[nige1]

barmar, on 2017-August-26, 20:02, said:

There's a big difference between calling someone a POS and calling them a racist. The former is simply a slur and attack based on personal opinions. The latter can be a valid conclusion based on objective analysis of the views they've expressed. Of course, they're not necessarily unrelated. You may decide that someone is decrepit because they're a racist. But not always. Archie Bunker was a perfectly nice guy who happened to be a racist; we're more likely to pity someone like him for his archaic views than hate him.

Barmar and Diana_Eva seem to agree that ad hominem attacks on posters are OK, in practice.

IMO, such personal attacks are rarely substantiated but they can be still be hurtful and they're irrelevant to debate. Unless you believe that labelling a poster a POS (or whatever) invalidates his argument.

The old-fashioned view is that refuting an opinion is OK but vilifying its proponent isn't.

[diana_eva]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 00:46, said:

Barmar and Diana_Eva seem to agree that ad hominem attacks on posters are OK, in practice. IMO, such personal attacks are rarely substantiated but they can be still be hurtful and they're irrelevant to debate. Unless you believe that labelling a poster a POS (or whatever) invalidates his argument.
The old-fashioned view is that refuting an opinion is OK but vilifying its proponent isn't.

Give it a rest Nigel. This is the water cooler.

[Al_U_Card]

diana_eva, on 2017-August-27, 06:04, said:

Give it a rest Nigel. This is the water cooler.

Yes and even the water cooler has rules. (So that it resembles a forum for discussion and not another kind of wc.)

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2017-August-27, 08:21, said:

So that it resembles a forum for discussion

Your spewing nonstop idiocy and lies is hardly a discussion...

You were a worthless troll back when you post non stop conspiracy theories about 911...
Now you've moved on global warming, however, you're still an unwelcome presence trolling the forums for kicks and giggles.

For the life of me, I do't understand why your continued presence is tolerated.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-27, 08:30, said:

Your spewing nonstop idiocy and lies is hardly a discussion...
You were a worthless troll back when you post non stop conspiracy theories about 911...
Now you've moved on global warming, however, you're still an unwelcome presence trolling the forums for kicks and giggles.
For the life of me, I do't understand why your continued presence is tolerated.

To publicly analyse a controversial topic, effectively, you need presenters of both sides of the argument.

Some posters are confident in their beliefs. Seemingly, they're unshakable in their opinions. They might still find it salutary to expose their beliefs to adverse criticism. A group who all share the same view (e.g. that Russians are evil war-mongers) can appoint a "devil's advocate".

If you reflexly resort to insult, whenever you have difficulty countering an antagonist's argument, then he's less likely to help you to test your convictions.

I'm uncertain of my beliefs. I regard that as a strength, not a weakness. For example I've learnt from these forums. As a result, I've changed some of my opinions -- not just about Bridge.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 10:27, said:

To publicly analyse a controversial topic, effectively, you need presenters of both sides of the argument.

Some posters are confident in their beliefs and, seemingly, unshakable in their opinions. They might still find it salutary to submit their beliefs to adverse criticism. A group who share the same view can appoint a "devil's advocate".

If you reflexly resort to insult, whenever you have difficulty countering your antagonist's arguments, then they're less likely to help you to test your convictions.

I'm uncertain of my beliefs. I regard that as a strength, not a weakness. For example I've learnt from these forums. As a result, I've changed some of my opinions -- not just about Bridge.

At the same time, when someone like David Duke tries to present the reasons behind his racism as valid argument, I know enough to reject those claims outright. In fact, it is dangerous and wrongheaded to give those ideas any weight at all or to accept the false equivalence that all ideas - regardless of basis - deserve respect.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 10:27, said:

To publicly analyse a controversial topic, effectively, you need presenters of both sides of the argument.

Some posters are confident in their beliefs and, seemingly, unshakable in their opinions. They might still find it salutary to submit their beliefs to adverse criticism. A group who share the same view can appoint a "devil's advocate".

If you reflexly resort to insult, whenever you have difficulty countering your antagonist's arguments, then they're less likely to help you to test your convictions.

I'm uncertain of my beliefs. I regard that as a strength, not a weakness. For example I've learnt from these forums. As a result, I've changed some of my opinions -- not just about Bridge.

