HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 18, 2004 It has been my recent unfortunate experience to be the victim of sadistic assaults by predators masquerading as reasoned, polite emailers. Undoubtedly, I attract this sort with my strident stances and attacking style – although I consider my attacks actually defense against those who lie and distort. In an attempt to forego future wasted time on my part, and perhaps, educate others out there who unintentionally assault using my antagonists’ same sadistic tactics, I’d like to discuss the proper techniques for polite and honest debate. Readers of U-K will often see contributions with which they disagree. If it’s author has any intellect and did not just spew an irrational rant, he/she will have provided some evidence in support of their position. First, I would warn that you to avoid those ranters unless, like me, you love to debunk and humiliate. Those writers will never engage in meaningful discussion and can only be dealt with by force. Hopefully, unlike me, you have a life and a more profitable use of your time. But, for those authors who do make a rational case for their position, I encourage you to rebut. Now understand that when I say their arguments are rational, I do not necessarily mean logical or based on fact, I only mean that taken only on its content, their argument is coherent and can be examined for flaws. In your rebuttal, try to maintain a polite tone (I’ve been guilty of impoliteness in the past and have committed to improvement). I recommend that you first note any aspects of their writing that you like, followed by any aspects with which you agree. This tactic does not weaken your rebut, it actually strengthens it and improves your chances for an answer from the author. In my experience, most rational writers have at least some shred of truth in their argument, be forthright and admit that. Now, you are free to address those points of their argument with which you disagree. Unless you are simply just as irrational as them, back up your argument with evidence and facts. Simply stating your opposing “belief” is not a rebuttal, it is only belligerence. And your evidence should logically overwhelm the truth of your target’s argument. Stating evidence that only challenges their argument and offers no clear, convincing rationale for its incorrectness, is, again, not a rebuttal; it is only belligerence. And I don’t mean to imply that one cannot be belligerent. Most small children are. Adults of low intellect are almost exclusively. Low self esteem is often hidden behind belligerence. Depression or psychic disorder is often leads to belligerence. Possession of a weak argument, or ignorance of any convincing argument, are the most common causes of belligerence. But, by all means, employ this strategy if you desire, integrity is not the goal of everyone. Finish your rebuttal by offering the possibility of a mistake by yourself, or that you misunderstood the author’s writing. Offer to listen to their clarification. These techniques should result in your receipt of a polite reply and possibly, lead to agreement. But probably not. And at this point is where I see the most problems, and is where I have been sadistically assaulted recently. Your target may respond in anger - in fact, he/she often will. If their argument was weak, their intellect probably is, and one can surmise, their self esteem as well. Accepting any criticism threatens the thin strings that connect their minds to sanity. If you’ve publically rebutted, they will often respond privately with hatred. Only the most ignorant of these will post their stupidity. The popular warnings against revealing your real identity/address are relevant at this point. This character type will almost certainly not offer new evidence to counter your rebut however. Continue the dialogue only if you are the type that enjoys torturing small animals. If you are not, my recommendation is that you post their irrational emails for public display and expose them for the fools and belligerent asses that they are. If you’re lucky they will resign from U-K and crawl back into their cesspool. But, the targets of this article are the more nefarious authors. These sadistic writers have some obvious, if incalculable, intellect and respond to your rebut in polite tones. However, their intent is never to debate and understand the issues, they only seek to repeat their point and attempt to disguise that fact as long as possible. I’m reminded of the old man driving 40 mph on the freeway with his turn signal on. One car after another comes up from behind and wastes a minute or so waiting for the man to change lanes. Unfortunately, just as for safety reasons we must patiently confirm that driver’s intentions, in polite society we have to suffer the sadistic buffoons for a moment. No matter how convincing your rebuttal or how exact and documented your evidence, these authors ignore your points and rattle on as if they did. Try to point out that they ignored your point, and they rattle on as if they did. Demand that they STOP rattling and LISTEN for a second to your point, and they rattle on as if they did. Yet, they sound so polite and don’t blatantly insult, I finally wonder if I’ve hooked up with an Alzheimer’s patient. Another favorite strategy of these scum is to skew off on a tangent whenever you’ve backed them into a logical corner. Divert and confuse, like using a smoke bomb to make their escape. The stupidest of these miss that opportunity to escape and when the smoke clears they’re still huddled in the corner hoping you’ve wandered off. The sorriest of these squeal like a pig when you grab them by the logical collar in the smoke and run off crying that you’ve hurt them. Ms. Sher Zieve proved herself to be this last and sorriest sort over the course of many gut-wrenching emails between us in the last day. Avoid her like the plague if you seek intelligent discourse. She will never, never admit any strength of your argument and one would find more challenge, of a sane type, in deep philosophical coversation with a small child. If you don’t believe me, I’ll post her emails. ------------ About the author: Ron Lewis is a software salesman extraordinaire, albeit habitually unemployed, with no significant accomplishments at age 47 other than two wonderfully talented children who take after their mother. All his friends note his keen insight, bad eyesight, doggedly jaded disposition, and rugged bad looks. A third person seems to recall that he talks too much. Email: grnacres@direcway.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
