Debate etiquette

[Bob Arctor]

Reactionary? I suppose I meant instant reactions to something stated that may not have been thought through thoroughly or perhaps an ill judged reply that could appear blunt or rude.

 

I think the word you are looking for is reactive. Although you are also clearly reactionary.

[RonJeremy]

I think the word you are looking for is reactive. Although you are also clearly reactionary.

 

1. My bad. Reactive is the correct word. Apologies to everyone else.

2. Whatever.

Edited September 15, 2016 by RonJeremy

[unbeliever]

1. My bad. Reactive is the correct word. Apologies to everyone else.

2. Whatever.

 

In the context of politics, "reactionary" does indeed mean anti-progressive.

Of course "progressive" has drifted away from its original meaning as the opposite of "conservative".

If you go back to the literal meanings before the word was co-opted by politics things get rather more complicated:

 

reactionary, n. and adj.

 

Pronunciation: Brit. /rɪˈakʃn̩(ə)ri/ , U.S. /riˈækʃəˌnɛri/

Frequency (in current use):

Origin: Formed within English, by derivation; modelled on a French lexical item. Etymons: reaction n., -ary suffix1.

Etymology: < reaction n. + -ary suffix1, apparently originally after French réactionnaire...

A. n.

 

A person inclined or favourable to reaction, esp. one who is against radical political or social reform, and in favour of a reversion to a former state of affairs.

In the earliest examples representing or translating French réactionnaire, an opponent of the French Revolution; in later Marxist use freq. denoting an opponent of communism.

 

1799—2004

 

B. adj.

 

1. Inclined or favourable to reaction; opposing political or social progress or reform; (hence, loosely) extremely conservative.

 

1815—2002

 

2. gen. Of, or relating to, or characterized by reaction, or a reaction (in various senses); that constitutes a reaction or reversal.

 

1847—2003

 

 

 

Source: oed (I have access to the full version at work)

 

So the term originally meant an opponent of the French revolution, then later an anti-Marxist.

 

So I'm not sure you have anything to apologise for.

[petemcewan]

Thanks RJ for the reply. I did interpret it in the way it is used in the political context. Now you've made it clear.

[alchresearch]

I've noticed the political debates have progressed quite smoothly since the smiley throwers and troll callers haven't contributed!

[unbeliever]

I've noticed the political debates have progressed quite smoothly since the smiley throwers and troll callers haven't contributed!

 

Shhh! I don't want them to hear us. I was hoping that the title would deter them, or maybe repel them like Garlic.

[Bob Arctor]

In the context of politics, "reactionary" does indeed mean anti-progressive.

Of course "progressive" has drifted away from its original meaning as the opposite of "conservative".

If you go back to the literal meanings before the word was co-opted by politics things get rather more complicated:

 

 

 

Source: oed (I have access to the full version at work)

 

So the term originally meant an opponent of the French revolution, then later an anti-Marxist.

 

So I'm not sure you have anything to apologise for.

 

I only meant it as an observation

[L00b]

I agree. I have posted it on here before but that is why I think Forum Rules 14 is rather strange.

 

It states that 'all opinions must be based on true facts'.

 

As you say, opinion is largely based on anecdotal experience, and I think there can be a place for that in debate.

Anecdotal experiences are factual, though. It's the opinion formed on their basis which isn't necessarily so. Particularly in a debating context, when the opinion is likely to be biased (or formed to bias the debate), e.g.

 

more like:

1.If it rains, the street will be wet.

2.The street is wet.

3.Therefore, it rained.

 

than like:

1.If it rains, the street will be wet.

2.It rained.

3.Therefore, the street is wet.

 

(example shamelessly stolen from Wiki, but nicelylear and succinct).

 

This being the reason why opinions can frequently be dismissed as logical fallacies, notwithstanding the factuality of the experience(s) on which they are based.

 

Rule 14 does not appear so strange now, does it?

[unbeliever]

Anecdotal experiences are factual, though. It's the opinion formed on their basis which isn't necessarily so. Particularly in a debating context, when the opinion is likely to be biased (or formed to bias the debate), e.g.

 

more like:

1.If it rains, the street will be wet.

2.The street is wet.

3.Therefore, it rained.

 

than like:

1.If it rains, the street will be wet.

2.It rained.

3.Therefore, the street is wet.

 

This being the reason why opinions can frequently be dismissed as logical fallacies, notwithstanding the factuality of the experience(s) on which they are based.

 

Rule 14 does not appear so strange now, does it?

 

I eat what I see.

I see what I eat.

Lewis Carroll

[Robin-H]

Anecdotal experiences are factual, though. It's the opinion formed on their basis which isn't necessarily so. Particularly in a debating context, when the opinion is likely to be biased (or formed to bias the debate), e.g.

 

more like:

1.If it rains, the street will be wet.

2.The street is wet.

3.Therefore, it rained.

 

than like:

1.If it rains, the street will be wet.

2.It rained.

3.Therefore, the street is wet.

 

(example shamelessly stolen from Wiki, but nicelylear and succinct).

 

This being the reason why opinions can frequently be dismissed as logical fallacies, notwithstanding the factuality of the experience(s) on which they are based.

 

Rule 14 does not appear so strange now, does it?

 

But it is still unenforceable. Who is to say whether an anecdotal experience is factual or not - indeed I was talking to the Dalai Lama about this just the other day and in my opinion he agreed wholeheartedly with me..