NationStates Jolt Archive

NSG being composed of a lot of very proud people who discuss a variety of rather contentious and passion-filled matters, naturally enough our arguments have a tendency to get aggressive at the very least, and sometimes outright cruel.

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?

Speaking broadly now, not just about NSG, when is being mean in a debate acceptable?

When you disagree with someone?

When you disagree with someone and you know you're right?

When you disagree with someone and they don't see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point for disgusting reasons (say, bigotry)?

When you disagree with someone you don't like? (When you agree with someone you don't like?)

When you're winning? When you're losing?

When they are mean to you first?

Some combination of the above? Something else?

Never?

Has there been a huge epidemic of unpleasantness recently? I don't visit these boards as often as I used to, but it seems there are a lot of threads about bullying and such lately.

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?
Never.

(assuming poll is coming...)

I can't take people seriously when they come across as sounding hostile.

So...meanness holds no place in debates with me.

Plus, the purpose of debating isn't necessarily to win, but to resolve.

Never.

Always.

And I hate you all.

Oh no wait. It's exams I hate.

Disregard.

Has there been a huge epidemic of unpleasantness recently?

No. Not to my knowledge, anyway.

I'm just curious.

Never.

"I think all Jews, Muslims, and gays should be sent to concentration camps."

Then the person proceeds to completely distort every rational reply, obviously unwilling to acknowledge anyone else's argument, and arrogantly insults them all.

Not even then? Never is an easy answer to give (though much harder to follow), but I don't know how good of one it is.

(assuming poll is coming...)

No poll.

Plus, the purpose of debating isn't necessarily to win, but to resolve.

That's right. What if the person with whom you're debating clearly isn't willing to seek a resolution, but rather is solely out to win, and will refuse to see any argument exposing a weakness in his or her point?

I try not to be mean. Insulting someone is a sign of a weak argument. The worst I've ever done is stating "You are an anti-Semite in my book." This comes after they have shown that they are an anti-Semite. I'd say that when someone is being a bigot, the gloves can come off.

Insulting someone is a sign of a weak argument.

Not always. Sometimes it's a sign of frustration, or disgust.

what is the meaning of this?
how dare you challenge my power to strike fear? [evil smiley eating salami]
what is the meaning of "mean"? , by who's definition?

I try not to be mean. Insulting someone is a sign of a weak argument. The worst I've ever done is stating "You are an anti-Semite in my book." This comes after they have shown that they are an anti-Semite. I'd say that when someone is being a bigot, the gloves can come off.

Well, thats not debating anymore is it? I would say that meanness would not be a part of debate, once it has reached that point the whole thing has gone from debate (if it was ever there) over to an argument. At what point does one stop debating? When you realize you cannot convince the other person or you're simply tired of responding to that one thing they just refuse to acknowledge.

Insulting someone is a sign of a weak argument. The worst I've ever done is stating "You are an anti-Semite in my book." This comes after they have shown that they are an anti-Semite. I'd say that when someone is being a bigot, the gloves can come off.That is the way I am. Sans gloves.. I was born without the gloves ;-)

"I think all Jews, Muslims, and gays should be sent to concentration camps."

Then the person proceeds to completely distort every rational reply, obviously unwilling to acknowledge anyone else's argument, and arrogantly insults them all.

Not even then? Never is an easy answer to give (though much harder to follow), but I don't know how good of one it is.

Nope, not even then. when one gets mean, it distracts the listeners on what the person is saying and they focus on how one person is saying it. Your message is then lost and you gain no points with your listeners.

meanwhile if you keep your cool and composure while the other person is flying off the handle, being arrogantly insulting and what not, then what would people remember from each person. your arguments or his insults?

what is the meaning of "mean"?

I decided to leave that open. There's room for careful distinctions there too. (For instance, is there a notable difference between simply having an aggressive tone and actually explicitly insulting one's opponent?)

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?
With sufficient rhetorical effort, everything is justifiable.

Not always. Sometimes it's a sign of frustration, or disgust.

Yeah. I flamed a poster once, long ago. It had nothing to do with any argument, as I wasn't even debating him at the time. He was just being an asshole, and out of my disgust for his behavior, I informed him of that.

That's right. What if the person with whom you're debating clearly isn't willing to seek a resolution, but rather is solely out to win, and will refuse to see any argument exposing a weakness in his or her point?

