|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 07/21/2004 : 17:57:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I didn't "attack" Renae with my "emotional turmoil" comment. I described what I perceived as her emotional state.
Considering that you lack any evidence whatsoever concerning the "emotional state" of any person you communicate with via a message board... making comments about it can only be deemed insulting.
You general tone, Les, is somewhat overbearing, your style is very "in-your-face", and your verbiage less than tactfull.
So, yes, your being a bully. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 18:27:25 [Permalink]
|
| Renae, I apologize for my comments regarding your emotional state. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26024 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 18:29:02 [Permalink]
|
Edited to pre-pend: dangit, you try to have a private conversation with a person on a public message board, and people keep barging in! 
Les wrote:quote:
If two people are disagreeing about a definition, what else to do than go to the dictionary? How is it disrespectful to read a definition from a dictionary?
Well, I didn't see much of an attempt on your part to define skepticism other than to go to the dictionary, which implied (to me) a snarkiness (which may not have been intended), and also implied a demand that Renae somehow conform to the dictionary definition, while in reality there are worlds of subtleties about skepticism which aren't captured by Merriam Webster one-liners. A more personable and respectful route would have been simply to discuss what 'skepticism' means to you, rather than quickly turn to an "authority."
Note well: I've quoted the dictionary at people before, but half the time, it was because I intended to be disrespectful.quote:
I agree I should have presented the evidence. But to suggest that's "bullying" is incorrect, I believe. To "bully" someone is to unfairly take advantage of their weaknesses, not ask them to provide evidence I should have provided myself.
A typical schoolyard bully demands that a person agree with them (either through words or actions), regardless of whether the bully is right or wrong. You may have known you were right, but by not presenting the evidence you said, in effect, that you didn't really care what Renae thought of it, you simply wanted to be right. Again, I'm just talking about appearances here, not your actual motivations and feelings, which are unknown to me.quote:
I'm tempted to look up "bullying," but I wouldn't want you to think I was being disrespectful.
Here's my problem with the definition you offered (above): many people unfairly take advantage of others' weaknesses (con-men, burglars, or even panty-raiders, for example), but not all of them are bullies. Bullies tend to be - or at least appear - more sociopathic.
Since Renae brought it up, perhaps we should get her input on this - what she thinks of as bullying - too.quote:
I disagree. When someone accuses me of "attacking" them when I'm not, I will encourage them to relax.
I'm genuinely curious: does that practice really get you very far? When the object of my displeasure tells me to "calm down" or relax, it usually pisses me off even more. Most of the time, the person saying "relax" is really only a hairs-breadth calmer than I, anyway. Perhaps it's just me, but the only time a person can effectively tell me to relax when I'm upset is when that person is a disinterested party. The way my "opponents" can get me to relax is to take a different tack in the dicsussion. If it's just me (and I honestly don't know), I apologize.quote:
Following one ad hominem after another, she said she was through with the argument and I simply expressed relief.
And as I said, it was unnecessary.quote:
I didn't "attack" Renae with my "emotional turmoil" comment. I described what I perceived as her emotional state. I NEVER, not once, attacked her personally or her personality as she did mine or assumed things about her life life as she did mine. Again, I disagree that I "bullied" her.
Sorry, but since your description of her emotional state was completely unrequired by your argument - it would have stood as well as it did without it - it was, indeed, a "personal attack." Whether or not she did the same to you is irrelevant to my answer of your request for information, as I stated.quote:
Having read lots of posts in other folders, I've observed a lot of arguments that, by your definition were "disrespectful" and "bullying," though I would have described them as "spirited." Maybe that's the place for me to go.
No, nuh-uh, no way. You asked for the above. It's not like I just decided to dump a bunch of perceived failures in your lap. Suck it up and deal - agree or disagree - but don't start making comparisons which are unwarranted. How others have posted elsewhere is completely irrelevant to my points.
