Discussion about acceptable styles of argument in VPT

[pietillidie]

^I know; informed analysis is a bit feminine for Real Men [TM] like you! If only serious problem solving efforts shared the profound breadth of community support your fundamentalist chest beating enjoys...





I say bring back real men who can defend the Western Enlightenment from Islam!

[Mugwump]

^I know; informed analysis is a bit feminine for Real Men [TM] like you! If only serious problem solving efforts shared the profound breadth of community support your fundamentalist chest beating enjoys...





I say bring back real men who can defend the Western Enlightenment from Islam!

Ptid, you're at it again. Wokko has a different view to you about Islam and its expansionist aspirations. It is debatable, but not without some basis for argument. He could presumably post pictures of Isis beheadings and Bin Laden and imply that these represent your views, but he has the reasonableness and etiquette not to do so. I think you should show him the courtesy of engaging with his argument, rather than cheap sarcasm and caricature. That style of posting is abusive.

[pietillidie]

Ptid, you're at it again. Wokko has a different view to you about Islam and its expansionist aspirations. It is debatable, but not without some basis for argument. He could presumably post pictures of Isis beheadings and Bin Laden and imply that these represent your views, but he has the reasonableness and etiquette not to do so. I think you should show him the courtesy of engaging with his argument, rather than cheap sarcasm and caricature. That style of posting is abusive.

No, it isn't. It's sarcastic in the very same way John Stewart and John Oliver mock the lunacy of politicians and others *nightly*. Others in the media are far, far more caustic. But your problem is somehow only with my free speech. Do you not see any problems with that given your frequent impassioned defense of other people's right to caustically criticise nonsense to the extent of their free speech rights? Targeting me exclusively is of course extremely biased and unacceptable by any fair standard.

Some things are pretty obviously destructive and warrant being called as determined so: Howard's children overboard and Beazley's sickly complicity which unleashed 15 years of hysteria and social conflict distracting from resolution of the actual problem; Bush and Cheney's blatantly obvious corrupt conflicts of interest; Blair's impassioned pleas based on information you could fit on the head of a pin with room spare; the invasion of Afghanistan; the invasion of Iraq; the $3T war expenditure; the scuppering of the HQ NBN; the self-centred intellectual and moral incompetence of Abbott; the clown-like nothingness of Milliband and Shorten; the failed authoritarian NT impositions on indigenous peoples (and Mabo and The Apology opposition prior); the failed European austerity religion (with thanks to Krugman's tutoring); the hideous US healthcare system (improved under Obama, mercifully); the idiocy of US gun laws; the centrality of declining real wages as a matter of economic urgency; the parochial politicisation of the global refugee problem which stole a decade from the opportunity to put a solution in place; the horrific notion of a privatised prison system and US rates of incarceration; the systematic attack on science by the fossil fuels industry, resulting in more pollution, more damage to wonders like the GBR, and more hideous mining pock marks and mountain top loss; the systematic lies claiming alternative and green energy are unviable even as their prices plummet and efficiency skyrockets; and many more.

Now, you might think the thugs, miscreants and paranoid adherents orchestrating or profiteering from or promoting or spreading propaganda on behalf of these mischiefs warrant a warm smile and the politeness of the Goofy Gophers; but I don't.

In my assessment, you have a compromised value system, which, for all your strengths in so many areas, suffers lies and deceptive manipulation for the sake of keeping the peace. I get that as it's a mainstream personality type and by no means odd. But, it does mean you're of no use once the due diligence is done and judgement calls need to be made. I've also told David he's over-concerned with being popular, though he's younger than you by a bit IIRC, so it goes with the turf of his age group a bit more.

In a world of statistical illusion, it is very easy to spread misinformation and deception, and it is extremely simple to scare the vulnerable and naive shiteless by peppering them with non-factual, non-statistical, fear-mongering rubbish.

Do you view the Catholic Church tolerating preaching against the use of condoms in Africa as warranting a warm smile and polite expression of disagreement, too? Was that great propagandist Tetzel just ahead of his time in his innovative use of free speech?

You see no ethical breach in what Wokko does, apparently, but I see gross negligence in it, whether he grasps that or not. I know he's just guessing and following paradigmatic assumptions to the point of religious adherence. But, because I support free speech, I'm not here to stop him, just to counter the worst of the rubbish with my own free speech.

I look forward to a time where you find the fortitude to deploy your free speech in aid of taking some of the burden of dealing with those whose End is Nigh free speech din is scaring the crap out of the naive, scuppringefforts at sane problem solving, and providing a platform of support for highly-destructive politicians and parasitic money grabbers.