Then you should probably move on to more open-minded pastures. However, being mean won't help if reasoning fails.

Personal attacks are what I find shouldn't be in debates. Meanness or bullying aren't much of an issue for me (so long as they don't fall in to the catagory of personal attacks..).

With sufficient rhetorical effort, everything is justifiable.

Exactly.

With sufficient rhetorical effort, everything is justifiable.

That is another argument.

meanwhile if you keep your cool and composure while the other person is flying off the handle, being arrogantly insulting and what not, then what would people remember from each person. your arguments or his insults?

What will your opponent remember... your opponent who clearly isn't interested in rational discussion?

Calm, rational rebuttals that, after some thought (in which he won't engage), might show him to be egregiously wrong? Or aggressive replies that directly prove the point... in a way rude and humiliating enough that it might actually get through?

If the person is out solely to win, losing horrifically (in a way that he must recognize as losing) might teach him something.

NSG being composed of a lot of very proud people who discuss a variety of rather contentious and passion-filled matters, naturally enough our arguments have a tendency to get aggressive at the very least, and sometimes outright cruel.

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?

Speaking broadly now, not just about NSG, when is being mean in a debate acceptable?

When you disagree with someone?

When you disagree with someone and you know you're right?

When you disagree with someone and they don't see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point for disgusting reasons (say, bigotry)?

When you disagree with someone you don't like? (When you agree with someone you don't like?)

When you're winning? When you're losing?

When they are mean to you first?

Some combination of the above? Something else?

Never?

All of the above. Depends who it is, the situation, what the subject is, etc.

For instance, I get very aggressive in conversations where people start defending communism, because I hate communism with a burning passion. Therefore, it makes it impossible for me to really debate with people about the object of my loathing and keep a clear head. Or on any moral issue, like abortion.

Or when someone's own reasons are grossly opinionated(i.e. "Karl Marx was the most brilliant man to ever live"), stupid (example: "I just don't like it" or the previous example), or actually is total bullshit (Holocaust denyers, anyone?), and if they just won't admit it, no matter how many people agree with you.

When people dileberately ignore your point and simply discount it with "oh, it dosn't matter." Though that's not to say I haven't resorted to that before. I'm notorius for simply replying to people's points in debates where I'm losing with "Bullshit" or some variation. And I admit that I fully deserved all the rudeness I got in return, lest someone call me a hypocrite.

I'm having trouble understanding this thread. Doesn't being nice on the Internet defeat the whole purpose??

I'm having trouble understanding this thread. Doesn't being nice on the Internet defeat the whole purpose??

Good point...
you motherfucking bitch!!:upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:

Just in case you didn't realize (guarding against the risk here, no offense), I'm just kidding.

Yeah. I flamed a poster once, long ago. It had nothing to do with any argument, as I wasn't even debating him at the time. He was just being an asshole, and out of my disgust for his behavior, I informed him of that.

I don't think I've ever been warned officially for a flame (though one of my posts was quoted just recently as what not to do), but I tend to get aggressive when frustrated and even more so when disgusted--chiefly because in that case even my moral restraints won't stop me.

Then you should probably move on to more open-minded pastures.

Why?

Obviously you don't continue with the intention of reaching truth, because you won't with such a person. But you might still continue with the intention of proving your opponent wrong in a way clear enough to influence both him and anyone paying attention.

Personal attacks are what I find shouldn't be in debates. Meanness or bullying aren't much of an issue for me (so long as they don't fall in to the catagory of personal attacks..).

What's the difference?

What will your opponent remember... your opponent who clearly isn't interested in rational discussion?if your opponent isn't interested in Rational discussion, then why continue a rational discussion with him/her?

Calm, rational rebuttals that, after some thought (in which he won't engage), might show him to be egregiously wrong? Or aggressive replies that directly prove the point... in a way rude and humiliating enough that it might actually get through? aggressive replies does not = mean. one can be aggressive as long as one keeps it controlled. Being 'mean' is not the same as being aggressive. 'Mean' tends to be more uncontrolled aggression for the sake of aggression.

If the person is out solely to win, losing horrifically (in a way that he must recognize as losing) might teach him something.and the best way to make him/her loose is to leave them writhing in their own foam as you stand by watching dispassionately.

