by Terry 135 Replies latest jw friends
I fear the world would be incredibly boring if we all seperated our ideas from our personalities...especially on an internet forum.
Your ideas in a sense...are who you are.
I hope you are not defending the ad-hominem personal attacks on Terry in that thread in question. That was way over the line and went far beyond exchange of ideas. I am still surprised the thread was not locked.
I'm not saying we have to be pussycats and rainbows. I'm simply asking why we can't be more to the point, more respectful and less deliberately combative
Without naming names I will offer my personal opinion that there appear to be members of this community who serve only one function and that one function isn't the free exchange of important ideas as much as it is to start arguments that go nowhere and to fan flame wars with personal ad hominem
I totally agree with you. We all need to be able to discuss a subject without resorting to personal attacks against those who don't agree with our point of view. This includes us all, fomer Bethelite or former publisher. I have been appalled at how some of the recent threads had dissolved into name calling and putting people down.~~~P.H.G
Well thank you so much for this topic Terry. I know that you have idea's extremely different from mine... yet you are approachable
I have no fear that you will turn to personal attack. In a polite way I have been trying to give comments much like those above.
personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim
Cheers to you Terry
I hope you are not defending the ad-hominem personal attacks on Terry in that thread in question.
I'm not...I liked his posts and agree with most all of them that I read...(I didn't read everything though I must admit)
Is this thread just about that one? I thought it was general.
I thought she did that so that people would see his opening post, so he could get some response on what he had posted...not because it was off topic. And I agree, that was nice of her.
still thinking,
You may be right. I guess I was just impressed with her reply that as you stated “ was nice of her.” Although I love a spirited and controversial debate, I am more likely to listen to a “dignified” comment that addresses the issue at hand than to one that resorts to personal attacks. After the comments resort to personal attacks, the issue goes to hell; no one benefits.
Terry,
maybe you should ask Farkel - he's the king of personal attacks in lieu of intelligent discussion.
I think many people resort to personal attack because of some preceived hypocracy...but does this invalidate ones point ?
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.
Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy as long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety .
(I am not making direct reference to any situation or thread here)
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION about the idea of being more civil, respectful, on topic and less discourteously personal here on J-W-net??
My opinion is that sounds lovely ;)
I have to go to work, but I will check in on this thread later.
Peace,
tammy
" maybe you should ask Farkel - he's the king of personal attacks in lieu of intelligent discussion."
And by the way, on the said shit storm I did not get any personal than what has been revealed on this forum and even then I didn't go there like some did. I simply did not agree with the negative premise.
There is no room for personal attacks here or at any other discsussion board, or in any discussion, period. It's not only disrespectful, but it's an indication of laziness of thought and lack of evidence (or research to find evidence) for or against a point of view/argument.
Personal means actually NAMING a person and referring to them in a way that provokes a defense on their part to a perceived insult.
A general statement such as "the Rich" or "the Poor" or "Democrats" or "Republicans" is quite different from a statement about "Joe", "Mary", "Jose" or
"Abu" that places them in a disparaging context.
An "unwelcomed" statement directed toward person A by person B is made. AS PERCEIVED by person A, these statements are intimidating, hostile or offensive. This is harrassment.
If those statements are sexual in nature it is sexual harrassment. If the statements are about, family, finances, character or reputation instead--it remains harrassment.
Today the common term is "CYBER-BULLYING". The use of the Internet or text messages to start rumors, defamation or reveal personal information about specific persons by name is harrassment.
It is a hostile act to call people out. It tampers with their privacy and their right to pursuit of happiness in the Constitutional sense. This is why laws are being enacted and enforced.
It is bad manners, anti-social and immature behavior.
The continued use of language, opinions, references and inuendo specifically by naming people and ridiculing them, devaluing them and baiting them for follow up attacks is so much a part of Political in-fighting it has invaded TV, Radio, Newpapers and conversation.
Can any of us say this is making a Better World?
We can't prevent others from rot gut conversation, but, we can personally refrain from our own use of this bad behavior.