Nigel, I spent 10+ years presenting reasoned arguments against the never ending series of lies that Al spews
He never stops.
He never learns
He never admits that post factually incorrect materials.
Hell, he revels in his lies.
He had openly posted that he is justified in presenting materials that knows are wrong because the "warmists" do the same thing.

And if you didn't have you head shoved so far up your on ass, you'd understand that there is a difference between a discussion / debate and trolling.

Nigel, I understand that you don't like me
You had a stupid little man crush on me and I treat you like an idiot.
So be it. But you're only making yourself look even more stupid.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-27, 10:34, said:

At the same time, when someone like David Duke tries to present the reasons behind his racism as valid argument, I know enough to reject those claims outright. In fact, it is dangerous and wrongheaded to give those ideas any weight at all or to accept the false equivalence that all ideas - regardless of basis - deserve respect.

Exactly, this occurs in many places particularly around religion, views do not automatically command respect, particularly when they fly in the face of all the scientific evidence or generally accepted standards of decency.

No the earth is not flat, and just because the church of Lucifer the paedophile dictates you should only marry girls under the age of 11 does not mean I have to respect your religion.

[diana_eva]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 10:27, said:

To publicly analyse a controversial topic, effectively, you need presenters of both sides of the argument.

Yes. Main point here being what's controversial and what not. Global warming is not a controversial issue, for example, despite your continuous arguing that yes it is and we should give Al the credit for defending the other side of the argument.

[RedSpawn]

mike777, on 2017-August-24, 22:03, said:

Winston to answer your first question...no it is secession....you don't seem to know that

In response to your main point....I remain....if you and your local community wish to remove them...fine.....Winston you argue only against yourself.....when it comes to your local statues.


I note in my local area...the south.....btw I am from the north.

1) today I learn we have a local street called stonewall.....it is a short street near uptown....I only know it because a great local theatre company is located there. I had no idea where the name came from or ever cared.....Today it is front page news in our local mayor race....who knew....change the name out of outrage....btw the Nazi or KKK never marched there. fwiw when I think stonewall and theatre....I think NYC gay riots but that is just me....


2) I find out our local state univ has a statue, a long time statue.... called silent sam...who knew......it is now the center of tear it down protesters, legal debates.....massive police protection.......silly........


kkk no....Nazis.......no.......white racists crackers...no.........I remain to see the so called evidence.....in these two examples....but in any case if locals want to tear it down....I don't really care....I grew up in the Land of Lincoln......revered Lincoln....

http://www.huffingto..._n_7732744.html

The Silent Sam statue controversy and its sponsorship by the United Daughters of the Confederacy on that campus is not new.

https://www.scribd.c...dication-Speech

Scribd

Julian Carr
Speech given in Chapel Hill at the University of North Carolina on June 2, 1913:
“Unveiling of Confederate Monument at University.”
[The monument later known as “Silent Sam.”]#1
UNC Library Abstract:
Julian Shakespeare Carr (1845-1924) of Chapel Hill and Durham, N.C., was a manufacturer of tobacco products with interests in a wide range of other businesses, including banking and textiles. Carr was also active in the Methodist Church, the Democratic Party, and several Confederate veterans' organizations, including the North Carolina branch of the United Confederate Veterans, which he served as commander. He was also a strong supporter of various institutions of higher education in the state. The collection includes letters, telegrams, printed announcements, programs, and pamphlets, business and legal documents, maps, and newspaper clippings pertaining to Carr's business and personal affairs. One address, 2 June 1913, given at the dedication of the monument later known as "Silent Sam" on the University of North Carolina campus. Business topics are also represented. Included are seven volumes of Carr's diary containing brief entries, 1907-1917, and letter books, 1919-1922.

Excerpt from Carr’s speech during dedication speech of 1913 (pages 12-13 of this document):

Quote

I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomatox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern Lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head.”

Well at least Carr protected those established customs and mores of the South and did it in front of federal soldiers. Kudos!

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2017-August-27, 10:39, said:

Nigel, I spent 10+ years presenting reasoned arguments against the never ending series of lies that Al spews
He never stops.
He never learns
He never admits that post factually incorrect materials.
Hell, he revels in his lies.
He had openly posted that he is justified in presenting materials that knows are wrong because the "warmists" do the same thing.
And if you didn't have you head shoved so far up your on ass, you'd understand that there is a difference between a discussion / debate and trolling.
Nigel, I understand that you don't like me
You had a stupid little man crush on me and I treat you like an idiot.
So be it. But you're only making yourself look even more stupid.

