Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (57672)	10/7/1999 3:22:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

And the tone on "your" side was- no one but a CRETIN would believe anything other than that both Reagan AND his legacy were mahvelous, simply mahvelous- how is that not exactly the same thing?

To: Neocon who wrote (57672)	10/7/1999 3:33:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Dear me, Neocon. Have you forgotten Sanity, et al? Where it was routine to call anyone an idiot who might so much as be suspected of admiring Clinton? <gasp!> You guys all take politics too personally! And enough of politics already!

To: Neocon who wrote (57672)	10/7/1999 3:43:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If you didn't notice, I was arguing in favor of Reagan, too. And I have heard far worse said about him, without taking it personally. That's what makes politics, or as they say, "that's what makes horse races." You need to learn to keep your cool if it makes you hot under the collar when someone disses your favorite politician.

To: Neocon who wrote (57672)	10/7/1999 8:19:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

There's a problem. If one explicates in detail one's take on a particular series of events or on an issue or a phenomenon, and the explication makes those, generically, who identify with that issue, uncomfortable, that is almost the purpose of argument. The discomfort is supposed to be telling. If one is lucky, elucidating, even. Only in what is called "identity politics," a particularly intellectually dubious manifestation of political correctness, is one supposed, these days, to pretend respect for all opinions. But it is not "PC" to expect that personal, ad hominem, invective and insult not be hurled. Ad hominem attacks are not argument. They are, in fact, intended to stifle it. I can't be held accountable for those who are hurt because of my political views. If I have hurt someone by an ad hominem attack, I am truly sorrow, and will apologize. If I have hurt someone by my tone, as I did Cobe, I will apologize for the tone, and, if the content is inadequate, and I am shown this, for the content. I acknowledged that Zoltan was correct about my being an illiterate in economics. If I have made someone uncomfortable by stating the reasons for my disparagement of a hero of theirs, I think what should be focused on is the reasons and not their discomfort. I see you posted this link as an example of a "provocative" post of mine. I note that you felt my posts were "provocative" enough that I deserved Zoltan's ad hominem insults. siliconinvestor.com Oh, look! Seeking a particular post among the hundreds I haven't read, as they were not addressed to me and I have had time only for those, so far, (and also I was forced to do some work today!) I come across this perfect statement of a PC position: <<<If I criticize something in such a way that it reflects on those who disagree, it becomes personal, >>> That is unbelievable to me. So now, one is supposed, in intellectual argument, to criticize something about which one feels strongly negative softly, and delicately, so as not to ruffle the feathers or disturb the peace of mind of those who disagree? I myself did not even feel discomfited by Zoltan's extreme personal insults. Amazed, curious about his personal background, as I had never seen anything like that before; but not discomfited. Though I did, I admit, feel discomfited by the evidence that his boorishness seemed appropriate to certain of my friends. In your case, because I had been "provocative," and my critique of Reagan reflected on those who disagree with it. What fun is your model for argument? ? Who will attend to such vapid exchanges? Intellectual jousting is fun. If one feels discomfited by vehemently expressed intellectual (ie non ad hominem) arguments, one shouldn't participate in them.