I'm here. Are you there?

[Pæs]

All of those variations of "you are a fucking cunt" were personal attacks, yes... and "the way you are acting right now is making you come across as a fucking cunt" is an attack on the behaviour.

With attacks on arguments which consist entirely of "that's stupid and wrong", though, does it not follow that the person holding that belief is stupid and wrong? Can you hold a stupid, wrong belief without being stupid and wrong?

How would you react to "that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone express and I cannot fathom what made you say it, are you attention-whoring or something?"

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Um, that whole reply assumed that I was Twid.
I'm not upset or discussing anyone's behaviour towards me.

Hahaha, you're right! Derp. I cannot keep track of who people are when names change. Even though you changed yours a million years ago.

But it doesn't really matter, the points I was trying to make are still valid if you cross out "you" and substitute "Twid".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

All of those variations of "you are a fucking cunt" were personal attacks, yes... and "the way you are acting right now is making you come across as a fucking cunt" is an attack on the behaviour.

With attacks on arguments which consist entirely of "that's stupid and wrong", though, does it not follow that the person holding that belief is stupid and wrong? Can you hold a stupid, wrong belief without being stupid and wrong?

How would you react to "that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard anyone express and I cannot fathom what made you say it, are you attention-whoring or something?"

It depends a lot, but most likely I would get angry and defensive, then go cry and nurse my butthurt for a while, and then (if it was someone I respected and believed had good critical thinking skills) think about why they would say something like that, and if I concluded that they had a point I would probably apologize and admit that I was being boneheaded. I might even come out of it with some greater maturity and better insight on what motivates me to say things that I already know, on a rational and mature level, are stupid and wrong. We all hold beliefs that are stupid and wrong, and based largely on prejudices and fears which, if we really examined and understood, we might not proudly broadcast.

There might be a kinder and gentler way to coax me to re-examine whatever boneheadedness I was setting forth, but not uncommonly, especially with really smart articulate people who can frame a good argument, what ends up happening is they argue themselves into a corner and then it's even harder to get them to critically examine what they've already presented and defended. Sometimes, "WHAT THE FUCK? WHAT THE HELL MAKES YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT COMPLETELY RETARDED?" is the short-circuit that works.

TGRR is a master at that ploy.

I have tremendous respect for people who can react to that by taking a step back, looking at their shit, and then owning it.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Um, that whole reply assumed that I was Twid.
I'm not upset or discussing anyone's behaviour towards me.

Hahaha, you're right! Derp. I cannot keep track of who people are when names change. Even though you changed yours a million years ago.

But it doesn't really matter, the points I was trying to make are still valid if you cross out "you" and substitute "Twid".

While I originally annoyed by Cain's post, I admitted that he was right and figured he was in a bad mood. Which also put me in a bad mood. I didn't see it as a personal attack. I only said Cain was being a dick after he jumped all over Khara and started insulting her. I asked him to take it elsewhere, and he offered to split the thread except that he was a part of the split, and someone else would have to. It wasn't really what I asked, just for it to be taken elsewhere-which didn't happen. Anyway, it's all done with, just figured that I would clarify what my reactions were and why I reacted that way.

[Cuddlefish]

Ok, so, what I gathered from this is that Areola=Twid? Is that correct?

And who is Beardman Meow?

Damn, I've been away too long. I don't know if you people are newbs, or you just changed your screen names.

[President Television]

Ok, so, what I gathered from this is that Areola=Twid? Is that correct?

And who is Beardman Meow?

Damn, I've been away too long. I don't know if you people are newbs, or you just changed your screen names.

Areola=Twid, Beardman=Paes from what I gather.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Ok, so, what I gathered from this is that Areola=Twid? Is that correct?

And who is Beardman Meow?

Damn, I've been away too long. I don't know if you people are newbs, or you just changed your screen names.

My name is punishment for PMing the Mgt. I'll go back to being Twid in about a week.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...

/sarcasm.

Quoting Dimo for troofiness.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?

Just hoping for some clarification here. Because recently a poster here advocated that the world would be a better place if all women were prostitutes.

[Pæs]

Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?

Um, no.

It's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.

It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.

[Pæs]

Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...

/sarcasm.

Quoting Dimo for troofiness.

As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?

Um, no.

It's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.

It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.

OK.

Is it a call for change of some kind? If so, what?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...

/sarcasm.

Quoting Dimo for troofiness.

As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.

JESUS DUDE WTF

No, it was not some kind of sidelong attack on you. FFS. It was a funny thing that Dimo said, that I quoted and agreed with the quintessential nature (not the literal) truth of, because so many people react to an assault on a transient notion as if someone is attacking their very identity, and that's silly.

[Pæs]

Didn't you know, Nigel, We are our thoughts. And only the current ones. Forever... So any attack on them, naturally, may as well be an attack on our person...

/sarcasm.

Quoting Dimo for troofiness.

As a response to me, or?
Because if I said somewhere that attacking a belief as stupid is calling the believer stupid BECAUSE we are our current thoughts forever, I'd like to see that quoted, otherwise I thought I'd continue to ignore that post as unhelpful.

JESUS DUDE WTF

No, it was not some kind of sidelong attack on you. FFS. It was a funny thing that Dimo said, that I quoted and agreed with the quintessential nature (not the literal) truth of, because so many people react to an assault on a transient notion as if someone is attacking their very identity, and that's silly.

Settle down. I didn't think it was an attack on me.

When a post is made, though, which seems similar to my argument but more ridiculous, I will ask whether it was an attempt at representing what I was saying to make sure everyone is clear on what everyone else's position is.

[Pæs]

Is the OP arguing for a kind of Special Olympics of debate? Wherein, no matter how foolish, repugnant, and wrongheaded the idea set forth, everyone should pat the poster on the head because at least they tried?

Um, no.

It's not actually arguing for anything. The OP wasn't really related at all to the personal attack vs. attack on argument discussion.

It was a response to a number of posters expressing their frustration at having their posts ignored or only taken into consideration when the reader agrees with them.

OK.

Is it a call for change of some kind? If so, what?

No, just bringing it up in case anyone else has observed the same thing and has some thoughts on it.
I don't know if it needs changing or how it would be changed if it did.