thisnamecantbetaken says: It's not about winning, it's how you play the game. Don't argue with me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBAasek8NR4 I completely agree that you are mistaken! Eristical dialectic (eristische Dialektik): THE ART OF CONTROVERSY, by Arthur Schopenhauer (Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten) The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every on... Just make sure you don't go the the guy who does verbal abuse by mistake, and when your fifteen minutes are up, that's it. verbal abuse by mistakeI try to make it a point not to paticipate in any discussion that becomes verbally abusive, once a person resorts to that, you can rest assure you are not in an intellectual debate, but rather an elementary piss match with a person of low esteem and even lower regard for intelligent discourse. Sure, they may have read a thesaurus, have handy little reference sites to resort to state finer points to an argument, but all in all, the minute the name-calling, the attempts to insult your intelligence begins, these are all red flags. I embarrassingly have thrown off the gloves and retorted with same to them, but more often they are not worthy, or worse, trolls. Arthur does not include women as arguersHe appreciated women to be "decidedly more sober in their judgment" and more sympathetic, and he believed "that if a woman succeeds in withdrawing from the mass, or rather raising herself above the mass, she grows ceaselessly and more than a man." This weakens clearly his dopy lampoon on women (Über die Weiber). Erect your umbrella or let it be - you may reckon with arguing people beyond any gender respects. I know. Sahara,it's obvious you are not a Monty Python aficianado. Is this a five minute argument? Not that I don't like Monty Python, I used to watch it quite often, though no, not an aficionado, sorry if I sounded "argumentative" there YouTube - Monty Python - Argument Clinic (extended) The famous argument sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus ... 6 min - Rated 4.9 out of 5.0 www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk In the sketch in question,a man goes to a clinic to pay to have an argument. He walks through the wrong door and is treated to a torrent of insults. He objects, and says, "I paid to have an argument!" The reply is "Oh! This is Abuse. You want room 12-A next door." It goes on from there, and you can find it on the other end of abailart's link. No you can't, lol, that is a contradiction! Contradiction? I don't want to get personal, but this is ridiculous. Wenn man merkt, dass der Gegner überlegen ist und man Unrecht behalten wird: persönlich, beleidigend, grob werden (argumentum ad personam, im Unterschied zum argumentum ad hominem).Insults and mocking are no arguments at all. Neither are mere NO and CONTRA interjections, neither killer "arguments". wu wei (tr. Geordie wa-hey) Gonna lay down my sword and shield ya-hay ah mia oh wa-hey Sorry - my weapons fell onto your feet? ya-hay ah mia oh wa-hey I thought, viewing my placidity you'd yield ya-hay ah mia oh wa-hey Of the signals of my mind you should take heed ya-hay ah mia oh wa-hey |
View the Top Clips from December 9, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||