| |
I consider defending this President an insult!
By the same token, somebody else might consider defending Ken Starr an insult.
What I was talking about was Direct Personal Insults, that is, insults directly aimed at a fellow poster (not at Clinton, or Starr, or the Democrats, or the Republics, or NOW, or the Christian Coalition, or any other person, institution, or point of view): epithets like idiot, hypocrite, fanatic, wacko, etc., etc.
I don't think they add anything to the argument. As a matter of fact, they are probably counter-productive, in that they are more likely to antagonize than to persuade the person they are aimed at.
Of course, if the individual doing the cussing is not interested in persuading -- that is, in winning others over to his/her point of view -- what is the point of posting at all?
Actually, I take that back. There can be many reasons for posting, including the following:
1) To find out what other people are thinking.
2) To exchange information.
3) To explore the pros and cons of the issues involved.
4) To win converts to one's point of view, using well-reasoned arguments.
5) To smite the opposition hip & thigh.
Perhaps we should conduct a poll of thread participants. <gg>
jbe |
|
