2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Off Topic => : Jim_Campbell 04 June, 2019, 11:36:52 AM

: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 04 June, 2019, 11:36:52 AM
I’m not sure why some members of this forum seem unable to parse a short series of logical IF/THEN operations that wouldn’t defeat a copy of Microsoft Excel, but let’s try this from first principles, shall we?

STEP 1: Someone says something I think is sufficiently stupid/ offensive/ whatever to warrant a response. Please note that other forum members have the right to find anything they damn well please stupid/ offensive/ whatever, and deploy this or any other discursive tactic to make their case.

STEP 2: I quote the thing that someone has said. I do this because I may have misattributed the statement, or I may have missed/omitted some important context. However, the other person can be in no doubt as to the configuration of words I am discussing. If I’ve misquoted or omitted context, all the other person needs to do is point this out and we stop right here because I need to go back and look at the original statement and we do not need to progress to STEP 3.

STEP 3: I explain my understanding of the quoted statement. This, right here, is the get-out-of-jail-free card. It’s important that I’m clear on how I’m reading the statement, but the other person can, at this point, either explain how I’ve misread/misinterpreted their statement, or explain that the statement doesn’t represent their position (because of poor phrasing, choice of words, etc). At that point, there is no STEP 4 and you will find me, on this very forum, apologising to people because I’ve misunderstood their words. That’s what this step is for.

STEP 4: I posit a logical conclusion from my understanding of the other person’s statement. If we’re dealing with this step, then the other person must have accepted that my understanding of their statement is correct. Often that conclusion is an extreme one for rhetorical/(allegedly) humorous purposes and is often formulated as “if you think X, then Y…”

At this point, people seem to immediately leap to “HOW DARE YOU SAY I THINK Y?!” and completely ignore the “IF” part of that sentence. They can refute the logic of my conclusion if they think it’s faulty, but they’ve already accepted the basis on which I came to it if they’ve accepted STEP 3.



I’m not saying the other person is stupid. I’m saying: “You said Thing X, which I think is a stupid/ offensive/ whatever thing to say. This how I understand Thing X. If you think Thing X, as I understand it, then logically we end up at Position Y which shows why saying Thing X is stupid.”

Contained within that process are multiple opportunities to correct/refute me, because I absolutely acknowledge that I may have misread/misunderstood the original statement, or be lacking context because the other person knows more about the subject than I do. All of these are fine. I’m happy to be corrected. You learn things by being wrong, and I like learning things. For the sake of brevity, all these steps are rolled up into a single post, rather than a back-and-forth, but the logical progression exists nonetheless. If the other person derails the argument at STEP 3 by (for example) showing that I've fundamentally misunderstood their position, STEP 4 is automatically refuted.

SO… Applying all this to the minor kerfuffle on the Forthcoming Thrills thread… I imagine no one would disagree that the basic notion of finding it “troubling” that a man in his seventies might be considering retirement is ridiculous?

In fact, Richard immediately abandoned that position… all he had to say was that wasn’t what he meant, because it clearly wasn’t. Of course he can be sad about when Wagner retires — I’m going to be sad about it. Instead, however, he chose to claim that he didn’t say the thing he very clearly did say and then add in an accusation of bad behaviour on my part, to which I take exception.



Please cut out and keep this handy guide to refer to before you leap to outraged responses when I say “…and if you think that, you must be trolling” or something similar.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 04 June, 2019, 12:58:29 PM
I find it helpful (in all aspects of life) to try and remember the Trivium method of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric.

Step 1, Grammar.
Ensure an understanding of definitions, context, conclusions, assumptions etc. In the physical world, this step can be compared to reading and understanding the instructions contained with flat-pack furniture - knowing what Dowel C or Bracket F refers to.

Step 2, Logic.
Extrapolate meaning and reconcile contradictions. In the example, matching all the pieces and parts in the instructions with the physical parts of the flat-pack to ensure it all makes sense; are the instructions correct for the item to be built and are all the parts present and correctly identified.

Step 3, Rhetoric.
Construct and present a valid response. Putting all the parts together in the correct configuration to end up with a sturdy new bookcase.

Do I always go through this process properly? No, unfortunately - which can result in a wobbly bookcase.

When it comes to arguments, I find the biggest problem to be emotion. For example, if someone says to me, "the Earth is flat because A+B=C," my immediate reaction is an emotional one - something along the lines of, "oh f*ck off, you bloody idiot," which is not helpful. The best response is to put the emotion aside, understand what A+B=C actually means, construct a logical response and then put that response into words. Unfortunately, this in itself often leads to an emotional response - at which time it's probably time to walk away as emotional arguments cannot be defeated by logical arguments. Whilst emotion is important to inform our arguments, it cannot be relied upon to carry them.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Trooper McFad 04 June, 2019, 02:00:38 PM
The earth is Flat , isn’t it?  🤔🤔🤔
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 04 June, 2019, 02:41:19 PM

Only on alternate Fridays when there's a 'k' in the month.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: wedgeski 04 June, 2019, 02:56:40 PM
Unfortunately we live in a world where emotion and self-delusion trumps (ha) logic and facts on a daily basis.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 04 June, 2019, 04:26:24 PM

True, but that doesn't mean we all have to go along with it.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 04 June, 2019, 04:34:19 PM
At which step is it acceptable to say "Fuck it" and head to the pub?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: von Boom 04 June, 2019, 04:50:04 PM
Step 1A if you want to remain sane, I think.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 04 June, 2019, 05:27:52 PM
*hronch* ... this popcorn is delicious...

I was having some troublesome communication with a relative recently and one of the things I found most difficult to deal with was that when I wrote a little bit they didn't like they would WALL OF TEXT me in response.

The problem with WALLS OF TEXT is that they're intimidating and demand a lot of time to decipher.

Years ago someone pointed out to me that at the stage where you're getting your point across by using a numbered list, something has gone wrong.  Let me break that down for you:

1. Making lists is patronizing.
2. ....
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 04 June, 2019, 05:36:34 PM
I had the most ludicrous exchange with a webcartoonist friend the other day. He has this strange way of bringing up the Manara Spiderwoman cover controversy by sharing any photos of lewd cosplayers in contorted T&A poses to try and prove a point. In general I thought the out cry to that cover was out of proportion but he takes it to almost militant levels.

On Monday he shared a post of a cosplayer in said pose, decrying the "forbidden pose" is physically possible (I mean, it IS but that was never the argument against that cover, ah well...) but I know for a fact this cosplayer photoshops their work for effect. Nothing wrong with that, ALL cosplayers use photoshop to some degree, it's part of the craft, so it's probably not the best evidence to call upon if you're trying to provide evidence in defensive of the Manara cover. I pointed out it was photoshopped and he kinda flew off the handle, going on about his art degree, years of life drawing classes as credentials he knew best.

