BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
It's always fun to see how people discuss topics here (as is everywhere)
1. Coercion--my point of view is the only right point of view,
damn it--often resulting in two conflicting monologues.
2. Fact or source citing as the total answer to a question.
3. Aggressive pouncing on a poster's weakness in logic or
wrong fact in one point as a total invalidation of their entire
post.
4. Persuasion--I can see similarities in our points of view,
but I want to sway you to my point. Gets deeper into
the topic, allows for more exchange of ideas. More
respectful, but it can get a little condescending when
you focus on the flaws in the other person's argument
rather than the strengths of your own.
5. Exchange of ideas discussion, where no particular judgment
is held by either party and the pure point of the discussion
is to show your point of view and understand the other's.
6. Good natured argument, which is kind of a blend of the best
points of 4 and 5 with a little more humor. It gets
interesting to me, because the ideas get more finetuned,
there is more give and take in the argument, more desire
to get to get beyond the semantics and the surface. I tend
to like these arguments best because it appears that both
both parties are pretty secure in their positions and don't
need to be validated or to invalidate. These are the
discussions I read with the most pleasure.
I think we all use a combination of these arguments. Which methods do you find most effective? Feel free to add on any I've missed.
Now I have a couple of questions:
1. Why do you participate in FYM?
2. What kind of threads do you like most?
3. Do you like to start an argument or do you go out of
your way to avoid one?
4. Would you rather learn or teach?
5. On a whole, do you find the majority of posters to be
reasonable people?
6. What have you learned here that you didn't know before?
1. Coercion--my point of view is the only right point of view,
damn it--often resulting in two conflicting monologues.
2. Fact or source citing as the total answer to a question.
3. Aggressive pouncing on a poster's weakness in logic or
wrong fact in one point as a total invalidation of their entire
post.
4. Persuasion--I can see similarities in our points of view,
but I want to sway you to my point. Gets deeper into
the topic, allows for more exchange of ideas. More
respectful, but it can get a little condescending when
you focus on the flaws in the other person's argument
rather than the strengths of your own.
5. Exchange of ideas discussion, where no particular judgment
is held by either party and the pure point of the discussion
is to show your point of view and understand the other's.
6. Good natured argument, which is kind of a blend of the best
points of 4 and 5 with a little more humor. It gets
interesting to me, because the ideas get more finetuned,
there is more give and take in the argument, more desire
to get to get beyond the semantics and the surface. I tend
to like these arguments best because it appears that both
both parties are pretty secure in their positions and don't
need to be validated or to invalidate. These are the
discussions I read with the most pleasure.
I think we all use a combination of these arguments. Which methods do you find most effective? Feel free to add on any I've missed.
Now I have a couple of questions:
1. Why do you participate in FYM?
2. What kind of threads do you like most?
3. Do you like to start an argument or do you go out of
your way to avoid one?
4. Would you rather learn or teach?
5. On a whole, do you find the majority of posters to be
reasonable people?
6. What have you learned here that you didn't know before?