Osama bin Laden is DEAD

infinite monkey · 05-05-2011, 07:55 AM

It's not 'the Cellar.'

It's the same character over and over. Someone tries, gets shot down, by being treated like a mongrel dog.

I was dismayed at all the "will you two quit bickering" crap when it's just a repeated pattern and the same player shitting all over the place. jill didn't come out bickering. She came out thoughtful and well read and capable.

Even UG doesn't resort to the kind of crap that transpired here yesterday. His "im, you are ignorant" isn't all that bothersome. We consider the source. We even giggle. He cites. We disagree. It's not harmful.

I'm sorry. I had given up my quest to engage in this crap. I didn't want to be an instigator or supporter of it at all anymore. But it's ridiculous.

Sure, he hangs himself. Every time. But treating humans with differing viewpoints (and in many cases actual cites that illustrate and illuminate) the way he does? It's wrong. And it's why there will never be productive or respectful discourse in politics on the Cellar.

Pop-ins to tell someone how wonderful they are, and repeated reminding of manliness by pointing out which women one would like to scrog, do not negate the sheer hatefulness that transpires.

Flame me. I expect it.

DanaC · 05-05-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I was dismayed at all the "will you two quit bickering" crap when it's just a repeated pattern and the same player shitting all over the place. jill didn't come out bickering. She came out thoughtful and well read and capable.
.

I agree with this. This is not a 'six of one, half a dozen of the other' argument. Both parties were not equally flinging shit at the other. One was attempting to have a political discussion the other was being an utter cock for no apparent reason and after little if any genuine provocation. Neither were bickering. One was arguing the other was having a public meltdown.

Stormieweather · 05-05-2011, 09:53 AM

I taught my children that the participant in an argument who resorts to name-calling, personal attacks, and ad hominem arguments (and/or a raised voice) is the person arguing the weakest point. With solid, unimpeachable data to back a position up, there is no need to sink to mud-slinging to (try to) win an argument.

Shutting down/silencing the opposition, or attempting to, does not eliminate their standpoint or any validity of same.

05-05-2011, 07:55 AM	#1
infinite monkey Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 13,002	It's not 'the Cellar.' It's the same character over and over. Someone tries, gets shot down, by being treated like a mongrel dog. I was dismayed at all the "will you two quit bickering" crap when it's just a repeated pattern and the same player shitting all over the place. jill didn't come out bickering. She came out thoughtful and well read and capable. Even UG doesn't resort to the kind of crap that transpired here yesterday. His "im, you are ignorant" isn't all that bothersome. We consider the source. We even giggle. He cites. We disagree. It's not harmful. I'm sorry. I had given up my quest to engage in this crap. I didn't want to be an instigator or supporter of it at all anymore. But it's ridiculous. Sure, he hangs himself. Every time. But treating humans with differing viewpoints (and in many cases actual cites that illustrate and illuminate) the way he does? It's wrong. And it's why there will never be productive or respectful discourse in politics on the Cellar. Pop-ins to tell someone how wonderful they are, and repeated reminding of manliness by pointing out which women one would like to scrog, do not negate the sheer hatefulness that transpires. Flame me. I expect it. Last edited by infinite monkey; 05-05-2011 at 08:01 AM.

05-05-2011, 09:53 AM	#3
Stormieweather Wearing her bitch boots Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Floriduh Posts: 1,181	I taught my children that the participant in an argument who resorts to name-calling, personal attacks, and ad hominem arguments (and/or a raised voice) is the person arguing the weakest point. With solid, unimpeachable data to back a position up, there is no need to sink to mud-slinging to (try to) win an argument. Shutting down/silencing the opposition, or attempting to, does not eliminate their standpoint or any validity of same. __________________ "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)