That's right. What if the person with whom you're debating clearly isn't willing to seek a resolution, but rather is solely out to win, and will refuse to see any argument exposing a weakness in his or her point?

That's when you throw dignity, politeness, and etiquette to the wind, and punch the obnoxous bastard in the face. You might get in trouble and they'll hate you for ever, but you'll feel loads better right then. :D

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?


Love the ideologue, hate the ideology. Or someth'n like that.

There are sometimes when it's justifiable and sometimes when its not. It really depends on the situation.

Obviously you don't continue with the intention of reaching truth, because you won't with such a person. But you might still continue with the intention of proving your opponent wrong in a way clear enough to influence both him and anyone paying attention.

I agree that it might influence other people exposed to the debate, but the convincing of the see-no-logic/fear-no-reason individual seems out of the question.

I agree that it might influence other people exposed to the debate, but the convincing of the see-no-logic/fear-no-reason individual seems out of the question.

Exactly. That's when you use my solution, outlined above.
Handling problems diplomatically is for the weak.
Or, if punching him isn't enough to settle the issue, this should do:
:upyours:(him)+:sniper:(you)=:D(you) and XP (him)

For instance, I get very aggressive in conversations where people start defending communism, because I hate communism with a burning passion. Therefore, it makes it impossible for me to really debate with people about the object of my loathing and keep a clear head. Or on any moral issue, like abortion.

Do you think this is right, or just what you do?

I get aggressive in a mean way all the time, but usually I'm in the wrong when I do so.

Or when someone's own reasons are grossly opinionated(i.e. "Karl Marx was the most brilliant man to ever live"), stupid (example: "I just don't like it" or the previous example), or actually is total bullshit (Holocaust denyers, anyone?), and if they just won't admit it, no matter how many people agree with you.

*resists (sort of) the urge to note the brilliance of Karl Marx*

While I don't think "how many people agree with you" has anything to do with it, I can agree that a stubbornly-held stupid opinion that won't be surrendered (or credibly defended) however many good, rational arguments are mounted against it might be worth being aggressive against.

aggressive replies does not = mean. one can be aggressive as long as one keeps it controlled. Being 'mean' is not the same as being aggressive. 'Mean' tends to be more uncontrolled aggression for the sake of aggression.

I agree that one can be "aggressive" in a sense without being mean, but I don't think "control" has anything to do with it. Meanness can be perfectly controlled.

and the best way to make him/her loose is to leave them writhing in their own foam as you stand by watching dispassionately.

Yes, of course they lose from your perspective, but they already have.

Ignoring them is unlikely to change their minds.

I agree that it might influence other people exposed to the debate, but the convincing of the see-no-logic/fear-no-reason individual seems out of the question.

I'm not sure of that at all.

All it means is that you can't convince them with logic and reason alone.

Do you think this is right, or just what you do?

I get aggressive in a mean way all the time, but usually I'm in the wrong when I do so.

Which part?
The side I'm arguing for, or just arguing?
The answer to the first one is yes, and the second one, sort of, because I honestly think arguing is fun.



*resists (sort of) the urge to note the brilliance of Karl Marx*

Must...resist...urge...to...pull...trigger...!

While I don't think "how many people agree with you" has anything to do with it, I can agree that a stubbornly-held stupid opinion that won't be surrendered (or credibly defended) however many good, rational arguments are mounted against it might be worth being aggressive against.

True. I meant the agreement thing as in, if you were to walk up to just about anyone in the state, they would agree with you.

I would say barely. For the most part, if you make a point and someone refuses to acknowledge it, and you persistently press the point and they are persistently arrogant, they're not even worth talking to. Some people don't understand the concept of logical debate. Besides, the "passion" these people hold comes off as ignorant (ie being the only one in the room for prohibition and being yelled out of the argument) and *shudders* partisan.

Which part?
The side I'm arguing for, or just arguing?

Neither. Aggression when it comes to a topic you have strong feelings about.

Edit: And to clarify, when I said I was in the wrong while being meanly aggressive, I meant that my aggressive meanness was wrong, not my argument.

True. I meant the agreement thing as in, if you were to walk up to just about anyone in the state, they would agree with you.

Can you give me an example of such a contention?