Problem is....I never disagreed with him! Just pointed out his 'evidence' was a photoshoped lewd cosplay image, and wouldn't really stand up to any scrutiny if anyone DID disagree with him. The internet has a tendency to make smart people rather reactionary.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 04 June, 2019, 05:44:56 PM
Oh, so this guy (http://www.jimchines.com/2012/01/striking-a-pose/) makes a case for one side of that argument.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 04 June, 2019, 05:48:00 PM
Oh, so this guy (http://www.jimchines.com/2012/01/striking-a-pose/) makes a case for one side of that argument.
He has a tendency to think with his dick a lot so....yeah.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 04 June, 2019, 05:52:48 PM
Years ago someone pointed out to me that at the stage where you're getting your point across by using a numbered list, something has gone wrong.  Let me break that down for you:

I separated this out from the original thread because I was aware it's long and not terribly interesting, but if you'd like to give to me the benefit of your apparently boundless wisdom as to how one describes a process of logical steps without describing those actual steps, I'd be delighted to hear it.

(Also, the process I describe above is really not an unusual way to frame a point during a discussion. I only broke it down in such brain-numbingly boring detail here because of the seeming inability of various members of this forum to understand how it works. It's almost as though they're being wilfully obtuse and are deliberately trying to take maximum offence from something I've posted.)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 04 June, 2019, 06:06:32 PM
...your apparently boundless wisdom...

I really like this part: I'm going to assume you really think that about me.  All I need now is a banana daiquiri and a comfy branch in a tall oak overlooking some rolling hills on a warm spring day, and life will be complete.

...the seeming inability of various members of this forum to understand...

See, that's the part that could be taken as patronizing.  Or, to put it another way: it suggests that you have apparently boundless wisdom.  *cough*

---

But we shouldn't argue - I take it all back.  Your list is great and useful.  There was nothing more subtle that could have been done.  (Damn it ... I'm not very good at backing gracefully away from conflict.)

Maybe if I just unplug the machine...
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: TordelBack 04 June, 2019, 06:06:47 PM
... that cover was out of proportion ...

B'dum tish.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Dandontdare 04 June, 2019, 06:14:49 PM
Do I want an argument about arguing with Jim?

Now where's that 10 foot pole......
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 04 June, 2019, 06:25:38 PM
See, that's the part that could be taken as patronizing.  Or, to put it another way: it suggests that you have apparently boundless wisdom.  *cough*

OK, look. Help me out here. I deploy a perfectly normal rhetorical device which a non-trivial number of people choose to misunderstand, possibly intentionally, possibly not. Yes… I suppose I could just not respond when someone says something I think is stupid/ offensive/ whatever, but this is a discussion forum, so that seems like kind of an odd solution. Somewhat at a loss, I thought I'd break it down, simply so that people who insist on misunderstanding it can't claim it's never been explained to them.

Crucially, I'm not talking about you so I have no idea why you're arguing the toss with me on this.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 04 June, 2019, 06:37:21 PM
Honestly, I thought your response (starting this thread and the length of the opening post and the numbered list of "how to debate properly") was out of proportion with the perceived slight.

And I'm posting about it because...

...this is a discussion forum...

I'm quite happy for you to take a contrary view.  That we both get to have a view is great.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 04 June, 2019, 06:39:44 PM
... that cover was out of proportion ...

B'dum tish.

Tordelback, what a guy!
(https://i.gifer.com/SvRo.gif)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 04 June, 2019, 06:44:41 PM
Honestly, I thought your response (starting this thread and the length of the opening post and the numbered list of "how to debate properly") was out of proportion with the perceived slight.

The perceived slight was Richard accusing me of aggressive behaviour towards multiple members of this forum, based on a possibly wilful misunderstanding of a pretty inconsequential point I was making. I'll concede there's a remote possibility that I may have over-reacted but I honestly found that quite hurtful.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 04 June, 2019, 06:55:52 PM
It would probably be silly of me to try and referee your spat with Richard.  I'm sorry you felt hurt, though.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 04 June, 2019, 08:13:46 PM

We've butted heads on this forum often enough, Jim, and you can come across as aggressive but I'm content to accept that you don't mean to. In any case, I wouldn't criticise you for it as I'm reliably informed that my own style can seem arrogant/condescending/disrespectful (pick one or all of the above) - even though I don't intend to come across that way.

I enjoy our discussions so don't ever change - I know I won't!

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 04 June, 2019, 09:10:28 PM
On a not entirely unrelated note, I have found the forum an increasingly confrontational and "cliquey" place over the last year. You expect clique, but hope for a little more tolerance. Expressing an opinion or preference here can occasionally feel like sticking your head above the parapet.

To be fair, it has always had that edge to varying degrees, but I feel like I have witnessed more people getting cut down (especially newer people) over the last year.

In my opinion. For what that's worth.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 04 June, 2019, 09:21:37 PM
To be fair, it has always had that edge to varying degrees, but I feel like I have witnessed more people getting cut down (especially newer people) over the last year.

By me?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 04 June, 2019, 09:37:25 PM
To be fair, it has always had that edge to varying degrees, but I feel like I have witnessed more people getting cut down (especially newer people) over the last year.

By me?

I'm not looking to fire shots off at anyone personally, Jim.

I've been here for 14 years now and have found the general tone has moved increasingly towards condescension and passive-aggressiveness. I'm rarely here anymore as a result as honestly, I generally feel unwelcome (and it's entirely possible that's just my perception).

Maybe people need to be more measured in their responses and altogether more tolerant of opinions that may not be their own.

No doubt part of the problem is also the shorthand and understanding that exists between a group of people who know each other very well.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 04 June, 2019, 09:49:10 PM
I'll be the first to admit I can be somewhat reactionary. I do feel, and hope to convey, that I have mellowed quiet a bit over time.

I've only had the misfortune to blocking 1 member of the broader 2000AD community online, but compared to other quarters of the comicdome sphere, this place is a heaven of peace.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Robin Low 04 June, 2019, 09:51:26 PM
I've been here for 14 years now and have found the general tone has moved increasingly towards condescension and passive-aggressiveness.

Well, if you'd been around as long as some of us have, you'd know that's simply nonsense.

Regards,

Robin
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 04 June, 2019, 09:52:49 PM
I'm not looking to fire shots off at anyone personally, Jim.

That’s a pretty weaselly way of saying “yes”, Si. Since this entire thread is more or less about my behaviour, and you chose to add a post about people behaving badly, there is inference invited to connect the two. I don’t think that’s fair, which is why I asked the question. If the answer was “no” then saying so wouldn’t have been “firing of shots”, would it?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 04 June, 2019, 10:06:52 PM
I'm not looking to fire shots off at anyone personally, Jim.

That’s a pretty weaselly way of saying “yes”, Si. Since this entire thread is more or less about my behaviour, and you chose to add a post about people behaving badly, there is inference invited to connect the two. I don’t think that’s fair, which is why I asked the question. If the answer was “no” then saying so wouldn’t have been “firing of shots”, would it?

