Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch37
That's exactly the point I'm putting out there for discussion Caryl  . Calm and rational argument - in the case that we have an argument on our hands - is preferable any day, and could possibly help to open up new avenues and ideas in those discussions.  |
Yet you say "if a person consistently and vigorously tells you that there are 500 reasons why your opinion is not entirely accurate or complete, or valid, or you missed something," that you find this hurtful, and label it as "psychological abuse".
I'm not sure I could
find 500 reasons to use repeatedly in any argument, nor have I seen anyone use anything like that number, and certainly not the 9,432 reasons why anyone's opinion would be garbage that you refer to
(Something I wouldn't say. I might say that in my view it's wrong, or not informed, or unfair, but not "garbage").
However, if you are going to support logical argument rather than emotional and angry statements/judgements (and I would wholeheartedly support that), you must surely expect that people will hold their ground. If you find that aggressive rather than assertive I can't help feeling that you have the issue
Calm and logical argument surely would be consistent. And why should anyone put their point weakly? I'm not sure what your definition of "vigorous" is when using the written word, but I can't see how that is likely to be hurtful or psychologically abusive? To be honest I only feel overwhelmed by someone's argument when they have more facts I cannot ignore, than I have to support my view .. at which point I usually realise they're probably right
Or that we just have different tastes or standpoints, so we agree to differ.
I said I thought there was a pretty robust system of moderation in place already. One suggestion you proposed was "Mods do not edit a user's words ever." That I disagree with profoundly. I think people on here are perfectly well aware of what is simply out of order and grossly rude. I see no reason if they post in that way to or about other members for it to remain while they are asked to remove it. Do I support Mouse removing the assertion that I, out of all those who posted here that Meat got better every show this tour (and I am not sure I actually did!) am singled out as an arse-kissing sycophant whose reviews are tiresome? Frankly, yes. In my view he was right to remove that under the forum rules that I am perfectly sure the poster was aware of