NSG being composed of a lot of very proud people who discuss a variety of rather contentious and passion-filled matters, naturally enough our arguments have a tendency to get aggressive at the very least, and sometimes outright cruel.

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?

Speaking broadly now, not just about NSG, when is being mean in a debate acceptable?

When you disagree with someone?

When you disagree with someone and you know you're right?

When you disagree with someone and they don't see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point for disgusting reasons (say, bigotry)?

When you disagree with someone you don't like? (When you agree with someone you don't like?)

When you're winning? When you're losing?

When they are mean to you first?

Some combination of the above? Something else?

Never?

Actually, now that I've thought about it, what happened to Capitalsim? Haven't seen him in a while...

I don't think I've ever been warned officially for a flame (though one of my posts was quoted just recently as what not to do), but I tend to get aggressive when frustrated and even more so when disgusted--chiefly because in that case even my moral restraints won't stop me.

Interesting. My moral restraints suffer more under frustration than disgust. And even then, it's incredibly rare for me to slip and attack someone's character. Usually I'll just denigrate their position by using dripping sarcasm.

NSG being composed of a lot of very proud people who discuss a variety of rather contentious and passion-filled matters, naturally enough our arguments have a tendency to get aggressive at the very least, and sometimes outright cruel.

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?

Speaking broadly now, not just about NSG, when is being mean in a debate acceptable?

When you disagree with someone?

When you disagree with someone and you know you're right?

When you disagree with someone and they don't see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point for disgusting reasons (say, bigotry)?

When you disagree with someone you don't like? (When you agree with someone you don't like?)

When you're winning? When you're losing?

When they are mean to you first?

Some combination of the above? Something else?

Never?

In the above quote, I have boldened the reasons I find acceptable.

Interesting. My moral restraints suffer more under frustration than disgust.

People who disgust me tend to be morally offensive to me in some way, usually because of bigotry... and my moral restraints become much less inclined to leap to their defense.

Usually I'll just denigrate their position by using dripping sarcasm.

That counts.

Neither. Aggression when it comes to a topic you have strong feelings about.

Edit: And to clarify, when I said I was in the wrong while being meanly aggressive, I meant that my aggressive meanness was wrong, not my argument.

I think aggression when it comes to a topic you have strong feelings about is perfectly justified, so long as you don't hurt anyone physically.

Can you give me an example of such a contention?

Kicking puppies/kittens is wrong/evil/cruel/insert-whichever-adjective-of-similar-effect-you-choose-here.

NSG being composed of a lot of very proud people who discuss a variety of rather contentious and passion-filled matters, naturally enough our arguments have a tendency to get aggressive at the very least, and sometimes outright cruel.

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?

Speaking broadly now, not just about NSG, when is being mean in a debate acceptable?

When you disagree with someone?

When you disagree with someone and you know you're right?

When you disagree with someone and they don't see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point for disgusting reasons (say, bigotry)?

When you disagree with someone you don't like? (When you agree with someone you don't like?)

When you're winning? When you're losing?

When they are mean to you first?

Some combination of the above? Something else?

Never?

For me, it is ALWAYS justified, under ANY circumstances, and for ANY reason, to be "mean" in these "debates" you speak of, because I am your rightful sovereign ruler, General Zod!

For YOU, however, it is NEVER acceptable under any circumstances or for any reason if you are addressing ME, your supreme leader! Because if you try to be "mean" to me, I will return it to you a millionfold with my eye lasers!

And, Soheran, this planet is called "Houston", not "Earth". You should know that, having been on this planet since before I came here.

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

People who disgust me tend to be morally offensive to me in some way, usually because of bigotry... and my moral restraints become much less inclined to leap to their defense.

Perfectly understandable.

That counts.

As mean?

I've found that you convince no one with insults or hyperbola. I try to be as respectful as I can possibly be. My arguments tend to be straightforward, so there is little room to flame me and the debate can remain civilized, and maybe something productive will come of it.

I think aggression when it comes to a topic you have strong feelings about is perfectly justified, so long as you don't hurt anyone physically.

Just because I have strong feelings about it? Even if my opponent is advancing a perfectly reasonable argument, and is giving my own arguments consideration?

Kicking puppies/kittens is wrong/evil/cruel/insert-whichever-adjective-of-similar-effect-you-choose-here.