Jim, I don't have the power to influence how you choose to interpret my posts, could have done without the "weaselly" comment though.

I think my comment was transparent and could be alternately expressed as "naming no names", as I don't see it as constructive to call individuals out on a public forum. I wanted to take the opportunity to express my current view on the atmosphere (sometimes) of the forum and, as I pointed out, this discussion is "not entirely unrelated" to that discussion.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 04 June, 2019, 10:12:01 PM
“No. Not you, personally.”

That’s all that would have been required but, instead, we have two posts doing their absolute best to avoid saying that. In my book, that’s a weaselly way of saying “yes”. No one’s asking you to “name names”, I’m asking you to clarify that on a thread about my behaviour, the behaviour you’ve described isn’t about me.

EDIT: you don’t have to respond, obviously, Si. I’m sorry you think what you do, and I just want to make it clear that I would vigorously refute any suggestion that I’ve been “cutting down newer people”, were such a suggestion forthcoming.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 04 June, 2019, 10:20:08 PM
Expressing an opinion or preference here can occasionally feel like sticking your head above the parapet.

Well, at least when you tried it on this occasion you didn't get it shot off.  Oh, wait...

---

I heard what you said and how neutrally and peacefully you put across your thoughts.  Like you say, you can't control how people interpret things.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 04 June, 2019, 10:24:22 PM
Does insulting me twice somehow further the debate Jim? As I said, the comments were intended as transparent, no hidden subtext was intended whether you found it there or not.

Perhaps this was not the thread to raise my point, but it appeared to be pertinent in the context of the other replies posted.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: shaolin_monkey 04 June, 2019, 11:14:27 PM
Is this the right room for an argument?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 04 June, 2019, 11:23:38 PM
Is this the right room for an argument?

I told you once...



In my book, that’s a weaselly way of saying “yes”.
 

I take it back - change! :D

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Tjm86 05 June, 2019, 06:45:43 AM
Expressing an opinion or preference here can occasionally feel like sticking your head above the parapet.

Part of that could well be the fact that this is a message board rather than FTF possibly.  It feels at times like a lot of inhabitants of this place have a slightly (okay, maybe a bit more than that ...) off the wall sense of humour that would come across more effectively in real life than it does online.

That said, I tend to find the old rules about certain topics helpful.  Knowing that some folks have quite strong but possibly different views to mine on some issues I find it easier just to steer clear.  Getting sucked in like that doesn't really help anyone.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Dark Jimbo 05 June, 2019, 08:43:37 AM
Expressing an opinion or preference here can occasionally feel like sticking your head above the parapet.

Well, at least when you tried it on this occasion you didn't get it shot off.  Oh, wait...

 :lol:
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: CalHab 05 June, 2019, 09:42:19 AM
On a not entirely unrelated note, I have found the forum an increasingly confrontational and "cliquey" place over the last year. You expect clique, but hope for a little more tolerance. Expressing an opinion or preference here can occasionally feel like sticking your head above the parapet.

To be fair, it has always had that edge to varying degrees, but I feel like I have witnessed more people getting cut down (especially newer people) over the last year.

In my opinion. For what that's worth.

I think this is a friendly(ish) place. It's certainly better than some of the 2000AD Facebook groups, which can be absolute cesspits. That's probably a different topic, though.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 05 June, 2019, 10:01:24 AM
If the 2000AD Facebook groups are the 'Last Stand' scene from Cross of Iron.

Then the 2000AD Forum is the mashed potato fight from Bugsy Malone.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Mattofthespurs 05 June, 2019, 10:16:55 AM
I've been here a few years now. I don't comment that much. I prefer just to read and make the odd (sometimes very odd) remark.

I don't find anyone particularly rude or unwelcoming. Prickly sometimes but I think that's true of all forums.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: TordelBack 05 June, 2019, 10:27:40 AM
If the 2000AD Facebook groups are the 'Last Stand' scene from Cross of Iron.

Then the 2000AD Forum is the mashed potato fight from Bugsy Malone.

 :D While that is definitely an apt analogy for this place (a gaggle of children dressed as adults splurging on icons of the recent past*), and the others, I have found myself biting my tongue here a lot more over the past year or so, mainly out of reluctance to start/continue a tedious argument. 

I accept that this may be due to my newly reflexive CBT'd self, a daily-contested poorly-sustained state that tries to indulge neither shame nor pride in favour of keepin' on keepin' on, and embraces restorative practice over bossing and (especially) bitching (where's that halo emoji when you need it?), but even so, the forum seems quicker than formerly to take the hump and force a line**.     




*You get to be Jodie Foster in your own analogy, Hawkmumbler!
** I'm not aiming my splurge gun at Jim here, BTW.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 05 June, 2019, 11:02:33 AM
I'm not looking to fire shots off at anyone personally, Jim.

That’s a pretty weaselly way of saying “yes”, Si. Since this entire thread is more or less about my behaviour, and you chose to add a post about people behaving badly, there is inference invited to connect the two. I don’t think that’s fair, which is why I asked the question. If the answer was “no” then saying so wouldn’t have been “firing of shots”, would it?

Jim, I don't have the power to influence how you choose to interpret my posts, could have done without the "weaselly" comment though.

I think my comment was transparent and could be alternately expressed as "naming no names", as I don't see it as constructive to call individuals out on a public forum. I wanted to take the opportunity to express my current view on the atmosphere (sometimes) of the forum and, as I pointed out, this discussion is "not entirely unrelated" to that discussion.


It's pretty obvious to me that SIP's statement was not about any one board member and about the general tone of the board.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 11:13:28 AM
It's pretty obvious to me that SIP's statement was not about any one board member and about the general tone of the board.

Well, it wasn't obvious to me, and I don't think politely asking whether he was referring to me constitutes "shooting someone down" (per Funt's comment, not yours).

Tone and implied meaning are hard to judge online, which was the entire point of my original post…
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Frank 05 June, 2019, 11:15:46 AM
... embraces restorative practice over bossing and (especially) bitching


Unfamiliar with that concept. Interesting (https://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/bullystoppers/Pages/methodrestorative.aspx):


Restorative practice is a strategy that seeks to repair relationships that have been damaged. It does this by bringing about a sense of remorse and restorative action on the part of the offender and forgiveness by the victim.

Rationale

The rationale behind this approach is that when offenders reflect upon their harm to victims:

- They become remorseful and act restoratively.
 
- Practitioners can focus on the unacceptable behaviour of offenders rather than their moral character.

- This can lead to healthier interpersonal relations among members of the community.


Application
   
The work is commonly guided by an agreed script which directs practitioners to ask the offender to describe what happened and to reflect on what harm it has done.

The victim is asked to say how she or he has been affected and what needs to be done to put things right.

