Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Petro Poroshenko

5 (29.4%)

Yulia Tymoshenko

2 (11.8%)

Oleg Lyashko

2 (11.8%)

Anatoly Hrytsenko

2 (11.8%)

Serhiy Tihipko

0 (0%)

Mykhailo Dobkin

0 (0%)

Other

6 (35.3%)

Total Members Voted: 17

[Knit tie]

Can we please stop discussing Libya here? I think there's a thread for it.

[smjjames]

Can we please stop discussing Libya here? I think there's a thread for it.

^
This. The libya discussion is offtopic in this thread.

[Guardian G.I.]

You just want to ignore what problem it was addressing and talk about a different problem.

Remind me again why I am considered the rude one when shit like this is par for the course?

Because, to be honest, your arguments look and sound like personal attacks.

[mainiac]

It's very frustrating for me.  If people say "Q because of P" repeatedly and each time the response is "But why Q, you gave no reason for Q!", the only thing to do is point out that they are ignoring P.  But "You are ignoring P!" gets labeled an ad hominum.

[Guardian G.I.]

It's very frustrating for me.  If people say "Q because of P" repeatedly and each time the response is "But why Q, you gave no reason for Q!", the only thing to do is point out that they are ignoring Q.  But "You are ignoring P!" gets labeled an ad hominum.

I've seen quite a lot of your posts in Ukraine-related threads, and I think it has to do something with how you are presenting your arguments. It look rather condescending at times.

[Knit tie]

It's very frustrating for me.  If people say "Q because of P" repeatedly and each time the response is "But why Q, you gave no reason for Q!", the only thing to do is point out that they are ignoring Q.  But "You are ignoring P!" gets labeled an ad hominum.

Sorry mainiac, but you sometimes really go straight for the personal qualities of your opponent. There are many ways to politely tell him that he is evading the question, "I don't think that X is relevant here, because Y", for example. There's no need to augment your every second post with a "you are stupid for asking this question" ad hominem.

I mean, "the fact that Crimea wanted to join Russia does not mean that Russia was excused in breaching international law" is a much more pleasant post to read than "Russia annexed Ukraine. You must watch a lot of propaganda if you do not see this," isn't it?

[mainiac]

I mean, "the fact that Crimea wanted to join Russia does not mean that Russia was excused in breaching international law" is a much more pleasant post to read than "Russia annexed Ukraine. You must watch a lot of propaganda if you do not see this," isn't it?

I would think that your posts seem to have this quality...

[Knit tie]

I mean, "the fact that Crimea wanted to join Russia does not mean that Russia was excused in breaching international law" is a much more pleasant post to read than "Russia annexed Ukraine. You must watch a lot of propaganda if you do not see this," isn't it?

I would think that your posts seem to have this quality...

Then you know how I feel.

[mainiac]

Sorry mainiac, but you sometimes really go straight for the personal qualities of your opponent. There are many ways to politely tell him that he is evading the question

Well I started there:

The goal of Libya was to make one side of two win a conflict.  It was believed that if the wrong side won, bad shit would happen.  If you ask why intervene while ignoring this, the primary stated goal, you are begging the question.

Before going to the rude thing:

Yes it is a cure.  You just want to ignore what problem it was addressing and talk about a different problem.

But people just go after the rude thing without noticing the post that proceeded it.

[Knit tie]

But people just go after the rude thing without noticing the post that proceeded it.

I don't believe that when your opponents refuse to adopt your point of view after just one post from your side, it's somehow rude and calls for rudeness in return.

[mainiac]

...that's not what I said.  They don't need to immediately recognize how right I am, they just should recognize that the point was raised.  Immediately after I said that the goal was regime change in Libya and Sheb said that Gaddaffi was stopped out of fear of civilian attacks, sergarr comes back with a post that ignores that the goal was regime change.  Maybe he wants to argue the goal was regime change.  Maybe he wants to argue that it was a crap goal.  But completely ignoring the point raised completely undermines the conversation and is very rude in my estimation.

[Knit tie]

...that's not what I said.  They don't need to immediately recognize how right I am, they just should recognize that the point was raised.  Immediately after I said that the goal was regime change in Libya and Sheb said that Gaddaffi was stopped out of fear of civilian attacks, sergarr comes back with a post that ignores that the goal was regime change.  Maybe he wants to argue the goal was regime change.  Maybe he wants to argue that it was a crap goal.  But completely ignoring the point raised completely undermines the conversation and is very rude in my estimation.

Still, even if you consider something to be very rude, it is considered a polite thing to do to not be rude in return.

[mainiac]

And this goes back to my earlier point...

[Knit tie]

You are welcome to point out that you consider your opponent's behaviour impolite, but there's no reason to do it in such personal tone:

Yes it is a cure.  You just want to ignore what problem it was addressing and talk about a different problem.

it is always possible to say

Yes, removing Quadaffi is a cure.  Please don't ignore my comment on what problem was the intervention adressing and shift the topic, I find it rude.

instead.

EDIT: I would recommend not using the collocation "you just", because most people strongly associate it with a belittling personal attack.

[mainiac]

A lot of people talk like that.  Yourself for example.