This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Humanity Should Reach for the Stars
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
You need a harder stomach. You can not fight crazy people by calling them crazy. Nor stupid by calling them stupid. Only by constructive criticism can you achieve to accomplish something (sometimes there's no help sadly) and only then you yourself are not stupid, crazy or one with the ridiculous idea.
I don't want to sway the person. It is beyond hopeless for me to make an impact in humanity to make them care for the unborn. All I can do is reassure myself of my own ethics. What reassures me of this is that pain and sickness I feel when I hear other people talk about abortion so approvingly, or uncareingly. That feeling, that sickness, is a comfort to me. It lets me know I am not like that other person.
I cherish my feeling of disgust when I hear the unethical bile spewing forth from the mouth of society.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I understand that, but was ridicule really the best possible route to take in the situation? It didn't prove your point, it didn't make him change his mind. So, what did it accomplish?
When someone thinks that an oxygen allotrope is more important than a human life, nothing is going to change his mind short of a sledgehammer.
Post by
MyTie
I understand that, but was ridicule really the best possible route to take in the situation? It didn't prove your point, it didn't make him change his mind. So, what did it accomplish?
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine babies are getting murdered legally. Now, you are in a conversation where someone just shrugged it off.
If you followed the above instructions correctly, you should be wiping tears of anger from your eyes.
Post by
HiVolt
I understand that, but was ridicule really the best possible route to take in the situation? It didn't prove your point, it didn't make him change his mind. So, what did it accomplish?
When someone thinks that an oxygen allotrope is more important than a human life, nothing is going to change his mind short of a sledgehammer.
And thus ridicule won't either. Thus it is unnecessary.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And thus ridicule won't either. Thus it is unnecessary.
Nothing is necessary. Me replying to you right here isn't necessary. Does that mean i shouldn't?
Post by
HiVolt
I understand that, but was ridicule really the best possible route to take in the situation? It didn't prove your point, it didn't make him change his mind. So, what did it accomplish?
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine babies are getting murdered legally. Now, you are in a conversation where someone just shrugged it off.
If you followed the above instructions correctly, you should be wiping tears of anger from your eyes.
Yes, you rightly should.
And as you said earlier, anger is not a bad thing.
But, actions spawned out of anger, more often than not, are bad.
Post by
MyTie
I think apple tastes better than pineapple and you don't. I will try to convince you if I cared for it that apple is in fact tastier but in the and I'll just have to accept you think pineapple is, although I find it appalling.
This would be a more accurate example if eating pineapple caused babies to die.
Post by
HiVolt
And thus ridicule won't either. Thus it is unnecessary.
Nothing is necessary. Me replying to you right here isn't necessary. Does that mean i shouldn't?
No, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't, but it doesn't mean that you should either.
Post by
MyTie
Yes, you rightly should.
And as you said earlier, anger is not a bad thing.
But, actions spawned out of anger, more often than not, are bad.
Thanks for this. I'm glad we understand eachother.
Edit: If I read of anyone shrugging off the death of an innocent human life, expecially under the age of 10, I'll more than likely give them a swift rebuke. Expect it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And thus ridicule won't either. Thus it is unnecessary.
Nothing is necessary. Me replying to you right here isn't necessary. Does that mean i shouldn't?
No, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't, but it doesn't mean that you should either.
But you're going to sit here and demand that I not ridicule? I'm not ridiculing the person, I'm ridiculing the ridiculous opinion.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
HiVolt
And thus ridicule won't either. Thus it is unnecessary.
Nothing is necessary. Me replying to you right here isn't necessary. Does that mean i shouldn't?
No, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't, but it doesn't mean that you should either.
But you're going to sit here and demand that I not ridicule? I'm not ridiculing the person, I'm ridiculing the ridiculous opinion.
I'm not demanding, I'm just trying to point out that ridicule often solves nothing.
If I read of anyone shrugging off the death of an innocent human life, expecially under the age of 10, I'll more than likely give them a swift rebuke. Expect it.
I will, but if I read it and I wish to participate in the conversation, I'll try a more constructive apporoach.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not demanding, I'm just trying to point out that ridicule often solves nothing.
You agreed that argument wouldn't solve anything either, yet you advocate that.
Logic gap.
Post by
HiVolt
While I don't disagree that presenting evidence against an argument is a far more effective way of swaying someone than just simply stating "no, you are wrong", giving someone any form of validation for their beliefs is not the way to introduce criticism. It allows the person the defence of "well these are my beliefs and I'm not changing them.
Well, saying outright that you accept the opinion may not be the best route either. Perhaps word choice has me by the short hairs again.
How about this:
Person1: I believe the world is flat.
Person2: While you may think the world is flat, <insert evidence> proves that it is in fact round.
Post by
MyTie
If I read of anyone shrugging off the death of an innocent human life, expecially under the age of 10, I'll more than likely give them a swift rebuke. Expect it.
I will, but if I read it and I wish to participate in the conversation, I'll try a more constructive apporoach.
Perhaps anger is sometimes constructive? I may not change the opinion of the jerk who doesn't care about dead babies, but I might succeed in salvaging a bit of hope in humanity, at least in my own eyes, by tearing down his house of horror.
Post by
HiVolt
I'm not demanding, I'm just trying to point out that ridicule often solves nothing.
You agreed that argument wouldn't solve anything either, yet you advocate that.
Logic gap.
I think this is what you're referring to.
I'm not saying that you need to eat the crap people feed you. I'm saying it's a better method to try and sway someone's opinion through constructive means. Otherwise you end up in an endless argument with no winner foreseeable.
Like it says, swaying someone's opinion through constructive means is a more valid tactic. If you start out with ridicule, chances are, all you will get in return is ridicule. Thus the argument devolves, and there is no winner.
Post by
HiVolt
Perhaps anger is sometimes constructive? I may not change the opinion of the jerk who doesn't care about dead babies, but I might succeed in salvaging a bit of hope in humanity, at least in my own eyes, by tearing down his house of horror.
Perhaps it is, if the anger is directed and controlled properly.
Post by
MyTie
Like it says, swaying someone's opinion through constructive means is a more valid tactic. If you start out with ridicule, chances are, all you will get in return is ridicule. Thus the argument devolves, and there is no winner.
The point isn't to win an argument. The point isn't to sway his opinion. That quite obviously isn't going to happen. The point is to express shock, anger, and remorse, as if the very fibers you are made of have just been savagely burned.
Post by
451639
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.