Are insults OK here? They seem to be, as long as they don't trigger moderator action. Ridicule? Sarcasm? Seems to be fairly common here. — Bitter Crank
You have been presenting an immensely consistent anti-natalist argument with infinite patience for years, and you haven't resorted to ranting, raving, insult, or even (as far as I know) cutting sarcasm. — Bitter Crank
Maybe we should all just shut up and go plant trees. — Bitter Crank
I've backed lost causes too. Even If they were morally and intellectually superior, they just didn't appeal to most people. C'est la vie. — Bitter Crank
I'm just saying try not to wrap your content in insult. Just make the argument. — schopenhauer1
I would say having a good faith dialectic with someone is what should be happening (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), considering things that haven't been considered. I don't expect a "winner" but what can happen is that each side finds ways to strengthen their arguments and consider things otherwise not considered. — schopenhauer1
Are insults legitimate debate tactics? — schopenhauer1
So then for example, you would say if someone was debating policy and leadership quality, but your interlocutor, let's call him "Trump" starts talking about how your a bumbling idiot with kids who take cocaine and are of low character.. this is legitimate argumentation? I don't get your machismo, "who can take a punch". — schopenhauer1
The only point of arguing is to exchange new ideas. — Pfhorrest
It's a tactic, sure, but a particularly lowbrow one at that. It also precludes the discussion from flowing in a "civilized" manner, especially when both parties start engaging in random potshots. — Ying
Sarcasm is not the same as an insult. Sarcasm is not necessarily disrespectful. In fact, it is one of the staples of a lively argumentation. It also helps illuminate a point that could otherwise be ignored or not reach the "aha!" moment.So if there was no real insult thrown at you personally, is it legitimate to use insults, puts-downs, sneering sarcasm, — schopenhauer1
a particularly lowbrow one at that — Ying
The abusive type of ad hominem argument can be defined in terms of the concept of insult. Personal integrity, moral character, psychological health, or intellectual ability are classic examples. — Zophie
They just don't have the right educational history to either be highbrow, or to produce the verisimilitude of natural born highbrow elitism. — Bitter Crank
is it legitimate to use insults, puts-downs, sneering sarcasm, fake exasperation and the like as part of your argument? — schopenhauer1
Agreed, especially on a philosophy forum, if everyone's arguing in good faith and not just because one gets some weird kick being pissed off or pissing others off. — schopenhauer1
Sometimes it's hard to tell because certain posters tend to intertwine the two, thus trying to get away with a criticism while presenting a legitimate argument. Why not just stick to the argument? Wouldn't criticism be rhetorical bullshit to cause consternation? Is unnecessarily poisoning the well a legitimate argument tactic? — schopenhauer1
So if you're not fighting them, they'll be upset at you, because they're here to fight damnit! — Pfhorrest
And if you're unmoved by their blows, they'll be upset at you, because just punching a pillow or a brick wall or whatever is no fun, it's only satisfying if what you hit breaks. — Pfhorrest
Not fighting or just quietly absorbing or deflecting their attacks isn't "playing fair", it's some kind of "foul play" in their minds. But of course if you do react to being hit with some kind of hurt response, they'll be gleeful and gloat over that. Basically the only "winning" move (inasmuch as it's a move that will make them stop fighting and not whine about you cheating somehow) is to concede defeat. Because that's what they're here for: the thrill of victory over someone else. — Pfhorrest
And while philosophy is aptly analogized to a "martial art of the mind", as someone who trained in TaeKwonDo for 11 years I can tell you the kind of students who come into a class just looking to beat someone up for fun are not taken well. Studying how to fight in a calm, friendly, cooperative, disciplined way has a very different emotional energy than an actual fight, and people coming into such a discipline with that actual-fight emotional energy are not usually welcomed.
I wish there was a place on the internet that was more like a real martial arts club than an MMA FFA ring. — Pfhorrest
There is rational discussion, where the goal is to find the truth, and there is rhetoric, where the goal is to convince, i.e. to win the argument. Insults are not legitimate in a rational argument. They don't lead to achieving the goal. Are they legitimate in a debate, polemic, or political speech? They're not nice. They're not civil or honorable. They might work or they might backfire. Are they legitimate? I guess the answer is "who cares." — T Clark
I maintain the distinction between rhetorical and rational is taste. Not truth — Zophie
I see insults as being the worst aspect of debate, because it seems to be going beyond that, to personal attacking of someone. Once a person goes off into insulting, I usually dismiss what the person is saying, because it seems that they are going outside of rational exploration of ideas. — Jack Cummins
arrogance — unenlightened
I'm not sure why people can't disagree without being disagreeable. — schopenhauer1
arrogance
— unenlightened
Why so much of that one though? — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.