Actually, I think if more people respected rational consistency, they would either reject this principle or demand radical adjustments in our lifestyles.

But that is another discussion.

For me, it is ALWAYS justified, under ANY circumstances, and for ANY reason, to be "mean" in these "debates" you speak of, because I am your rightful sovereign ruler, General Zod!

For YOU, however, it is NEVER acceptable under any circumstances or for any reason if you are addressing ME, your supreme leader! Because if you try to be "mean" to me, I will return it to you a millionfold with my eye lasers!

Now KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!

Bite me.

As mean?

Yes. Doesn't it?

I mean, I'll admit I haven't put too much thought into a good definition of "meanness" here... but it seems to me that "denigrating" sarcasm counts as an implicit attack.

Certainly it moves beyond merely challenging another person's arguments.

Just because I have strong feelings about it? Even if my opponent is advancing a perfectly reasonable argument, and is giving my own arguments consideration?

Not if they're being polite about it. And it entirely depends on how you'd be "mean." Attacks on their character are cheap, groin shots that are underhanded, get you no respect from anyone, and weaken your own point.

Trashing their platform, on the otherhand...

Actually, I think if more people respected rational consistency, they would either reject this principle or demand radical adjustments in our lifestyles.

But that is another discussion.

I'll pretend I understood that. But seriously, if you think kicking puppies/kittens is okay, then your brain needs fixing with an AA gun.

Only when someone is already being mean to you is it acceptable.

People are dicks a lot of the time here, for no reason.

One example: Use of the term USian. People who use it know it pisses people off, in fact, as far as I can surmise, insulting people the United States of America is the only purpose in using it. Unfortunately, the ones who use it most are those that on most things I tend to agree with. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to use the term except to insult people.

That's just one example of the kind of dickishness I see a lot on the forum. That's the main kind of thing that bugs me. The little things people do for no other reason than to piss off others, things that are totally unnecessary that by their inclusion in an unrelated thread inject a level of hostility into the discussion.

i am mean to people when they are being very stupid and my mean response amuses me.

its small of me but i do enjoy it.

Trashing their platform, on the otherhand...

I think this distinction is overemphasized.

Someone's "platform" is what they believe; it's something they accept, for whatever reason. To "trash" it is by extension a challenge not only to their argument, but to their character.

If a person is reasonably defending even an awful platform, I don't think it's appropriate to trash it... because that person is herself proving that it can be reasonably defended.

if you think kicking puppies/kittens is okay

I do not. I go with the second option.

Edit: To bring us back to the point, if you accept this contention because "everyone else does", you will never look for a rational basis for it, and you will never be able to see possible implications of it.

Yes. Doesn't it?

I mean, I'll admit I haven't put too much thought into a good definition of "meanness" here... but it seems to me that "denigrating" sarcasm counts as an implicit attack.

Certainly it moves beyond merely challenging another person's arguments.

Sure. At least in my case, if I'm being sarcastic in a debate, it generally means I think your position isn't just wrong, or problematic. I think it's plain ridiculous and/or shoddy.

Though sometimes it's just humor. I do like to satirize my opponent's position sometimes to make a point.

I think this distinction is overemphasized.

Someone's "platform" is what they believe; it's something they accept, for whatever reason. To "trash" it is by extension a challenge not only to their argument, but to their character.

If a person is reasonably defending even an awful platform, I don't think it's appropriate to trash it... because that person is herself proving that it can be reasonably defended.



I do not. I go with the second option.

Reciprocity. If someone is arguing their position in a reasonable, polite manner, one should be reasonable and polite in one's response.

I fully admit that I sometimes (maybe even often) am neither reasonable nor polite in my posts. Nobody's perfect.

I think this distinction is overemphasized.

Someone's "platform" is what they believe; it's something they accept, for whatever reason. To "trash" it is by extension a challenge not only to their argument, but to their character.

If a person is reasonably defending even an awful platform, I don't think it's appropriate to trash it... because that person is herself proving that it can be reasonably defended.

True. I meant, for instance with the Communism thing as an example, I trash communism quite a bit. Mostly on reasons that I believe are true(IE, it dosn't work).

I do not. I go with the second option.

Good (Man/Woman, delete whichever is not applicable)

True. I meant, for instance with the Communism thing as an example, I trash communism quite a bit. Mostly on reasons that I believe are true(IE, it dosn't work).