Feelings of shame that are elicited need to lead to re-integration into the community rather than a sense of being alienated and stigmatised. 

In the spirit of personal responsibility, forgiveness and commitment to positive future behaviour, both the target and the offender express their acceptance of the proposed solution/s and discuss what can be done to prevent a recurrence.

The situation is then monitored by staff and further intervention occurs if the situation does not improve.

In some cases considerable work is done behind the scenes to prepare the participants including bystanders and others to ensure a positive outcome.


Limitations
 
Inadequately trained practitioners may make matters worse. This can result in the offender feeling resentment rather than contrition and incline him or her to act anti-socially. This must be avoided.

Strong support in the community for this approach may sometimes be lacking. 

Some offenders may pretend to be remorseful and deceive the practitioner into thinking the matter has been resolved. 

Being integrated into the community may have little appeal to some offenders, especially when their own social network provides them with more attractive support.


Conclusion

Used appropriately by trained practitioners, restorative practices are particularly effective when the offender can be induced to experience genuine remorse. The most detailed evaluation of its effectiveness in England indicates that it is successful in stopping offending from continuing in about two cases in three



: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Proudhuff 05 June, 2019, 11:47:03 AM
If the 2000AD Facebook groups are the 'Last Stand' scene from Cross of Iron.

Then the 2000AD Forum is the mashed potato fight from Bugsy Malone.

 :D While that is definitely an apt analogy for this place (a gaggle of children dressed as adults splurging on icons of the recent past*), and the others, I have found myself biting my tongue here a lot more over the past year or so, mainly out of reluctance to start/continue a tedious argument. 

 but even so, the forum seems quicker than formerly to take the hump and force a line**.     




*You get to be Jodie Foster in your own analogy, Hawkmumbler!
** I'm not aiming my splurge gun at Jim here, BTW.

Funny been thinking along similar lines myself ^^^^
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Link Prime 05 June, 2019, 12:01:26 PM
Personally, I don't see that much confrontation / arguments on this forum - that may be because I avoid The Political Thread like the Bubonic plague.
But I do appreciate that some of yis still like the taste of Marmot kidney - so have at it.

Overall, this is likely as convivial a company of fans and creators you're going to get, at least when compared to most other internet / social media interactions that I had the misfortune of coming across in recent years.

One other observation on the topic; we are (generally) a group of blokes in our mid to late 40's, with a lot in common.
The fact we're even here yammering on about a comic that we never gave up for 4 decades is embarrassing enough - but to have a genuine - genuine - internet argument with another grown man over this bullshit? Most wouldn't - it's just too uncouth.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 05 June, 2019, 12:46:54 PM
In the spirit of personal responsibility,
forgiveness and commitment to positive future
 behaviour,both the target and the offender
 express their acceptance of the proposed
 solution/s and discuss what can be done to
 prevent a recurrence.

I'm always harping on about personal responsibility, so here goes...

I believe I was wrong and that my actions have caused a rift between Tordelback and myself. This may be a misperception but, just in case it isn't, here's where I think I went wrong: Tordels paid me a compliment and I responded with a joke (to-whit, a silly Futurama meme) instead of an appreciation of the compliment (which I should have expressed).

My posts are often too long, too condescending and too complicated. Instead of simplifying, I overcompensate - often dropping in what I intend as jokes and quips in inappropriate places. This has alienated me from many other members.

To remedy my actions, I propose to be more mindful of all the members of this forum with whom I interact, and to listen to any suggestions you may have

And if all else fails, here comes the obligatory lame joke, you can always just look at me as The Legendary Partridge.


: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 05 June, 2019, 03:48:50 PM
I don't think politely asking whether he was referring to me constitutes "shooting someone down"

Yeah, it's not as if you repeatedly called him a weasel or anything.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 04:12:28 PM
Yeah, it's not as if you repeatedly called him a weasel or anything.

You spotted the part where he declined to answer a simple question, yes? I found his meaning unclear. I asked him to clarify, and he re-stated his original post in such a way as to avoid answering the question. I didn't call him a weasel, I said I found his evasion weaselly, which is a perfectly normal use of the word. He doesn't owe me an answer, but I asked him to clear up a reading of his post that felt like a personal attack and he declined to do so. If I'm mis-reading his post, what's so bloody difficult about saying "No, I didn't mean you"…?

I really seem to be incapable of posting anything that doesn't annoy you — why don't you just put me on ignore?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 05 June, 2019, 04:21:47 PM
Catch yourself on.  "Weaselly" isn't neutral terminology - it's loaded.  You see, if you'd said he was being "evasive", then at least you'd have been being polite (although still calling into question his motives).  Once he (politely) clarified his motives, you basically called him a liar.  (He also specifically asked that you not refer to him as a weasel, but you chose to ignore him and repeat the insult.)

As for the "ignore" function: I never use it. 
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Mattofthespurs 05 June, 2019, 04:30:26 PM
Yeah, it's not as if you repeatedly called him a weasel or anything.

You spotted the part where he declined to answer a simple question, yes? I found his meaning unclear. I asked him to clarify, and he re-stated his original post in such a way as to avoid answering the question.

You could have questioned his original post in a more neutral way to be fair.

You could have said 'what do you mean by that?' or 'why do you think that?' and allowed him the right of response with a polite question.

Then, obviously, if he came back with ' I'm a selfish c*nt that wants Wagner to write until he dies exhausted because I love his stuff' then have at him.

It's the initial response that needs working on in my opinion.

If you had said that to me I would have told you to go f*ck yourself whilst laughing all the while. But that's just me.

Manners and polite inquiry cost nothing.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 04:39:09 PM
Catch yourself on.  "Weaselly" isn't neutral terminology - it's loaded.  You see, if you'd said he was being "evasive", then at least you'd have been being polite (although still calling into question his motives).  Once he (politely) clarified his motives, you basically called him a liar.  (He also specifically asked that you not refer to him as a weasel, but you chose to ignore him and repeat the insult.)

As for the "ignore" function: I never use it.

He may have "clarified his motives" but 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. It still does. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am, then why is it so hard to say "No, not you"…?

This is rhetorical, by the way. I've already indicated to Si that I can see there's no point in pursuing this. He doesn't owe me an answer. He feels offended by my words, I feel attacked by his. That's where we are and we might as well draw a line under it.

Mind you, I'm still trying to work out how when someone is offended by something I say, that's my fault, but when someone says something that offends me, that's also my fault… but, hey, friendliest place on the internet, right?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 04:41:19 PM
Then, obviously, if he came back with ' I'm a selfish c*nt that wants Wagner to write until he dies exhausted because I love his stuff' then have at him.

You seem to be confusing two separate things here. I've never called Richard a weasel, or anything else, over the whole Wagner retiring thing. I've also never called SIP a weasel, either, but what the hell.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 05 June, 2019, 04:50:40 PM
then why is it so hard to say "No, not you"…?

