I would warrant that argument, per se, is bad.
Argument is what used to go on in the IP thread (maybe still does, I don’t go there, but I do know that many of the bald-headed peg-legged pig fuckers who used to hang out there don’t anymore).
Imagine a neighborhood park where, every single morning, the same 5 or 6 old men show up and spend all day simply yelling their opinions at each other. At the end of the day, they pack it in. The next morning they’re back, doing the exact same thing. Nothing is accomplished, nobody’s ideas or experiences are expanded, there’s nothing constructive going on.
Informed discourse, OTOH, now that’s a viable activity. The equal exchange of ideas, fully supported by reputable sources, AND in which there is a continuous global respect for each participant’s right to an opinion (and in which, conversely, participants EARN that consideration by exercising requisite manners and civilized behavior/civilised behaviour among each other).
I don’t really disagree with you, and rarely bother with the IP threads coz they are too American-centric, but if 5 or 6 old men are meeting in a park every day to argue with each other - so what?
Besides, do you think it’s realistic that everyone behaves in a manner that fits neatly into your concept of civilised behaviour, whatever that may be?
For example, does calling people “bald-headed peg-legged pig fuckers” conform to your idea of civilised behaviour? (I guess you’re probably being ironic, but …)
As for the semantics, I am referring to ‘argument’ as an art-form, if you like - a battle of ideas - though I realise that there are lesser squabbling-type meanings
Whatevs, but it doesn’t accomplish anything, and it’s not much fun to be around.
Who said anything about “realistic” or otherwise? You asked if “argument” was necessarily “bad”. I hardly think that I’m in the minority in considering it “civilised”, during discourse, to respect the right of others to hold an opinion, even if it’s divergent from one’s own.
First of all, maybe I’m being literal. Second, I din’t refer to any individuals. Anyone who doesn’t consider themselves a “bald-headed peg-legged pig fucker” is free to exclude themself from the appellation, Third, I’m not engaging in discourse with any of them, so whatever I call or don’t call them is irrelevant to my point.
Well, OK, I guess you’re free to call a baseball a “myzplitleene”, but you were submitting a question, so some commonality of terminology is kind of a baseline.
Definitions for “argue” appear to be
To give reasons for or against something : reason argue for a new policy
To contend or disagree in words : dispute They’re always arguing about money.
I think it’s a waste of time arguing with someone who wants to win the argument for the sake of winning the argument. Or going back and forth with a troll whose motivation is to upset people and get a laugh out of it.
A discussion I want to engage in is one during which I can learn something, weigh the options, see the advantages and disadvantages of a matter, find a solution to a problem, etc.
Hate it when it’s all black and white and you have to throw insults at each other, so pointless.
Given that you’re asking posters to “to respect the right of others to hold an opinion, even if it’s divergent from one’s own”, the obvious question is why are you using that kind of unprovoked, aggressive “pig-fucker” language at all?
Has anyone abused you on this thread, or in any way offended you?
What business is it of yours what kind of language I use?? I didn’t direct it at you, or anyone on this thread, or (once again) at any individual at all?
Are you seriously contesting the notion that basic respect for the opinions of others is desirable?
This is getting a bit ridiculous. There is clearly going to be a big gray area between freedom of speech and freedom to take offence. It’s a tough one to call. However, trawling though a poster’s comments and then pulling them up on the language they used in the past is nonsense.
IMO, TaidongCouncil, the onus is on you to clarify what you consider to be trolling exactly and what you consider to be free speech. Then everyone else can pick apart your position to which you can respond.
You posed the open question of whether “arguing” was bad.
In response, I attempted to differentiate between (my interpretation of) “arguing”, in which the participants simply state their positions repeatedly with little or no regard for anyone who disagrees, and “discourse”, or “discussion”, in which the opinions of all participants are equally respected, and which carries at least the possibility that points made will be considered and there is a potential for eventual agreement.
My citation of the IP forum here was germane to my point because, despite many threads being carried on for literally years, often by the same group of participants, not a single opinion ever changes.
Making for a particularly dreary and dispiriting endeavor.
As far as the concept of “freedom of speech/expression” I hope it’s understood that there’s no such thing, here or pretty much anywhere else on the Internet, with the possible exception of some government websites.
Just like the real world, this site, and almost all others, are the online equivalent of Private Property, with the owners fully within their rights to define what forms of expression are and aren’t acceptable.
Why don’t I think quoting a particular part of a post I am responding to is “nonsense”?
Uhmm… because in order to respond, within an argument, to someone’s position, I need to quote that position so that they will know I am responding to it
I just had a “divergent opinion” on whether the “pig fucker” language you used was consistent with that
You’ve responded that you thought it was germane to your point and I accept your explanation while still maintaining concerns that abusive language - be it directed at a particular poster or a group of people - has the potential to escalate arguments into yelling matches - which I think we would all prefer to avoid