You have a certain assessment of me, too, which is fine and welcome. But, I would argue, your preference for the misleading deception of others over my taking of exception to it is unwarranted and unfairly biased. I would be far, far happier if you corrected my factual errors and exaggerations, *and* put the same effort into correcting the factual errors and exaggerations of others, fairly and equally. Oh, and opposed the use of sarcasm and mockery as a general principle, rather than as a free speech constraint which should only apply to me and no one else. That, I think, would be a win for everybody.

[think positive]

No PTID that's not humor, it's sarcasm covering up nastiness big difference. You will note this isn't the first time you've been called on it and not the same poster either.

When I feel like 1/2 the worlds against me I check out my own behavior, cheers

[pietillidie]

^Wrong. It's identical to the use of free speech by others night after night and day after day as is their right. Sarcasm is a fine and standard use of language; you not liking it is your individual choice. I think the Taliban might hate it, too; but I don't care what they think, either. It's my free speech combatting deception, ignorance and hysteria as my rights provide.

And I don't think the world is against me at all. You must have an extremely narrow set of friends and associates; most informed people I know with world experience think Wokko-type views are ridiculous, destructive and cringeworthy. Remember all those buffoons who supported Afghanistan and Iraq, and then that twit Abbott? They said *exactly* the same thing back then as you. *Exactly*. And guess what? It's mostly the same conservative, histrionic people making the same ignorant claims again based on a pittance of world, geographic, cultural and psychological knowledge.

It's time for you to show responsibility and support those who understand the dynamics at play and want to work with the knowns to come up with a workable, sustainable real-world solution.

Note, the other buffoons have already wasted a decade of good planning and management opportunity shrieking like demon-possessed street cats, spending trillions of dollars causing more terrorism, more refugees, and more damaged international relationships.

Take responsibility, TP. Learn from the errors of the past. Evolve.

[Wokko]

<snip - please refrain from armchair psychiatric analysis of other posters.> I'm not going to bother with giving you an argument, because you <snip> will never, ever accept a view other than your own. I would also add, if you're going to attempt 'humour' to hide your passive aggressive nastiness, try making it funny and not just a rehash of tired, leftist memes.

If you're going to harp on and on with the same old tired cliches then you might also like to add the 8 years of the Obama led drone bombing campaigns, or the 6 years of our own Labor government. Maybe bring up Keating who began mandatory detention or Rudd who cracked down harder than even Howard ever did. You're blinkered, and your tunnel vision is SO overwhelming that you don't even seem to know you are.

I know you'll never change your view though, because it's impossible to argue someone out of a position they didn't think themselves into.

[pietillidie]

Your narcissistic arrogance borders on psychopathy. I'm not going to bother with giving you an argument, because you're nothing but a bigot who will never, ever accept a view other than your own. I would also add, if you're going to attempt 'humour' to hide your passive aggressive nastiness, try making it funny and not just a rehash of tired, leftist memes.

If you're going to harp on and on with the same old tired cliches then you might also like to add the 8 years of the Obama led drone bombing campaigns, or the 6 years of our own Labor government. Maybe bring up Keating who began mandatory detention or Rudd who cracked down harder than even Howard ever did. You're blinkered, and your tunnel vision is SO overwhelming that you don't even seem to know you are.

I know you'll never change your view though, because it's impossible to argue someone out of a position they didn't think themselves into.

But I completely agree on Obama's cowardly imperialist drones and ALP complicity on asylum seekers and have stated that explicitly and repeatedly on Nick's. However, I do think the former is yours, David's and Jezza's specialty rather than mine; I don't track everything.

You've never heard me utter contempt for American imperialism under Obama before, or condemn ALP complicity and crawling before? You just invented an entirely new set of fictions! I don't think you mean to do it; possibly, you struggle to grasp that others support ideas and policies, not parties. Do you honestly think I would vote for the current ALP or any major US party at all?

BTW, I was actually not aware, or not concerned back in the day of what H-K did in regard to asylum seekers; but, as with their dogmatic privatisation, I completely disagree with it now. However, I have tracked the present asylum seekers debate very closely from day 1, so I know much more about it.

And, sadly for you, I could name a dozen substantial things I've changed my mind on due to research and living in the UK and visiting/pondering Germany and the US this year alone. What made you think you had enough information and have investigated my thinking well enough to even get close to knowing that? I have to stop to think about it and make a list myself.

Do you honestly expect your spam links to embarrassing duplicated fringe media, combined with world observations from your bedroom, ought to convince anyone you understand the social dynamics of world culture and religion?

Get off your backside and do some serious study and get out and about in the world, rather than reading horrifically LQ shite all day, and copying and pasting it everywhere <snip>. Other people's lives and livelihoods are not a matter of blind faith or gut reactions, <snip - please refrain from name-calling>.

