Main Menu

Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence

Started by Jim_Campbell, 04 June, 2019, 11:36:52 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

SIP

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 05 June, 2019, 06:23:28 PM
Quote from: SIP on 05 June, 2019, 06:07:49 PM
As I pointed out, perhaps it was not the right thread to post it, it felt pertinent at the time in light of other general comment. But, can we have a cessation of hostilities please? Life is short, and it's been a long day.

Jeez. How many times do I have to say it's done? It's done, Si. There are no hostilities.

Sorry Jim, but I haven't been back on here since last night and since then you appear to have made comments above that continued to call my intentions into question, including that you think I was making a personal attack on you.....am I supposed to just ignore those and NOT discuss them?

Am I missing the post where we agreed that it was resolved?

moly

Sorry Jim, but your comments always seem to pick on what people have said you come across as a bully and mean spirited and then to start a thread about said comments is pathetic

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: SIP on 05 June, 2019, 06:34:54 PM
Am I missing the post where we agreed that it was resolved?

Honestly, Si. I'm talking about how I feel. I said about two pages ago that you didn't owe me an answer and that I was happy to leave it at that, but then Funt decided to have a pop at me over it that I should probably have ignored. I've said within those responses that I don't expect anything further from you.

Again, though, I'm struggling to work out how you taking offense at what I wrote is my fault, but my taking offence at what you wrote is also my fault.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: moly on 05 June, 2019, 06:37:51 PM
Sorry Jim, but your comments always seem to pick on what people have said you come across as a bully and mean spirited and then to start a thread about said comments is pathetic

Well, yes, I am rather regretting it now.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

SIP



"Again, though, I'm struggling to work out how you taking offense at what I wrote is my fault, but my taking offence at what you wrote is also my fault."

That's fairly clear cut though isn't it? The "weaselly" response if fairly easy to take offence to. You being offended appears to be due to your enduring interpretation, despite my attempts at clarification, of a subtext that I have stated was not there. So, what are you offended by?


Dandontdare

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 05 June, 2019, 04:39:09 PM
he didn't answer a simple and polite question. I explained why I found the implication in that troublesome — it felt to me like a personal attack.

This is the problem - perception: you think your posts are "simple and polite" but other people's are full of "implications" - others may believe the opposite.

personally, I switch off from any of your arguments once you start going down the "you said that I said that you said" route

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: SIP on 05 June, 2019, 06:52:53 PM
That's fairly clear cut though isn't it? The "weaselly" response if fairly easy to take offence to. You being offended appears to be due to your enduring interpretation, despite my attempts at clarification, of a subtext that I have stated was not there. So, what are you offended by?

I thought we were letting this go?
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

SIP

Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 05 June, 2019, 06:56:46 PM
Quote from: SIP on 05 June, 2019, 06:52:53 PM
That's fairly clear cut though isn't it? The "weaselly" response if fairly easy to take offence to. You being offended appears to be due to your enduring interpretation, despite my attempts at clarification, of a subtext that I have stated was not there. So, what are you offended by?

I thought we were letting this go?

I tried that, and I got that "jeez" comment. So, apparently we didn't. Then you indicated that you were offended by something I had said. And here we are..   

SIP

Right, I'm going back to lurking on the forum now.......this appears to be going nowhere but down.

The Legendary Shark


When I found out about debating societies I felt hugely let down that they didn't have one at my school. A grasp of, and practice in, proper debating might have proved hugely useful in my life, especially the most recent decade or two of it. (As a man with a great many axes to grind, I have only recently begun to explore the correct operation of the grinder.)

I do enjoy a good argument (not a slanging match - those are just tiresome), the way it stimulates and challenges the little grey cell can be quite exilerating. I sometimes hear a comedy program on Radio 4, I forget what it's called, where humorous debates are held under the title, "this house believes that..." The subject can be anything and they have an impartial chair and votes at the end and everything. I'd love to be able to participate in something like that.

Maybe we should have a go? Pick a subject, serious or silly, two debators and a chair. Start with opening statements, then cross questioning, then chair and audience questions, closing statements and a vote or/and general comments. No rancour, no name-calling, no expectations - just good natured and civilised debate.

I commend this notion to the House!

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Jim_Campbell

Quote from: SIP on 05 June, 2019, 07:00:18 PM
Right, I'm going back to lurking on the forum now.......this appears to be going nowhere but down.

I don't want you to do that, but I don't want to drag this on any more. Message me if you think there's more that needs saying or leave it if you don't. It's done, as far as I'm concerned.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Steven Denton

#71
coming out of retirement as 'the guy who gives crits nobody asked for'

OK I read the original exchange, then Jim's list and wrote a long reply about arguing and fallacies then re-read everything and realised the answer didn't need that kind of wall of text.

Jim to answer your original question I think you moved all the way to step 4 in your first response without waiting for confirmation of steps 2 or 3. Your principles include a right to reply at every stage.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: Steven Denton on 05 June, 2019, 07:45:16 PM
Jim to answer your original question I think you moved all the way to step 4 in your first response without waiting for confirmation of steps 2 or 3. Your principles include a right to reply at every stage.

Honestly, Steven, if you wade through that well o' text again, you'll see that I cover that, but I really don't have the energy to argue the toss if you disagree with me.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Steven Denton

You do say that for expedience you rolled all of the stages into one and that is a problem if you want to minimise the chances of causing offence. People are unlikely to treat a conversation as a truncated argument where they simply have to refute the points in order without being explicitly instructed to do so. even given those instructions people are unlikely to respond as you would like.

I'm not arguing. with you I thought your were questioning why people would take offence. I realise that I may have misunderstood the original intention.


Jim_Campbell

Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.