<AHELJDANPADPCDCNCMDGKELFCAAA.BBrown@RealBusinessSolutions.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
In-Reply-To: <01a901c1729e$e2673b60$615d2a42@jrmolloy>
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-extropians@extropy.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
Non-member submission from ["Billy Brown"
<BBrown@RealBusinessSolutions.com>]
J. R. Molloy wrote:
> Isn't a mixture of conjecture, anti-Americanism, and urban (global)
myth
> sufficiently close to blithering idiocy to justify the attack on
> this idiotic opponent's character rather than by an answer to the
contentions
> made?
In rational discourse it is never acceptible to attack your opponent's
character. Period.
If your opponent really is an idiot, it should be easy enough to
demonstrate
the foolishness of ver ideas. This has the desireable effect of showing
onlookers who have not yet made up their minds that your opponent's
position
is untenable, which is about all you can hope to accomplish in a debate
like
this.
If, instead, you simply call your opponent an idiot, the opportunity for
rational discourse ends. Your opponent will generally reply in kind, the
message thread will degenerate into pointless name-calling and
meta-debates
about ad hominem remarks, and the quality of the list will drop that
much
more. Make a habit of this, and you create an environment in which the
idiots are glad to stay and exchange insults, while the people who
actually
have something to offer leave in disgust.
Billy Brown
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:20 MDT