Had I posted a "this is how I would expect everyone to act while writing on the SFN" message, using you as a "what not to do" example, your response above might have made sense. But I didn't. I did take the time to write a couple of paragraphs for the general audience here on why I think that demanding a high-level of skepticism in this particular folder isn't a good idea, but that's not nearly the same thing.
I expect that people will get disrespectful, bullying, and even hateful at times in these forums. I've done it myself, and have even apologized for it. I understand how and why it happens. This particular thread was different, though, because you asked. And you asked as if you honestly perceived no problems whatsoever with what you'd posted, and were genuinely curious as to how Renae formed her opinions of you. The first part of my response, beginning with a simple "okay," was meant to be matter-of-fact about my own impressions of parts of your posts in this thread, and nothing more. It assuredly was not meant to be a "Guide to SFN Behaviour" or anything like it. I wouldn't be able to follow it myself 100% of the time.
(Note also, before all you wise-asses start in on me, that I am not condoning disrespect, bullying, and/or hatefulness here.  )quote:
Dave, you are 100% right that I pulled the "thousands of times" reference out of my ass in a frenzied state. I retract it.
Okay by me. I'll skip answering your other points on the drug subject (or on your governmental philosophy related to it), but I would like to say that I'm still interested in the correct numbers, as I, also, feel the "War on Drugs" has failed but for apparently different reasons than you. Perhaps you'd like to start a "War on Drugs" thread in the Social Issues folder, in which we can examine these things more closely?quote:
I also believe that, in the future, when political comments appear to be upsetting a person I'm disagreeing with, I'll be sure to |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 18:55:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
You general tone, Les, is somewhat overbearing, your style is very "in-your-face", and your verbiage less than tactfull.
So, yes, your being a bully.
Bullies prey on those weaker than themselves. If Renae was a child or in some other way less intelligent than I am or less able to defend herself, then I would be a bully. But she has been, from the get-go, my equal. I don't think it's possible to bully an equal. I admit to not making my arguments as clearly or civilly as I could have, but not to bullying.
Bullies force confrontation on those who don't want one. This is a voluntary board, where people post of their own free will. If I had personally emailed Renae to continue my ill-thought rants, THAT might qualify as bullying.
I believe that, once I questioned the the Democrats' ethical behavior, Renae's comments were also overbearing, "in-your-face," and less than tactful. I've seen a lot of "in-your-face," and less than tactful comments made by lots of posters here, and while I don't condone that, none of them were accused of "bullying." When people roll their eyes and use sarcasm towards the creationsts here, are they being bullies? I don't think so. I think they're conversing in the closest way to actual, face to face interaction you can on a message board.
Renae was not being a "bully" when she accused me of being a cynic, hating all politicians, hating all Democrats, "demanding" that others see things my way, or insisting that parties must be 100% perfect. Or even when she suggested that I might be "worse" than a bully (whatever that meant). She was merely attempting to make an argument.
Look, I blew it completely when I started arguing about the War on Drugs, because I let my passion for the subject trump my ability to argue coherently or civily and I've apologized for it. But I can't bring myself to apologize for being a "bully" because I don't think the term applies. |
| Edited by - Les on 07/21/2004 19:12:08 |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 19:01:17 [Permalink]
|
I don't know, maybe we should turn this into a discussion of how arguments are peceived on message boards.
Dave, both you and Renae have accused me "demanding" that people see things my way. I sincerely don't understand this.
If you say "A is true" and why, and I disagree, saying "B is true" and why, how is that a "demand" that you agree that "B" is true? We're all just putting down what we believe in and why. I don't get this "demand" thing. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 19:46:15 [Permalink]
|
Okay. I think I get. When you say, "demand," you're describing my tone and not my precise words.
See, I've really been thinking about this because I don't usually have unpleasant disagreements in my life. I'm rather amiable, actually. But there's something about typing an intense conversation, that, for me, short-circuited my ability to translate my thoughts and feelings in this medium.