This seems to be the crux of the dilemma. So (without rancor, and hoping that you don't mind) I think I have an answer that satisfies me.  (And yes, I'm deliberately answering a stated rhetorical question.)

SIP said "I don't see it as constructive to call individuals out on a public forum".  So, he doesn't want to identify individuals.  If you are ON THE LIST, then he doesn't want to identify you.  If you are not ON THE LIST, then he doesn't want to narrow down the potential contents of the list by excluding you.

It's like "What did you get me for Xmas?"  I'm not telling you.  "Is it a bike?"  I'm not telling you.  "So, it's a bike?"  I'm not telling you.  "It's definitely a bike!"  I didn't say that ... [ad infinitum]
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 04:53:38 PM
It's like "What did you get me for Xmas?"  I'm not telling you.  "Is it a bike?"  I'm not telling you.  "So, it's a bike?"  I'm not telling you.  "It's definitely a bike!"  I didn't say that ... [ad infinitum]

I understand the reasoning, I just don't accept that it's the same thing. As I said: we'll have to agree to differ.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: TordelBack 05 June, 2019, 04:57:58 PM
I believe I was wrong and that my actions have caused a rift between Tordelback and myself. This may be a misperception but, just in case it isn't, here's where I think I went wrong: Tordels paid me a compliment and I responded with a joke (to-whit, a silly Futurama meme) instead of an appreciation of the compliment (which I should have expressed).

Honestly don't know if you're citing a purposefully absurd example as a rhetorical device here Sharky, or if there's a case of mistaken/misremembered online identity afoot, but I can assure you that you have NEVER offended me in any way. Quite the reverse, I hold you to be a complete gentleman in the best sense of that word, however often we may have a difference of opinion (yours is wrong, BTW).

But I may be missing a joke here! Again!

As to Frank's piece on restorative practice, that's really just one application, focusing on matters of conflict resolution, justice and behaviour.

It doesn't have to have that reactive quality, it can function as a positive template for all group interactions: meetings, committees, even family decision making. The Boy's school uses it exclusively for meetings at all levels, and despite initially recoiling in horror at this hippy crap, I've become hugely impressed with the results: check-in circles, reflective remarks, talking sticks, no tables between participants, often no chairs... people talk, stomm gets done, and it feels good.

Lately I've been trying to apply it to my work and home lifeand once you get past the embarrassment of holding a stuffed toy and sharing your expectations, it's powerful stuff.

It's the closest thing to a cult* I've been involved with since my Confirmation!



*Other than Jim, of course - he's just one letter away from being a cult!

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Steven Denton 05 June, 2019, 05:23:18 PM
I think most offence is caused by tone and choice of language rather than argument logic or technique, although that can be a bit of an issue too.

Text only conversations have long been a issue as the reader brings far more to the interpretation of text than they do to in person interactions. informal text is even more interpretable as people will often not explain the how they intend something or in what context or from what source*

following on from interpretation 'am I right in thinking that you mean 'a' and if so do you think 'b' is a pretty reasonable way of trying to work out what someone said unless they read it as you said 'A' so you must think 'B' in which case they are going to read it as an accusation not a question. the best way to avoid this is to ask the question "am I right in thinking you mean 'a'?" and wait for confirmation. but who has time for that?


*Foot note for FRANK
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 05 June, 2019, 06:07:49 PM
I am writing on a mobile phone, so unfortunately do not have ease of putting quotes into my response, my apologies.

Jim, timeout please.

My initial post was a general comment, as I have already indicated , the comment was intentionally NOT directed at individuals. I felt (and still feel) that I clearly stated that.

The intention was to raise my perception that the board had become more intolerant and confrontational than it had in my previous experience. Not that it had degenerated into a terrible place, but that it was less hospitable than it had been. My hope from making the comment would be that everyone took time to consider the tone and content of their replies. Clearly most people already do. Again, this is not intended as a barbed comment!

I would assert that using "weaselly" as a word to describe your interpretation of my comments in a direct reply to me is inflammatory, and I'm hoping that you will see that on reflection. "Evasive" would have been the better choice. To say that someone's reply is employing a weaselly approach does suggest/infer that they are themself a weasel. If that was not the inference, fair enough.

Nonetheless, I was not attempting to be evasive. As I have already said, I had no desire to single people out or take part in a witch hunt on a public forum. If I had an issue that I felt I needed to address with someone, then I would take that up with the individual via the messaging system here, and I hope others would do the same if they had something to raise with me.

I don't have "beef" with anyone here, but again, I can't help how some comments are perceived. What I can assure you is that I consider my comments carefully before posting and  make every effort that I can to be civil, fair and measured.


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.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 06:23:28 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.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: radiator 05 June, 2019, 06:26:39 PM
Text only conversations have long been a issue as the reader brings far more to the interpretation of text than they do to in person interactions. informal text is even more interpretable as people will often not explain the how they intend something or in what context or from what source

Absolutely this, which is why it's a good general rule of thumb to be overly polite and try as much as possible to not to make sweeping statements. Emojis/emoticons, as much as they're despised by many, are actually really useful at denoting tone, helping to ensure that a sarcastic or jokey remark isn't taken as a blanket statement of fact etc.

In (rare) cases where someone is clearly trying to rile you or deliberately choosing to twist your words, as tempting as it is to take the bait simply ignoring them is a far better response than engaging and getting dragged into the muck. They want you to respond. By denying them that, you win by default. I like a lively discussion, but life's far too short for getting into arguments with relative strangers on the internet.  ;) ;) ;)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 05 June, 2019, 06:33:45 PM
Thanks, Tordels. It was of genuine concern to me that I'd upset you with that meme. I'm relieved to find out I'd misread the situation as I deeply appreciate our association here and would not wish to jeopardise it. You have been, and always shall be, a Gent.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 05 June, 2019, 06:34:54 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?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: moly 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
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 06:44:11 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.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 06:44:42 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.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 05 June, 2019, 06:52:53 PM


"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?

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Dandontdare 05 June, 2019, 06:53:47 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
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 06:56:46 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?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 05 June, 2019, 06:59:05 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..   
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 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.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 05 June, 2019, 07:08:01 PM

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!

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 07:15:47 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.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Steven Denton 05 June, 2019, 07:45:16 PM
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.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 07:58:33 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.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Steven Denton 05 June, 2019, 08:10:34 PM
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.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 05 June, 2019, 08:31:16 PM
I thought your were questioning why people would take offence.

Fuck ‘em.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Mister Pops 05 June, 2019, 08:34:37 PM
Sweet feckin Jesus, would ye ever just turn off your computers and go outside?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Tjm86 05 June, 2019, 08:55:00 PM
Sweet feckin Jesus, would ye ever just turn off your computers and go outside?

No, no, no .....


its

"Why don't you turn off your television set and go and do something more interesting instead!"

Please.

