How to be reasonable

[Perfection]

This thread is all well and good, but it misses the bigger question: why be reasonable?

 

[Borachio]

Why not be reasonable?

If you've the choice between being reasonable or being reasonable, which is it most reasonable to choose?

I do kind of agree, though, as I tried to indicate up thread.

Human beings are not the rational creatures they sometimes like to think. Nor do I think they should be. Necessarily.

Though it is often a very good idea to be a bit reasonable from time to time. Or such is my irrational belief, anyhow.

 

[Harv]

This thread is all well and good, but it misses the bigger question: why be reasonable?

Who says the original post is about how to be reasonable for the purpose of being reasonable when posting on forums? Why not study, "How to be Reasonable" for the purpose of making the appearance of being reasonable for the other posters to see?

Why not be reasonable?

Do you win debates by being reasonable or appearing to be reasonable?

However, if my purpose of posting here is to learn something from the other posters, then the question, "why not be reasonable?" is very valid, indeed.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

If you appear reasonable you could ascend to modship and win any debate.

 

[Borachio]

Do you win debates by being reasonable or appearing to be reasonable?

What does it mean to "win a debate"?

Do you mean to persuade someone that your point of view is in some way "superior" to their original one to the extent that they're obliged to agree with you?

Or something else?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Setting out to win the debate is completely contrary to being reasonable.

Debates are rarely won. Debates are won when both sides see the reason in each other's arguments and incorporate those rationalities in their way of thinking. Doesn't need to lead to agreement, but it must lead to understanding.

And where's the fun in that?

 

[Quackers]

I just want to point out for a good example of unreasonable posts are those in my UKIP thread. Not the ones from me..but from some of my detractors.

In contrast my own posts are an example for everybody to follow.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That all goes without saying doesn't it?

 

[Borachio]

I just want to point out for a good example of unreasonable posts are those in my UKIP thread. Not the ones from me..but from some of my detractors.

Oh? Which ones are you thinking of especially? Can you link to a good example of unreasonableness, please?

 

[Senethro]

This thread was started with noble intent.

 

[Borachio]

You think it's lost it now?

You may be right. I'm notoriously insensitive to that sort of thing.

 

[Light Cleric]

How about "quit with the nitpicking"? It gets really tiresome when I read a decent post countering someone's argument and then +90% of it was ignored just to drag out one small point and dragging it out, be it accidental or to distract from the original argument. Like really, that "backlash against feminism" thread started out okay then turned into like three pages of people arguing about how quackers allegedly didn't strongly condemn killing someone in the exact words people wanted. Like really, if you think he thinks not a big deal for someone to be murdered then call him on it. How is passive-aggressive and/or weaselly antagonizing someone any better than just straight up calling them out on something? I didn't bother saying anything there because I know it would have gotten into accusations of "defending" him. You don't have to agree with or like someone(and I don't) to think an attack on him/her is asinine.

It's also really annoying to see posters who articulate any opinions of their own or any ideas of their own so they just make sure the debate is always about attacking another person's position because that's much easier but some of the biggest offenders don't really post anymore anyway so meh.

Also, can we have some consistency on "labels", please? Like if you're going to slap labels on people left and right in a thread and readily lump people together into very broad groups, don't whine like a petulant little child in the same damn thread when a label gets used because you don't like it.

 

[JollyRoger]

so they just make sure the debate is always about attacking another person's position

Thanks for the 3 paragraph example.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So, since you now slapped the "petulant little child" label on an unnamed "you", you wouldn't mind being addressed similarly?

Apologies in advance if you consider it a nitpick, it's merely curiousity.

 

[Light Cleric]

So, since you now slapped the "petulant little child" label on an unnamed "you", you wouldn't mind being addressed similarly?

Apologies in advance if you consider it a nitpick, it's merely curiousity.

If I start labeling people MRAs or "femenazis" and then complain about being labeled then sure.

But that's describing people's behavior, not their entire belief system.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You didn't answer my question.

edit: Ah, not the kind of label you were thinking of I guess. Generalisational labels.

 

[JollyRoger]

I thought "petulant little child" was the new and improved label for MRA.

 

[Light Cleric]

I'm pretty sure I did, actually.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You're quick.

 

[Light Cleric]

Yeah I should probably get all my thoughts out at once so I don't have to edit but I have brain lag so it's a personal failing.