Come off it. You know as well as I do that in face to face contact people still express opinions, still get into arguments, still have disagreements, etc. However, when they face each other, they tend to argue at least a little more respectfully. As a result, things don't get quite so heated. This is a good thing, generally, since what does getting into a bitter shouting match (or getting so enraged that someone does resort to violence) accomplish? Whose mind have you changed then? Whom have you persuaded?Darth Wong wrote: \So? People don't tell the truth in real-life either; I suppose we should start suspending our honesty rule as well, so that this can be the Tea Room? The whole point of a forum like this is that we do not have to observe the kind of ridiculous bullshit rules that govern "polite" conversation, in which you can't say what you think because you're afraid of offending the kind of belligerent asshole who would actually assault you for calling a spade a spade.Perinquus wrote:No, I didn't. I merely point out the cowardice of goading someone, when protected by distance, in a way that you would never do when standing face to face with that person. People find it easy to quickly, almost instantly resort to personal insults when they are protected by both the distance and the anonymity of the internet, when they would never in a million years descend to such behavior so quickly when, for example, talking with a coworker around the office watercooler, or conversing with a stranger in line at the grocery store.Ryoga wrote: Oh my god, did you really just half-assedly threaten someone over the Internets?
You, sir, fail at life.
I have no qualms about flaming someone who has demostrated he richly deserves it (e.g Darkstar). However, when you move to insults in the first reponse to someone (which you did), you are pre-empting civilized, respectful debate. You go directly to flamewar. Why move straight into bitter argument? Why not bat it back and forth for at least a few posts first? What does it cost you? what is the point of debating at all if you are immediately going to ratchet things up into a very angry, confrontational tone? What is the point to a debate at all if you are not hoping that you just may possibly get through to someone, and change his point of view? Or do you just want to achieve an intellectual beat down on someone while a gallery of viewers cheers you on from the sidelines? If that's what you want, fine, but at least have the honesty to admit that your goal is taking an ego trip rather than engaging in honest debate.
See above. I don't think the arguments are better. (I see you are not above asserting mind reading ability either.) But they tend to be expressed better, when people make an attempt to be civil. Things don't tend to degenerate to an angry, and entirely unproductive shouting match when people make some attempt to be civil.Darth Wong wrote:Yes, because you actually think that arguments are better when physical intimidation is a factor. Thanks, you just demonstrated for the second time that you're a knuckle-dragging troglodyte.The reason they would never do such a thing face to face is that most people fear what may happen when they are so insulting to someone's face. That fear is totally absent when they are typing messages to someone thousands of miles away, so they use that as an excuse to engage in inexscusably rude and provocative behavior. What is it then, if not cowardice, if you allow yourself excesses of behavior when it is safe, that you do not allow yourself when there may be immediate consequences? I merely point this out, and I'm supposed to be the one who's acting uncivilized?
-- Asuka