If you're going to give us late twentieth century pop culture references then at least get them right!

Sheesh!   :o

BTW - Mods, can we please get this thread relabelled as the "light blue touch paper and then stand back" thread?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 05 June, 2019, 09:14:38 PM
Sweet feckin Jesus, would ye ever just turn off your computers and go outside?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 05 June, 2019, 10:18:58 PM
Sweet feckin Jesus, would ye ever just turn off your computers and go outside?

"I only said I dun gone outside so they wouldn't give me another jalfrezi enema!"
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8070227ee267e6e614cd51afb124d62b/tumblr_mn7l9fszWg1snmmclo1_400.gif)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 05 June, 2019, 10:42:47 PM
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.


I know the one you mean - wish I could remember what it was called!


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!


Any suggestions on subjects?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Geoff 05 June, 2019, 11:11:43 PM
[One other observation on the topic; we are (generally) a group of blokes in our mid to late 40's, with a lot in common.
The fact we're even here yammering on about a comic that we never gave up for 4 decades is embarrassing enough - but to have a genuine - genuine - internet argument with another grown man over this bullshit? Most wouldn't - it's just too uncouth.
[/quote]

 :lol:

This little gem made reading through all that madness worthwhile!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Fungus 05 June, 2019, 11:53:12 PM
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

The frequently excellent Heresy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy_(radio_series))? The starting point is received wisdom and involves trying to smash it to bits. You'd be surprised how often that gets results (maybe not you Sharky  :) ).

Also: what a disappointing thread. Why am I reading this...?!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: abelardsnazz 06 June, 2019, 01:14:42 AM

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!

I'd like to start this thread, which the admins may wish to move, with the proposal: Stone Sour are better than Slipknot.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 06 June, 2019, 01:20:30 AM
I've heard of Slipknot, so they must be better.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 06 June, 2019, 06:55:14 AM



Any suggestions on subjects?


How about a nice, easy one to start with: "Does God exist?"

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: JayzusB.Christ 06 June, 2019, 07:12:50 AM



Any suggestions on subjects?


How about a nice, easy one to start with: "Does God exist?"

Yes, I do.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 06 June, 2019, 07:51:21 AM

No you don't, you only think you do.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 06 June, 2019, 09:01:00 AM
Also: what a disappointing thread. Why am I reading this...?!


Why do people look at car crashes?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 06 June, 2019, 09:02:03 AM
Any suggestions on subjects?

How about a nice, easy one to start with: "Does God exist?"

A bit frivolous, I feel.  How about "2000AD in the nineties wasn't as bad as everybody makes out"?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: SIP 06 June, 2019, 12:33:32 PM
Jim, tried to send you a message!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 06 June, 2019, 12:58:13 PM
Jim, tried to send you a message!

Huh. Sorry… Try it again!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Frank 06 June, 2019, 01:49:55 PM
How about "2000AD in the nineties wasn't as bad as everybody makes out"?

https://forums.2000ad.com/index.php?topic=42838.0


: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: shaolin_monkey 07 June, 2019, 12:43:10 PM
After reading through this entire thread I feel I have realised two things:

1)  There are many ways to argue on a forum, and none of them seem to arrive at the intended outcome.

2)  I've just wasted a good half hour where I could have been reading up on Exxon Mobil's history of climate change denial funding, the rare appearance of a carved Tibetan skull, or the history of the sock.


: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 07 June, 2019, 01:21:17 PM
, or the history of the sock.

I'd love to help out, but my knowledge has holes in ;)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Tiplodocus 07 June, 2019, 01:30:59 PM
That's a darned shame.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Link Prime 07 June, 2019, 01:46:11 PM
the history of the sock.

If ever a thread needed der Sternhammer Silencer...
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 07 June, 2019, 02:12:33 PM
Let's hope nobody acts the heel on this thread!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 07 June, 2019, 02:12:50 PM
(we don't want any toe to toe confrontations, after all)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 07 June, 2019, 02:13:05 PM
Though if we did, it'd be a shoe-in...
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 07 June, 2019, 02:13:21 PM
.







.











.










Did I miss any?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Link Prime 07 June, 2019, 02:23:42 PM

Did I miss any?

They're not gonna like your NYPD Shoe sketch.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 07 June, 2019, 02:32:15 PM

Did I miss any?

They're not gonna like your NYPD Shoe sketch.

I'm not familiar with that one - though it does remind me of Hell Street Shoes - an episode of Judge Dredd: City of the Damned, where Dredd and Anderson encounter vampire Hershey (Dredd's socks are stripy and boots are tight, would have to refer to the pages to check whether Cass and/or Barb's boots are high-heeled or not).
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Tjm86 07 June, 2019, 04:32:32 PM
Though if we did, it'd be a shoe-in...

That's enough of that thank you, this needs to be stamped out with a firm hand!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Mister Pops 07 June, 2019, 04:46:27 PM
Welly I don't aboot you but I'm starting to get a kick out of this. It could run and run.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Rackle 07 June, 2019, 05:02:34 PM
, or the history of the sock.

I'd love to help out, but my knowledge has holes in ;)

As one of the resident wool-crafty perps on the forum I might be able to help out.

Of course, I might just be spinning a long yarn on the matter, so will I help? I'm a frayed knot
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 07 June, 2019, 06:35:24 PM

The History of the Stocking is better. Trust me on this.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: shaolin_monkey 07 June, 2019, 07:06:13 PM
 :D

I line ‘em up, you knock ‘em down! Good work folks!  :lol:

Stockings eh..?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 07 June, 2019, 07:37:32 PM
Git your socks on, yur knicked!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Mister Pops 08 June, 2019, 01:53:51 AM
Darn!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Theblazeuk 08 June, 2019, 11:23:58 AM
Or are you saying that Wagner should literally work until he dies so that you can read Dredd strips penned by him? That seems a mite… I dunno… selfish?

They didn't say they demanded Wagner work forever at their pleasure. They didn't explicitly say that they were just sad they wouldn't get to read more stories by him either , you're very technically right, but your post is "Why"... and then your own supposition, which is a pretty insulting one.

Your supposition was weird. The closest you came to apologising - to admitting your error or that it was a weird assumption to make from a single sentence about being troubled by the potential end to Wagner-scripted Judge Dredd Stories was:

With respect, that's not what you said. I asked why you thought the news was troubling because those were the words you used. You can tell those were the words you used because you typed them and I quoted them in the post you replied to. If that's not what you meant then that's something completely different but I'm not psychic......
I'm sorry if you thought my tone was aggressive, but I don't see it. I asked you a question, based on the words you used to express a position. If those words didn't express that position, all you had to do was explain what you did mean and clarify a misunderstanding.

No one said you were psychic. You didn't just ask a question you did so and then provided your own answer using a supposition that was pretty insulting. I could invent some examples of how the original text was an accusation even if phrased as a question but honestly, do I really have to...? Everything up until that last sentence I quoted above was a usual, top notch response that provided a great perspective and useful information on making peace with the end of a Good Thing.