Well, us communists are used to that, but it still isn't very nice.

Good (Man/Woman, delete whichever is not applicable)

Can't I just be a good person? :)

Outright malice is only called for when willful ignorance is displayed.
You cant hate anyone for just being dumb.
Its not thier fault, theyre stupid.

But when a person is being ignorant, and choosing to remain ignorant, it means they are clearly a douchebag, and must be denounced as such.

Well, us communists are used to that, but it still isn't very nice.



Can't I just be a good person? :)

Sorry bout the communism thing. I have a personal thing against the ideology. it's nothing personal against the individuals.

And as for the second bit...facepalm!/*slaps forehead* Fine. Whatever. It dosn't really matter that much. You know what I meant.

Sorry bout the communism thing.

It's alright, I'm not offended.

And as for the second bit...facepalm!/*slaps forehead* Fine. Whatever. It dosn't really matter that much. You know what I meant.

I'm a man. But also obnoxious, and not fond of gender roles.

It's alright, I'm not offended.



I'm a man. But also obnoxious, and not fond of gender roles.

I usually just say good man. Dosn't really have anything to do with gender roles, at least not the way I think about it. I just used the (man/woman) thing in case I said "good man" and then it turned out that you were a girl or something. Most of the people at school I hang out with are guys, so it dosn't really come up that often.\

NO GAY JOKES!!! I have girl troubles, I think that's proof enough that I'm straight!

Dosn't really have anything to do with gender roles, at least not the way I think about it.

You're taking this too seriously. It was a light-hearted remark, hence "obnoxious" and the emoticon.

You're taking this too seriously. It was a light-hearted remark, hence "obnoxious" and the emoticon.

Bah. Too Seriously is my middle--wait, my first AND middle name!

What do you say to that? *grins maniacally*

NO GAY JOKES!!! I have girl troubles, I think that's proof enough that I'm straight!

"Girl troubles"?

Seems to me like you are a bit transgendered lad/lass.

"Girl troubles"?

Seems to me like you are a bit transgendered lad/lass.

:rolleyes: That's exactly the kind of joke I was trying to prevent...
Besides, Bann-ed, you've seen the thread!

What do you say to that? *grins maniacally*

That we're similar in that respect.

:rolleyes: That's exactly the kind of joke I was trying to prevent...
Besides, Bann-ed, you've seen the thread!

The key word is 'joke', derived from 'joking', the latin form of which is 'jovialus', meaning to 'feast merrily' or sing 'christmas carols'.

"The Threads of Fate do not the Tapestry of Truth Sew"

That we're similar in that respect.

Hooray! *throws parade in Times Square, until he realizes that he can't, on account of not being anywhere near NYC*

Funny....many posters have left NSG because of the mean-spiritedness of the place. And they were told it was just in their heads. Either that or that they should just suck it up.

The key word is 'joke', derived from 'joking', the latin form of which is 'jovialus', meaning to 'feast merrily' or sing 'christmas carols'.

"The Threads of Fate do not the Tapestry of Truth Sew"

I'll take your word for it.

And now for something completely different. (See! See! I quoted Monty Python!)

And now for something completely different. (See! See! I quoted Monty Python!)

This man is a lumberjack!
Get him a ho!

and an axe.

And they were told it was just in their heads.

It's definitely not... we generally aren't very nice to one another.

At least not in the debate threads.

Funny....many posters have left NSG because of the mean-spiritedness of the place. And they were told it was just in their heads. Either that or that they should just suck it up.

A fair number have also left because they weren't allowed to be as mean-spirited as they wanted to be. Lots of funny things happening 'round these parts, apparently.

A fair number have also left because they weren't allowed to be as mean-spirited as they wanted to be. Lots of funny things happening 'round these parts, apparently.

Stop it Modictator.

Dunno why yer not discounting this thread as a conspiracy theory. Is it because it doesn't implicate YOU!?

>.>
<.<

Thought so.

Stop it Modictator.

Modictator? I may just use that delicious term later for my nefarious oppressive purposes.

Dunno why yer not discounting this thread as a conspiracy theory. Is it because it doesn't implicate YOU!?

>.>
<.<

Thought so.

