mikem8634 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I was thinking of starting a thread along the lines of this, also to include the subject of simple debate conduct and courtesy. More often than not, the people guilty of crying "free speech!" will also be awful at debating/discussing, or simply have no intention of contributing anything meaningful to a thread. Examples of this are; - (as you said) when someone gives their opinion but expects that nobody should challenge it, even trying to claim it as a personal attack in some cases. -Presenting their opinions as fact or as reasons for/against something, then getting annoyed when (again) they are challenged about this -People being faced with a question which, if they answer honestly, will show their logic or point of argument to be flawed. In these cases, many a time they will avoid answering at all costs. In response to a simple question I asked recently, the poster wriggled and attempted to deviate and outright lied, repeating this over many pages, all to avoid answering the question. Some of the common responses when faced with a critical question are; -a) "Your question is a strawman, therefore I won't answer it" (when the question obviously ISN'T a strawman and they are unable to explain why they think it is) -b) "Your question isn't relavent" (when it obviously IS) -c) "I've already answered, you just don't understand the answer/don't like the answer" (when they obviously HAVEN'T answered and are unable/refuse to show a post in which they have answered) -d) "Your question is a loaded question" (when the question obviously ISN'T a loaded question and they are unable to explain why they think it is) -e) Then there's the contortionist's answer, when they take part of your question but change it to mean a different question altogether, which they can answer without risking admission that they're argument is flawed (which doesn't answer the actual question at all, a very cowardly and underhand tactic) -f) Then there's the old favourite, when someone is faced with reason and logic which they cannot counter against, they resort to attacking your post count "6,000 posts, well I think we all know what that says about you then don't we!!" Seriously? Do these people think myself and others will limp away, never to return from this near-fatal attack? These people could bow out when it dawns on them that they have no argument left. They could just leave the thread and people would retain whatever respect they had for them. They could even try thinking about it and say "actually, I've been thinking about it and you might be right". They don't though, they'll drag it out until the thread is closed or they get banned. The only outcome is the total demise of any credibility they had prior to their shambolic show of cowardice, which will be forever be in black and white for all to see. Unless they do a LOT of deleting! Hiya Roots. All the above could be the characteristics of a troll, of course, but there's something more basic than that going on, I think. I've observed, online and in real life, that the vast majority of people seem to have some basic, inbuilt, inability to accept they are wrong. My guess, though I haven't followed it through with any research, is that, like most of our behaviour, it has some sort of evolutionary advantage. Possibly all the prehistoric self-doubters, circumspect weighers up of both sides of arguments and accepters that: actually, mate, you have a point there - I as wrong got eaten because they were mulling the relative strengths of each others' postulations while the blinkered I'm right, you're wrong bunch were running away. Or something. I guess it's yet another case of delusion; where the person will do anything within their power to avoid facing up to the fact that, yup, they're wrong. This is most remarkable when faced with pure and simple facts. Ever shown someone, beyond all doubt, to be wrong only to be accused of being pedantic or a nit-picker? Another similar point, more relevant to real life than online is the immediate consequence of being wrong. You've argued the toss with all and sundry over a period of time and then, in a moment of uncharacteristic self-awareness, you look up the proper meaning of, oh I dunno, let's say, "atheism". BANG! Oh no, I was wrong all the time ... and I reduced Doris in the office to tears over this ... Do I now go & humble myself to all the people I've already, I now realise, made myself look a dick to or do I convince myself the dictionary must be wrong ...? We are vastly complex yet remarkably simple creatures really. Excellent. Totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Check Post #13 You'll have to spoon feed me much better than that, I've just put "free speech" in the search function and there's no moving to Sheffield thread. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php?searchid=23179652 I can't see why somebody would say "I think something stupid* and I have free speech to say it out loud" because it doesn't add anything. Okay, somebody stupid might say it, but I can't say I've noticed it. What I do find infuriatingly common is "I think something stupid, I find your opposition to that offensive, and free speech only goes so far you know". In other words "shut up". * I'm assuming it was something stupid since it was something you disagreed with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 You'll have to spoon feed me much better than that, I've just put "free speech" in the search function and there's no moving to Sheffield thread. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php?searchid=23179652 I can't see why somebody would say "I think something stupid* and I have free speech to say it out loud" because it doesn't add anything. Okay, somebody stupid might say it, but I can't say I've noticed it. What I do find infuriatingly common is "I think something stupid, I find your opposition to that offensive, and free speech only goes so far you know". In other words "shut up". * I'm assuming it was something stupid since it was something you disagreed with. Here y'are. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Here y'are. .... Ha ha, well, err, yes ... what an idiot. Not only is saying it in that context adding nothing, it's sort of an admittance that you've got nothing. I've just never come across such a desperate response before, so apologies if I seemed dumb asking for an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 27, 2013 Author Share Posted February 27, 2013 Ha ha, well, err, yes ... what an idiot. Not only is saying it in that context adding nothing, it's sort of an admittance that you've got nothing. I've just never come across such a desperate response before, so apologies if I seemed dumb asking for an example. I'm not claiming that I'm correct in that thread or anything. Just that as a tactic in a discussion it's not a very good one. To claim that your speech must be allowed (to be free) and to apparently not realise that the same must apply to whoever it is that disagrees with you is a rather fundamental failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I'm not claiming that I'm correct in that thread or anything. Just that as a tactic in a discussion it's not a very good one. To claim that your speech must be allowed (to be free) and to apparently not realise that the same must apply to whoever it is that disagrees with you is a rather fundamental failing. I suspect the person using the tactic is not using it in the positive (defending free speech) manner that he might be making it appear, but rather trying to value his right to free speech higher than yours, which brings us full circle to the more usual negative manner that free speech is invoked in arguments. In other words it is a tacit request to "shut up". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I've noticed that speech has to be restricted,and quite right too Restricted by who? Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance. William O. Douglas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Restricted by who? The Law of course. Havn't some people been arrested by the police for using offensive, abusive or insulting language. Arrests may not happen very often but some act in the law must have allowed the police to operate that authority on those occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I suspect the person using the tactic is not using it in the positive (defending free speech) manner that he might be making it appear, but rather trying to value his right to free speech higher than yours, which brings us full circle to the more usual negative manner that free speech is invoked in arguments. In other words it is a tacit request to "shut up". I thought that was the whole point of the OP anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 even worse when we lose the freedom of thought Its going that way isnt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.