So, Renae, everyone, a final apology for my thoughtless tone.
I'm sure I'll disagree as strongly in the future, but I promise to make more of an effort to present information to you instead of grabbing you by the shirt(s) and yelling it in your ear(s). |
| Edited by - Les on 07/21/2004 22:47:50 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 21:12:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bullies prey on those weaker than themselves. If Renae was a child or in some other way less intelligent than I am or less able to defend herself, then I would be a bully.
www.dictionary.com
Doh.... now am I being insulting? hehe....
quote:
bul·ly·ing
1. To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner.
2. To make (one's way) aggressively.
Your posts in this thread have a pretty in-your-face style. It qualifies as bullying. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2004 : 22:21:25 [Permalink]
|
Fine, Dude. Just go ahead and hammer that last nail in my coffin! Thanks!
I read your post and said, "Fuck me. I really was being a bully."
That warrants another apology to Renae (Renae, I'm really sorry) and a request that all my "bullying denials" be forthwith recanted. What a day. This has been really educational in a self-loathing kind of way.
Hey, did I mention I'm against the drug war? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 09:06:57 [Permalink]
|
Les, don't feel bad.... I get the "tactless asshole" label from time to time, especially when discussing things with the religious among my friends.
It's impossible to not offend somebody when your talking about politics or religion. It's just reality that somebody will be upset by your point of view alone, not to mention presentation.
My typical response to anthing to do with creationism is: "What a load of crap", which doesn't usually go over well with the believers.
The trick is, and if you ever figure it out please let me know, to balance reality with tact and pc-ness without distorting your point and without offending your audience.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 13:24:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
The trick is, and if you ever figure it out please let me know, to balance reality with tact and pc-ness without distorting your point and without offending your audience.
After the last couple of days, that's looking more to me like the secret to eternal youth.
I think I'll start with just trying not to be an asshole and work my way up from there. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 17:41:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
The trick is, and if you ever figure it out please let me know, to balance reality with tact and pc-ness without distorting your point and without offending your audience.
I sometimes use humor. On the other hand, it didn't really work in this thread...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 18:51:56 [Permalink]
|
Les, an apology is one thing. Self-flagellation is another--unnecessary--thing.
I wasn't always at my best in this thread either. Although I thought I got special dispensation for overwrought-ness, bein' a chick and all.
(that's a joke, BTW!) |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 18:55:26 [Permalink]
|
Lesse... didn't this thread have something 'nother to do with John Edwards Esq.?
Interesting man, Senator Edwards.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/22/2004 : 21:33:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Les, an apology is one thing. Self-flagellation is another--unnecessary--thing.
Renae, I'm ten times as hard on myself as I am on Democrats. Maybe therapy's in order? 
Yeah, how 'bout that John Edwards fella?
Like I said earlier, I think the article (and website) that inspired this thread is terribly biased. More research is necessary. I actually think Edwards is a likeable fella and he's one of the few politicians I know of who hasn't made me wince yet. See, I'm not without hope! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 02:24:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Les
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Les, an apology is one thing. Self-flagellation is another--unnecessary--thing.
Renae, I'm ten times as hard on myself as I am on Democrats. Maybe therapy's in order?
Yeah, how 'bout that John Edwards fella?
Like I said earlier, I think the article (and website) that inspired this thread is terribly biased. More research is necessary. I actually think Edwards is a likeable fella and he's one of the few politicians I know of who hasn't made me wince yet. See, I'm not without hope!
I'm sure he will make us all wince, sooner or later. All polititions seem to come with a built-in wince factor. His just hasen't developed yet.
It is interesting to note that while many if not most Senate members, as well as our brave, alledged president, were having their collective ass hauled out of Dodge following 9/11, he stayed because his family couldn't go with him.
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/1511300p-9005498c.html
Edited to ad link. I read it yesterday and it took me a while to relocate it. |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 07/23/2004 02:37:38 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