When DJ pointed out it was a little uncalled for:

A little, perhaps. I must be the first person on this forum to ever take someone's words to their logical if improbable conclusion in order to make a rhetorical point. I'm amazed it's never happened before.

Yeah it has happened before, no one said you were the only person to ever do it or history's greatest monster. No one came after you. The most that happened was a person pointed out an unpleasant thing that you suggested about them and asked you to tone it down a tad.




You're often right, but not always. I'm 100% confident you don't need me or anyone else to tell you that, but there's this thread right here, explicitly for discussing something I would just pass over. Again, This entire thing is because you accused someone of demanding John Wagner works until he dies and insisted on arguing the point when they said that was needlessly aggressive. I don't know you outside of this board but I really don't think you'd appreciate people using these rhetorical strategies with you or taking a stance like "Please cut out and keep this handy guide to refer to the next time you leap to outrage".


I think you can often make brilliantly rational and detailed posts. I think of myself as a mere cadet in the Justice Academy that is this board, and you as one of the Council made up of other luminaries past and present. I'd rather leave the board entirely than deprive it of you or your enjoyment of it. You don't affect my enjoyment of it in the slightest and you add to it in huge ways, and I'm sure that's true of everyone else.

I don't say all of *that* other than to try and make it clear, a 2000AD message board without Jim Campbell being Jim Campbell would be a darker future than anyone would want - and I dearly don't want to present what I'm saying as "The other side to an argument".


TLDR?  You said it yourself. Tone and implied meaning are hard to judge online. This is a case where you got something wrong and then seem to be baffled why other people then got you wrong, deepening the problem. Mileage may vary but it's easy just to say "Sorry, my mistake."
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Theblazeuk 08 June, 2019, 11:24:23 AM
Oh and fecking hell that's what I get for not reading all 8 pages of this, stick a bloody nail in it.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 08 June, 2019, 12:13:00 PM


    Wonderful post.



: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: paddykafka 08 June, 2019, 02:57:04 PM
I think that the link below is the best all round solution.  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: JayzusB.Christ 08 June, 2019, 03:42:20 PM
I think that the link below is the best all round solution.  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ


No it isn't.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: paddykafka 08 June, 2019, 03:59:26 PM
Oh, yes it is!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 12 June, 2019, 09:35:05 AM

Netherlands Discovers ‘Achilles Heel’ of Euthanasia. (https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/netherlands-discovers-achilles-heel-euthanasia)

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Frank 12 June, 2019, 10:00:30 AM

Netherlands Discovers ‘Achilles Heel’ of Euthanasia. (https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/netherlands-discovers-achilles-heel-euthanasia)

I've seen a lot of passive aggressive behaviour on the internet, but posting that here represents a new low.


: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: dweezil2 12 June, 2019, 10:14:12 AM
Sweet feckin Jesus, would ye ever just turn off your computers and go outside?

"I only said I dun gone outside so they wouldn't give me another jalfrezi enema!"
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8070227ee267e6e614cd51afb124d62b/tumblr_mn7l9fszWg1snmmclo1_400.gif)


I really miss Monkey Dust the world could really do with the program right now!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: dweezil2 12 June, 2019, 10:15:50 AM

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!

I'd like to start this thread, which the admins may wish to move, with the proposal: Stone Sour are better than Slipknot.

I've heard Slipknot so anything is better!  :lol:
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 12 June, 2019, 10:26:22 AM

Netherlands Discovers ‘Achilles Heel’ of Euthanasia. (https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/netherlands-discovers-achilles-heel-euthanasia)

I've seen a lot of passive aggressive behaviour on the internet, but posting that here represents a new low.




I thought we might have a discussion about an interesting topic. That's all.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Frank 12 June, 2019, 10:44:58 AM
Netherlands Discovers ‘Achilles Heel’ of Euthanasia. (https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/netherlands-discovers-achilles-heel-euthanasia)

I've seen a lot of passive aggressive behaviour on the internet, but posting that here represents a new low

I thought we might have a discussion about an interesting topic. That's all.

.. and I genuinely thought you'd posted on the wrong thread. I assumed that link was intended for the YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH* thread and was making what I hoped was a hilarious joke about your (assumed) error.

To be honest, now I know different, I still can't join the dots and follow you through the Looking Glass, but in the spirit of TordelBack's restorative practice, I'll apologise and vow to reflect further on my role in the misunderstanding.

Sorry, Shark.


* I was going to point out that The State has had several chances to let you be taken off its hands by entirely natural causes, but I've lost confidence in my abilities as a Shark whisperer
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 12 June, 2019, 11:38:12 AM
Sweet feckin Jesus, would ye ever just turn off your computers and go outside?

"I only said I dun gone outside so they wouldn't give me another jalfrezi enema!"
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8070227ee267e6e614cd51afb124d62b/tumblr_mn7l9fszWg1snmmclo1_400.gif)


I really miss Monkey Dust the world could really do with the program right now!
Sadly due to Harry Thompsons death due to lung cancer (he wasn't even a smoker apparently, utterly tragic) it seems the most under rated animated comedy will remain in it's cult statues.

Also I suspect theres zero chance of seasons 2 and 3 getting a dvd release after 15 years.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 12 June, 2019, 12:33:00 PM
Your apology is accepted, Frank. I'll have it dry-cleaned and returned to you presently because it's just not necessary.

I have expressed, on this very thread and no doubt very irritatingly, my yearning for a safe space for discussion and debate without the more caustic parts. Wouldn't it be great, the idealist on my shoulder whispered, if we could turn this very thread to that purpose - a place of debate where offence is not given, not taken and not tolerated. And whether this notion can manifest or not remained, buzzing about aimlessly in the weed-riddled garden of my mind.

When I read the article I linked to, I thought it raised some interesting questions and might do as a springboard for a discussion in the way I'd hoped.

I can see where I went wrong, though. Wrong article. Back-fire. Blinks stupidly. WOMP-womp.

The dots hereby joined, I return your apology unused as it's not required and offer you an apology of my own. It's worn a bit thin in places and some of the edges are a bit tatty but it's one of my oldest and best, "sorry for being such a knucklehead" apologies. Good throughout the Commonwealth, that is. Except the UK, obviously - Mrs Windsor and I are at loggerheads for the moment.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Professor Bear 12 June, 2019, 12:40:03 PM

Netherlands Discovers ‘Achilles Heel’ of Euthanasia. (https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/netherlands-discovers-achilles-heel-euthanasia)

Intellectual Takeout is a far right website, Sharky.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 12 June, 2019, 12:53:47 PM

So? If we look at only one side, how can we understand either?

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 12 June, 2019, 01:00:42 PM
Never accommodate neo-nazis. Never.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Professor Bear 12 June, 2019, 02:01:01 PM

So? If we look at only one side, how can we understand either?

