thread - and not even engage in a thoughtful discussion about the disagreements. Sorry for that sentence. There was a bad example of this last night.

Disagreeing thoughtfully can allow others to understand a position that may be different from yours.

On edit - and yes, anyone who responds to an argument with ad hominem comments indicates they have lost the argument already.

[HughBeaumont]

5. That depends, really.

Are we just talking a little moderate on, say, economic issues or flat out defense of free trade, globalization and job offshoring? There are people who are down with that on DU.

See, in that case . . . yes, I take that personally, because that's more or less supporting not only a truly Republican economic position, but also the destruction of one's livelihood and career. Not progressive by any stretch, and people like that don't belong on DU.

[Taverner]

7. Perhaps it's your opportunity to educate them...

I used to think Government was the problem. I used to think the 'invisible hand' would solve all problems.

Then I lived outside the US. I traveled the world. I educated myself. I traveled the country. I learned things.

Now I know better

[Taverner]

12. You know - I take back what I said

There is no way you can teach any of these Ayn Rand acolytes anything other than the direction of the door...

[Scuba]

6. Not only is DU a place to disagree and debate...

...it's also a place to learn to better debate, so one is better prepared when faced with those who disagree with many/most of us here.

Often a "you're a moron" comment is meant tongue-in-cheek but the sarcasm gets lost in the text format. Give the benefit of the doubt, once at least, and see if you think things are better.


I would like everyone to be more civil, and (mostly) try to lead by example, but I'm not ready to disregard someone's idea because they are unskilled at presenting it.

[patrice]

8. The really fascinating questions for both sides are - How much right:wrong : How much right:wrong?

And, at least hypothetically, that'd be where a LOT of power is too, IF anyone can ever get there.

[patrice]

9. Or, more precisely: the respective probabilities thereof. nt

[frazzled]

10. It doesn't feel that way to me a lot of the time

People can be downright hostile when you simply quote some facts in a thread.

Basically, I'm coming to understand that it's very difficult to change anybody's mind about anything, no matter how much you think you're being polite in offering some facts. And I'm not usually convinced by the counterarguments.

[Warpy]

11. If nobody ever disagreed with anything I posted

there would be no opportunity for me to learn something new here.

Disagreement with a post isn't an attack against the person who made it unless the person disagreeing becomes disagreeable.

It's amazing how many people just can't seem to think in those terms.

[Shandris]

13. Having been on the recieving end of more than one...

...series of indirect direct accusations (similar to a 'near miss'), I'd like to believe that this topic is true. I CAN say I believe its ~usually~ true.

On the occasions where someone feels the urge to charge someone else with being a plant, or a shill, or what-have-you, they should be required to provide at least a ~little~ evidence unless it's just so god-awfully obvious that it can't be missed, like that thread that was here yesterday... Great. Now I can't remember what it was. Having a cold sucks. :)

OH! It was about the transgendered woman attacked in McDonald's, there was someone insulting her, making all SORTS of horrible comments about TG people in general, and so forth. Yeah...not needed there -- clearly and obviously, to every person posting, there was a problem.

Anyway, I guess this rambles a bit. Maybe its best summed up like this: I believe this is usually the intent, but sometimes we DO need to watch the edges of our swords. Words are weapons, and they cut, and 'growing a thick skin cuz this is the internet' isn't always the best answer.

[Taverner]

14. "Are you really that stupid" gets a full on attack from me

And in person, it gets a left hook