Me or anyone I like, obviously. Ain't that how everybody decides it's a conspiracy theory?

I generally try to resist the urge to start getting nasty with other people, because it really doesn't do anything but just result in escalation of anger. Even if they start acting obnoxious, I'll only start getting nasty with them when they keep it up for a while.

Theoretically, if there was a person who said "I love Adolf Hitler" or something awful like that, but was respectful towards me and seemed genuinely interested in discussing an issue, I could probably get along with them and wouldn't resort to being nasty towards them. Unfortunately, love of Hitler and respect towards the other members of a discussion tend to be more-or-less mutually exclusive for obvious reasons.

Always.

And I hate you all.

Oh no wait. It's exams I hate.

Disregard.
Disregarded. :D

Modictator? I may just use that delicious term later for my nefarious oppressive purposes. As long as you mention that I hold the copyright. MUAHHAHAHAHAHHA!



Me or anyone I like, obviously. Ain't that how everybody decides it's a conspiracy theory? 'Spirator.

A fair number have also left because they weren't allowed to be as mean-spirited as they wanted to be.
I have to agree with you there. I tend to find that there is less angry and hateful posts here lately, but then again, I don't post as often as I used to since my wife moved here in March.

Disregarded. :D

Not you. Take it to heart.


Ssssssss (http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/images/fire_meaney.gif)

I have to agree with you there. I tend to find that there is less angry and hateful posts here lately, but then again, I don't post as often as I used to since my wife moved here in March.

Oh, she finally arrived from that agency in the Phillipines?

Oh, she finally arrived from that agency in the Phillipines?
We met through an online dating ad in 2001. I guess you could call it an agency.

You take away the joy of being mean.

And ruined the mail-order bride insinuation.

*mumblesjerkmumbles*

You take away the joy of being mean.
There is no joy in being mean.

And ruined the mail-order bride insinuation.
I thought that was what you were trying to imply. Sorry.

Our first date was in Singapore in 2002.....it was tres awesome!!

Then in Oct. 2002, it was Connecticut, upstate NY, and Niagara Falls with a ride on the Maid of the Mist.

*mumblesjerkmumbles*
Mumbles: Uh, wait. W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-Wait.
[Dick Tracy turns toward Mumbles who speaks clearly]
Mumbles: 88 Keys, the piano man set you up. Big Boy paid him to keep you out of the way. :D

We met through an online dating ad in 2001. I guess you could call it an agency.

My beloved is from the Philippines (with any luck, I'll get to go see her next year).

What part is your wife from?

Acceptable? I'm not sure it's acceptable. Sometimes it's unavoidable. Frequenlty the temptation is irresistable. I'm hard put not to be mean when confronted with someone whose chief mode of argument is to say, in essence, "you're wrong and I'm right" without ever presenting a fact or any form of logic.

NSG being composed of a lot of very proud people who discuss a variety of rather contentious and passion-filled matters, naturally enough our arguments have a tendency to get aggressive at the very least, and sometimes outright cruel.

Thus I decided to ask a potentially contentious and passion-filled question: is this justifiable?

Speaking broadly now, not just about NSG, when is being mean in a debate acceptable?

When you disagree with someone?

When you disagree with someone and you know you're right?

When you disagree with someone and they don't see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point?

When you disagree with someone and they actively refuse to see your point for disgusting reasons (say, bigotry)?

When you disagree with someone you don't like? (When you agree with someone you don't like?)

When you're winning? When you're losing?

When they are mean to you first?

Some combination of the above? Something else?

Never?

When you disagree with someone and you know you're wrong.

I'm annoyed not so much by meanness (which does exist, but in small amounts, and I usually try to avoid threads that I think will contain it) as I am by arrogance. Like Bann-ed said at the beginning of this thread, the object of a discussion is to resolve, not defeat. There has not been a single discussion here that has radically changed my opinion about anything. But there have been several where I learned more about other's views, found more evidence to support my own view, or just got a link to a cool website. If that continues, I can live with the spotty meanness.

My beloved is from the Philippines (with any luck, I'll get to go see her next year).

What part is your wife from?
The province of Negros Occidental.

Good luck to you!! :)

I'm not certain that it is ever justified, but I do admit I sometimes get a vicarious thrill when someone is mean to someone advancing a position I find repugnant.