AFAIK, I haven't met Hrothgar. BBO and Bridge_Winners are our only points of contact. I'm happy to agree that he has helped me to understand the nature of trolling.

Cyberyeti, on 2017-August-27, 10:50, said:

Exactly, this occurs in many places particularly around religion, views do not automatically command respect, particularly when they fly in the face of all the scientific evidence or generally accepted standards of decency.
No the earth is not flat, and just because the church of Lucifer the paedophile dictates you should only marry girls under the age of 11 does not mean I have to respect your religion.

You don't have to respect an adverse view. In the context of a debate, however, If you can't rationally refute it, then you have a problem.
FWIW, I agree with Karl Popper that Science isn't a matter of belief.
Also, it's obvious (e.g from views about ad hominem attacks) that ideas of decency differ.

diana_eva, on 2017-August-27, 11:07, said:

Yes. Main point here being what's controversial and what not. Global warming is not a controversial issue, for example, despite your continuous arguing that yes it is and we should give Al the credit for defending the other side of the argument.

I question Diana_Eva's premise that the global warming issue is non-controversial.
Hrothgar and Diana_Eva seem to agree on that issue too.
Even when most share the same belief, I still think it's worth critical examination.
Anyway, it has its own thread
No need for more hijacks of this one.

[diana_eva]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 12:22, said:

I question Diana_Eva's premise that the global warming issue is non-controversial.

Good, question it. Then, go research it. And then, come back and post some more on it.

[jjbrr]

i suspect we'd all prefer if he didn't come back to be perfectly honest.

[nige1]

jjbrr, on 2017-August-27, 13:41, said:

i suspect we'd all prefer if he didn't come back to be perfectly honest.

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 12:22, said:

You don't have to respect an adverse view. In the context of a debate, however, If you can't rationally refute it, then you have a problem.

When you feel it's been rationally refuted many times, and the person still doesn't get it and keeps posting laughable "£$% then civility tends to disappear.

Quote

I question Diana_Eva's premise that the global warming issue is non-controversial.

FWIW I think that GW is happening is non-controversial, that it's man made is getting there but not 100% sure it's there yet.

[Al_U_Card]

diana_eva, on 2017-August-27, 11:07, said:

Yes. Main point here being what's controversial and what not. Global warming is not a controversial issue, for example, despite your continuous arguing that yes it is and we should give Al the credit for defending the other side of the argument.

Once you have read AR5, WGIII, you would be less categorical. If you do not limit yourself to the SPM and the media spin, you would be, at least, skeptical of the claims proposed to justify action and expenditure.

[jjbrr]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 14:20, said:

right? your schtick is really that obnoxious. i hope you understand that.

[Zelandakh]

jjbrr, on 2017-August-27, 13:41, said:

i suspect we'd all prefer if he didn't come back to be perfectly honest.

I understand writing this about the various trolls that come here but Nigel? Come on man - don't be an idiot!

[jjbrr]

Zelandakh, on 2017-August-27, 23:50, said:

I understand writing this about the various trolls that come here but Nigel? Come on man - don't be an idiot!

ad hominem! personal attack! vitriol! REEEEEEEE

[RedSpawn]

nige1, on 2017-August-27, 12:22, said:

AFAIK, I haven't met Hrothgar. BBO and Bridge_Winners are our only points of contact. I'm happy to agree that he has helped me to understand the nature of trolling.

You don't have to respect an adverse view. In the context of a debate, however, If you can't rationally refute it, then you have a problem.
FWIW, I agree with Karl Popper that Science isn't a matter of belief.
Also, it's obvious (e.g from views about ad hominem attacks) that ideas of decency differ.

I question Diana_Eva's premise that the global warming issue is non-controversial.
Hrothgar and Diana_Eva seem to agree on that issue too.
Even when most share the same belief, I still think it's worth critical examination.
Anyway, it has its own thread
No need for more hijacks of this one.

I am not taking sides on the global warming issue but I was looking for something else and saw this and thought of these exchanges.