As hard as it is to stomach someone who mocks you using the rights free speech affords them to offset your misleading, poorly-researched claims, the simple fact is that knowing the usual ignorant and hysterical conservatives are wrong *again*, and have failed to conduct sufficient research *again*, and have little world experience *again*, and are misleading people *again*, and are causing panic *again*, is not arrogant; it's a sound conclusion based on the facts as obvious and experience as repeated.

[think positive]

^Wrong. It's identical to the use of free speech by others night after night and day after day as is their right. Sarcasm is a fine and standard use of language; you not liking it is your individual choice. I think the Taliban might hate it, too; but I don't care what they think, either. It's my free speech combatting deception, ignorance and hysteria as my rights provide.

And I don't think the world is against me at all. You must have an extremely narrow set of friends and associates; most informed people I know with world experience think Wokko-type views are ridiculous, destructive and cringeworthy. Remember all those buffoons who supported Afghanistan and Iraq, and then that twit Abbott? They said *exactly* the same thing back then as you. *Exactly*. And guess what? It's mostly the same conservative, histrionic people making the same ignorant claims again based on a pittance of world, geographic, cultural and psychological knowledge.

It's time for you to show responsibility and support those who understand the dynamics at play and want to work with the knowns to come up with a workable, sustainable real-world solution.

Note, the other buffoons have already wasted a decade of good planning and management opportunity shrieking like demon-possessed street cats, spending trillions of dollars causing more terrorism, more refugees, and more damaged international relationships.



Take responsibility, TP. Learn from the errors of the past. Evolve.

Taking responsibility for my actions is my specialty!

<snip - please refrain from personal abuse>

[pietillidie]

^The curious thing to me is what makes you think your personal dislike of sarcasm ought to be generalized into a form of censorship. Isn't that type of thing you dislike about fundamentalist Islam?

And why aren't you worried that blindly overreacting to a complex world situation *again* won't cause worse problems? If you're a truly responsible person, shouldn't you be warning people to be cautious about complex, remote events involving millions of people, war and huge economic forces, on which we have very poor information? Shouldn't you be reminding people of the complete hashof everything the overreaction caused last time? Aren't you worried mismanagement might cause more terrorism?

Please, show us this renowned personal responsibility so I can spend less time on this stuff.

[David]

In my assessment, you have a compromised value system, which, for all your strengths in so many areas, suffers lies and deceptive manipulation for the sake of keeping the peace. I get that as it's a mainstream personality type and by no means odd. But, it does mean you're of no use once the due diligence is done and judgement calls need to be made. I've also told David he's over-concerned with being popular, though he's younger than you by a bit IIRC, so it goes with the turf of his age group a bit more.

I think the crucial point here lies in the saying that "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar". Which is not to say that I won't go hard if I find a comment offensive or harmful, or that I spend most of my life sucking up to people. I'd be disappointed if that's the impression you've gained.

For me, this is far less an issue of etiquette than one of effective communication. I think it's self-evident that conducting debate in a spirited but respectful manner ensures that the channel remains open for next time, thus increasing the likelihood of people considering the point you're trying to make. Aggression that strays from the boundaries of the argument and veers into name-calling and general ad hominem attack seems to me a primitive response. It might feel temporarily good to put someone in their place, but your entire strategy is dependent on shaming, inhibition and ostracism (i.e. by dismissing someone with sufficient force, others will think that they are stupid and no longer wish to be associated with them). The cognitive sciences are pretty clear on shaming, from my understanding: while it may have limited use in provoking behavioural change, it has a lot of nasty side effects, not least of which are defensiveness, aggression, marginalisation and entrenchment. The argument is never actually resolved; you've simply 'won' the debate with a blunt instrument and left your opponent's views intact, except with a new level of resentment and a harder heart.

And if you fail to rally enough troops to banish your opponent, the result is that you yourself can end up marginalised and no longer in a position to persuade anyone but the converted.

A far more effective approach, in my view, is to keep the channel open and keep chipping away at the argument, appealing to logic and rational thought. If that seems weak and ineffective, keep in mind that Damascus Road conversions are the exception, not the norm. It's rare for people's core political beliefs to change significantly once they're set in stone.

But respectful argument is not just another way to spread the gospel to the gentiles; it's essential because we, too, are almost certainly wrong on various topics, and thus respectful argument is as important a part of our intellectual development as anyone else's.

I am not saying that we need to nod politely and only feebly respond to people spread hateful, damaging misinformation. We need to argue, with all the fierceness we can muster - but in such a way that our arguments might actually be heard, and not just be interpreted as the chest-beating of the bigger gorilla at the watering hole.

The challenge is to engage. If you're not doing that, you're wasting your time.

Sure!

(I hope people won't mind, but I think this is relevant to the thread at hand, because our understanding and capacity for empathy play a large role in how we deal with issues like accepting refugees, so these recommendations are for everyone.)

