critique of ethics forum

S

SwedishFish

Conspirator
Registered Senior Member
1.) when someone counters your argument and/or opinion, it is not "attacking"
2.) claiming that you are being attacked in response to an opposing opinion does not effectively support your argument, not rebutt the opposing argument

learn how to converse and debate, then you may rejoin an adult conversation.
 
Yes, we should try to keep the attacks to a minimum. This isn't the religion forum after all.
 
It's in fashion to play the victim. I've been reading Franken's book of late, and what strikes me about it isn't how much I wish I had written the tome myself, but rather a tangential concept about history. History is written by the winners. The success of the Bush junta, reflected in the 2002 rejection of the Democratic rollover, has legitimized the slash-and-burn-why-God-why-poor-me idiocy that has increasingly passed for public discourse in the Dittohead Era.

By and large the Ethics forum has been an easy breeding ground for progressive thought; the sweeping fury of progressive victory rising across the United States, at least, has set some folks to the defensive, at least since Lawrence, and the American countercurrent in hijab-related issues as well as the solid Sciforums argument on behalf of Newdow's case against the Pledge, not to mention rising world sympathy for the Palestinian side of a ridiculous conflict . . . it's been a hard run for the selfish, of late.

One can see why some folks feel victimized, attacked.

"Victimized by equality." (Only at Sciforums?)
 
spy moose, unless that post was sarcastic, then isnt it a bit stupid

i mean, u condemm attacking people, then attack someone next sentance
 
*takes this oppertunity to attack SwedishFish, without seeing any irony in it*

Oh, is that your interpertation of how to converse and debate like an adult then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top