Because I already know how racism works.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 12 June, 2019, 02:50:27 PM

This conversation is not progressing in anywhere near the direction I'd hoped for.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: JayzusB.Christ 12 June, 2019, 03:35:31 PM

So? If we look at only one side, how can we understand either?

Because I already know how racism works.

Also, lie down with dogs...
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 12 June, 2019, 04:18:55 PM

Does this mean that knowledge can only come from pure sources? And who decides what is a pure source and which are impure?

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Frank 12 June, 2019, 04:26:51 PM
Does this mean that knowledge can only come from pure sources? And who decides what is a pure source and which are impure?

This might prove a more productive strategy, mate:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jan/18/death-on-demand-has-euthanasia-gone-too-far-netherlands-assisted-dying


: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Jim_Campbell 12 June, 2019, 04:30:50 PM

This conversation is not progressing in anywhere near the direction I'd hoped for.

I know that feeling. ;-)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Mattofthespurs 12 June, 2019, 04:37:44 PM

This conversation is not progressing in anywhere near the direction I'd hoped for.

I know that feeling. ;-)

 :lol:

Best post of the whole thread (but then the bar was not set very high tbh)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 12 June, 2019, 05:02:05 PM

Does this mean that knowledge can only come from pure sources? And who decides what is a pure source and which are impure?

Preferably one that doesn't push Anti-Trans Right Rhetoric. (https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/i-was-once-transgender-why-i-think-trump-made-right-decision-military)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Tjm86 12 June, 2019, 05:13:48 PM

... who decides what is a pure source and which are impure?

That's easy.  Torquemada and his Thought Police.

"Be pure, Be vigilant, Behave!"
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 12 June, 2019, 05:33:12 PM

... who decides what is a pure source and which are impure?

That's easy.  Torquemada and his Thought Police.

"Be pure, Be vigilant, Behave!"

Sleep is no refuge for impure thoughts!
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: dweezil2 12 June, 2019, 08:46:05 PM
Sweet feckin Jesus, would ye ever just turn off your computers and go outside?

"I only said I dun gone outside so they wouldn't give me another jalfrezi enema!"
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8070227ee267e6e614cd51afb124d62b/tumblr_mn7l9fszWg1snmmclo1_400.gif)


I really miss Monkey Dust the world could really do with the program right now!
Sadly due to Harry Thompsons death due to lung cancer (he wasn't even a smoker apparently, utterly tragic) it seems the most under rated animated comedy will remain in it's cult statues.

Also I suspect theres zero chance of seasons 2 and 3 getting a dvd release after 15 years.

Yeah, I'd read that he'd passed away-tragic!  :(
Crying shame too, that those two seasons are unlikely to be released! :'(
Caustic satire of the highest calibre!  :thumbsup:
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: sheridan 13 June, 2019, 01:34:34 PM
Funny that idea about a 2000AD debating society should come up here, as the radio show discussed just started a new series this week:
Heresy (https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005t9g)

And the beeb also has an article about a sub-reddit on similar lines: blog (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-48579597)
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Steve Green 13 June, 2019, 06:30:39 PM
Sweet feckin Jesus, would ye ever just turn off your computers and go outside?

"I only said I dun gone outside so they wouldn't give me another jalfrezi enema!"
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/8070227ee267e6e614cd51afb124d62b/tumblr_mn7l9fszWg1snmmclo1_400.gif)


I really miss Monkey Dust the world could really do with the program right now!
Sadly due to Harry Thompsons death due to lung cancer (he wasn't even a smoker apparently, utterly tragic) it seems the most under rated animated comedy will remain in it's cult statues.

Also I suspect theres zero chance of seasons 2 and 3 getting a dvd release after 15 years.

Yeah, I'd read that he'd passed away-tragic!  :(
Crying shame too, that those two seasons are unlikely to be released! :'(
Caustic satire of the highest calibre!  :thumbsup:

Yeah, I worked on S3 - I never met Harry, but he was well regarded.

The follow-up was going to be a spin-off based on the Brummie Jihadis, but even without Harry's untimely death, the 2005 attacks would have made it impossible to make at that time.

There are a few of those BBC Choice/Three comedy programmes which have slipped through the cracks - don't think Monkey Dust or The Wrong Door are even available on iplayer.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 19 June, 2019, 02:48:32 PM


How to Argue With Kindness and Care: 4 Rules from Philosopher Daniel Dennett. (http://www.openculture.com/2019/06/how-to-argue-with-kindness-and-care-4-rules-from-philosopher-daniel-dennett.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpenCulture+%28Open+Culture%29)


: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Tiplodocus 19 June, 2019, 02:55:48 PM
Short version:

Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."

List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

Mention anything you have learned from your target.

Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.


But will they work on Nazis?
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 19 June, 2019, 03:09:23 PM



But will they work on Nazis?


Or other statists?

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 19 June, 2019, 09:51:26 PM
But will they work on Nazis?
Or other statists?

There is the danger, Shark, that you're inadvertently equating Nazis and people who like to be even mildly efficient.  I'm sure that's not what you meant to do.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: JayzusB.Christ 19 June, 2019, 09:56:14 PM



But will they work on Nazis?


Or other statists?

Not a great demonstration of the rules you've just endorsed, Sharky. And I'm saying that as something of an anarchist myself.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 19 June, 2019, 10:06:02 PM
But will they work on Nazis?
Or other statists?

There is the danger, Shark, that you're inadvertently equating Nazis and people who like to be even mildly efficient.  I'm sure that's not what you meant to do.

Not at all - I'm lumping all those who believe
in the rights of the state together...

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 19 June, 2019, 10:11:58 PM
I'm lumping all those who believe in the rights of the state together...

Well, at least you admit it!  :-\
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Enigmatic Dr X 19 June, 2019, 10:17:46 PM

Yer all a bunch of twats and everything you say is not just rubbish, it's stupid rubbish said by stupid twats.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Funt Solo 19 June, 2019, 10:21:04 PM
Gotta say that wasn't very enigmatic, Dr X.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Enigmatic Dr X 19 June, 2019, 10:23:48 PM
Gotta say that wasn't very enigmatic, Dr X.

I was going for offensive.
: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Frank 19 June, 2019, 10:32:35 PM
Gotta say that wasn't very enigmatic, Dr X.

Everybody's hilarious tonight


: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: The Legendary Shark 20 June, 2019, 06:33:31 AM

To clarify, not all statists are Nazis but all Nazis are statists. Without the power of the state backing them up, a Nazi is just a bigot.

: Re: Basic Argumentation, And The Causing Of Offence
: Hawkmumbler 25 June, 2019, 10:13:25 PM
Why you don't provide nazis a platform and then try to cover your own ass. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXZ6BZzQeCQ&t=1127s)

Crowder is not only a poor debater, he's also a complete racist tosser.