also what i find amusing is the reasoning behind some who resort to personal attacks: when given, the logic will be that they simply expressing their opinion of someone (or in rare cases that their opinion is straight up fact) but then will turn around and cry "foul" when the same tactic is turned on them.
Originally posted by The Omega
Well... All debates would be better off, if the participants abstained from personal attacks. That way it would be way way easier to sometimes reach a consensus.
This is a hard standard to meet when you're arguing with someone back and forth who plays with semantics, or even starts to work in circles- bringing up previously defeated points and rewording them, etc.
Really, I don't think personal attacks are proper when you barely know someone in a debate here, but if they're someone who's just being plain idiotic and it's not a one time thing, feuer frei.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I agree, PVS. Totally.Another good one is people who are so blatantly bitter and obsessed that they start to believe their own putrid bs posts. That's my personal fav.
-AC
so true, so true. ranks right up their with the people who fail to recognise the double edge of the sword they swing
Originally posted by Janus Marius
This is a hard standard to meet when you're arguing with someone back and forth who plays with semantics, or even starts to work in circles- bringing up previously defeated points and rewording them, etc.Really, I don't think personal attacks are proper when you barely know someone in a debate here, but if they're someone who's just being plain idiotic and it's not a one time thing, feuer frei.
I assume you are referring to me and this thread.
Well, I agree with you, but I think one should still try not to be insulting, or argue ad hominem.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I assume you are referring to me and this thread.Well, I agree with you, but I think one should still try not to be insulting, or argue ad hominem.
Damn, that's a guilty conscience right there. I was refering to quite a few people, most of which don't even visit this subforum. But I could easily lump you in there and Atlantis on occasion. If that's insulting - pointing out that the two of you fall into semantic circles every five seconds (So that we can never resolve a debate because you'll never admit that you're mistaken), then it's also insulting when CNN calls Jeffrey Dahmer a murderer.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Damn, that's a guilty conscience right there. I was refering to quite a few people, most of which don't even visit this subforum. But I could easily lump you in there and Atlantis on occasion. If that's insulting - pointing out that the two of you fall into semantic circles every five seconds (So that we can never resolve a debate because you'll never admit that you're mistaken), then it's also insulting when CNN calls Jeffrey Dahmer a murderer.
Oh I jsut wanted to post the link so people can judge for themself who actually does what you were referring to....
Also, for some reason you seem to think that mentioning that a debate became "semantic" at some point makes it wrong. We are actually talking about semantics in that thread...jsut in case you didn't know.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I seriously don't think it has everything to do with age.-AC
Well, it does effect some part of it. Younger kids haven't fully developed mentally to use logic to its fullest extent. This doesn't mean that younger people can't argue properly sometimes (Or even quite often)- it simply means that the deck is stacked against them until their brain develops.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh I jsut wanted to post the link so people can judge for themself who actually does what you were referring to....Also, for some reason you seem to think that mentioning that a debate became "semantic" at some point makes it wrong. We are actually talking about semantics in that thread...jsut in case you didn't know.
Don't be ridiculous, Bardock. You are trying to tell me the correct definition of "true democracy" when I live in the damn country, studied the damn political system, and all the evidence that's deeper than Dictionary.com points in my favor. Don't let this spill over here. You are wrong, and you're being too damn stubborn to realize it.
Originally posted by Syren
He said 'kept in mind'... so it has something to do with age, if not everything.
Go back to where I said that I don't think it has everything to do with age. If it did, older would definitely mean smarter and younger definitely means less smart.
I just said I didn't think it always came down to age.
-AC
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Don't be ridiculous, Bardock. You are trying to tell me the correct definition of "true democracy" when I live in the damn country, studied the damn political system, and all the evidence that's deeper than Dictionary.com points in my favor. Don't let this spill over here. You are wrong, and you're being too damn stubborn to realize it.
No, not really, I'd actually say you are wrong. It's besides the point if "true democracy" is actually a defined term or not. Since that is in no way what this debate was about. I was just explaining to you that the US is a democracy. You living in the US does in no way support your case, if at all it speaks against it (maybe that's just European arrogance though).
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, not really, I'd actually say you are wrong. It's besides the point if "true democracy" is actually a defined term or not. Since that is in no way what this debate was about. I was just explaining to you that the US is a democracy. You living in the US does in no way support your case, if at all it speaks against it (maybe that's just European arrogance though).
Or just your own personal brand of ignorance.
You basically came out of nowhere and tried to tell two Americans that their system of government was a democracy. We pointed out it's a federal republic with democratic ideas, not a true democracy. You then licked the ass-end of a frug and descended into Wonderland, and now we're here arguing this semantic nonsense because you can't come to terms with the fact that republic does NOT equal true democracy.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Or just your own personal brand of ignorance.You basically came out of nowhere and tried to tell two Americans that their system of government was a democracy. We pointed out it's a federal republic with democratic ideas, not a true democracy. You then licked the ass-end of a frug and descended into Wonderland, and now we're here arguing this semantic nonsense because you can't come to terms with the fact that republic does NOT equal true democracy.
Yes, I see you are trying. But I didn't say it is a direct democracy (which you call "true Democracy"😉, I said it is a representative Democracy, which it is. So it is a Federal Republic, and a representative Democracy. That's all.