A Separation: A husband and wife who have been separated for a while try to get divorced, but things spiral out of control when a housemaid makes an allegation of abuse. A great thriller, really keeps you on the edge of your seat.
The Circle: about five Iranian women who encounter various forms of persecution. One of the best films about sexism and discrimination in that country.
Wadjda: A Saudi film about a 10 year old girl who wants to ride a bicycle. Probably one of the more accessible films here, I think you'd love it TP.
The Wind Will Carry Us: A documentary crew from the city visits an Iranian country town to report on its strange funeral customs, but the old woman at the centre of their story won't die.
The White Balloon: A little girl goes to buy a goldfish but loses her money down the drain. This was one of the first Iranian films I ever watched, and I really loved it.

Good stuff, David. I bought Wadjda and The Wind will Carry us on
Amazon. The White Ballon is out of stock, unfortunately. Will take a look next weekend ! Thanks

No worries! I hope you enjoy them - both great films. I'm not used to people on here taking heed of my film recommendations, I have to say.

[watt price tully]

Can everyone please take a cold shower, together

This thread is about how many Syrian refugees should we take.

Can we stop the online nastiness from everyone as you are all a bunch of left wing, crazy right wing nutters who support religious atheistic dogma in bigoted liberal ways from looney libertarians to rabidly right wing reactionaries with self made store keeper-mentality whose idea of art is Jamie Coopers footy iconography while holding a shot gun & drinking a keg of beer before lunch complaining about a footy player who happens to snort a line of coke saying I can't stand political correctness while breathing in the fumes of methane gas while changing a tap washer and denying aboriginal history saying they brought it own themselves while reading the guardian inserted into the herald sun as an insert of the new left weekly then complaining about bicyclists while driving a 4 wheel drive over a boy scout holding hands with a girl guides in the shelter-sheds during recess at the state private school parent - teachers night when complaining that people on the dole get too much money while my family trust rips off tax free monies form the state (legally sanctioned of course) & of course boo Adam Goodes continually, relentlessly & mercilessly while denying any links whatsoever with racism.

I say a group hug is in order.

Bring in 3 Syrians during the non trading period.

The gazillions funded by the oil rich states funding ISIS, Yemen, Hezbollah, Boko & Hamas could be better spent on building facilities in their own countries to assist the Syrian refugees. Language & religious barriers will not be an issue.

[David]

Oh, and I should add that all that is not merely my personal view but also the expected standard of conduct on this forum. That is less an ideological decision on the part of the administrator and moderation team than an attempt to maintain a functional community.

That standard may not always be enforced as well as it should be, but it is expected that debate here be conducted respectfully and without personal attacks. Everything I have 'snipped' over the past couple of pages in this thread was in clear breach of the rules, and I'd ask you all to keep that in mind in future.

[watt price tully]

Oh, and I should add that all that is not merely my personal view but also the expected standard of conduct on this forum. That is less an ideological decision on the part of the administrator and moderation team than an attempt to maintain a functional community.

That standard may not always be enforced as well as it should be, but it is expected that debate here be conducted respectfully and without personal attacks. Everything I have 'snipped' over the past couple of pages in this thread was in clear breach of the rules, and I'd ask you all to keep that in mind in future.

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

[Wokko]

Oh, and I should add that all that is not merely my personal view but also the expected standard of conduct on this forum. That is less an ideological decision on the part of the administrator and moderation team than an attempt to maintain a functional community.

That standard may not always be enforced as well as it should be, but it is expected that debate here be conducted respectfully and without personal attacks. Everything I have 'snipped' over the past couple of pages in this thread was in clear breach of the rules, and I'd ask you all to keep that in mind in future.

The thing is David, this has all been said time and time and time again, I finally went nuclear because I'd had enough. What makes you think your latest appeal to sanity is going to cut through? I've been able to have spirited, polite, intellectually rigorous discussions with just about every incarnation of political opponent and never felt as put down and abused as happens here. Even Clementine Ford's facebook page denizens were at least open in their abuse, it's the sly sneering that gets under everybody's skin and 'unrepentant' is the most polite discriptor I can use for our resident know-it-all.

[think positive]

Oh, and I should add that all that is not merely my personal view but also the expected standard of conduct on this forum. That is less an ideological decision on the part of the administrator and moderation team than an attempt to maintain a functional community.

That standard may not always be enforced as well as it should be, but it is expected that debate here be conducted respectfully and without personal attacks. Everything I have 'snipped' over the past couple of pages in this thread was in clear breach of the rules, and I'd ask you all to keep that in mind in future.

Uh huh

And exactly what am I meant to take responsibility for, what errors of the past, and why do I need to evolve? There are those of us here, who feel these kind of comments are a lot more personal and nasty, than the words I used. Do I need to get a thesaurus out to prevent my posts being altered, when bullshit thrown at me, and others, is allowed to stay.

Oh and snap wokko!