Poll: Should we anoint demo a "Resident Troll" badge?

[Leonidas]

Some people deserve to be insulted, so insulting them is the right thing to do.

"Deserving" is a concept that depends really much on the society. There are no consensus on that.
"The right thing". Well, it depends on the definition of "right". In that context, "the right thing to do" for me would be using words that allow others to understand my point of view and be open to it. I don't believe that insulting does the job. Now if it did, why not, but it obviously does not.

You insult him in order to warn the others

Insult is an easy thing that anybody can do. As far as i'm concerned, it gives me much more input on the person that insults (that fails to see the usefullness of that technique) than the insultee.

If you are right, then how comes and the below managed to convince so many people?

Did it ? I mean, that quote in particular ? Or are you referring to the bible ? In that case, the bible cannot be reduce to one quote in it. It's like taking you word out of context.

And even if it was the case, other mechanism much more powerful and other than insults are at work in the religion so that they manage to convince somebody. Religion analyse the fear of people and put an explanation to it. Then it allows them to gain trust to the people to manipulate them.

I find much more interesting other techniques such as expressing one's point of view and trying to understand the other ones point of view (you can't build a world alone), than insulting or using manipulation techniques used by religion.

 

[demo]

Did it ? I mean, that quote in particular ?

Yes it did. That quote in particular. Insulting the Jew priests is one of the most famous quotes of Jesus.

I find much more interesting other techniques such as expressing one's point of view and trying to understand the other ones point of view (you can't build a world alone), than insulting or using manipulation techniques used by religion.

Wow! You changed camp now.

We were talking about convincing techniques. They are just techniques of convincing people, they have no inherent moral inside them.
When I presented you my arguments explaining why my technique of insulting people is superior than yours, you started talking about moral!

This is not moral, to use the moral argument whenever it suits to you.

 

[Leonidas]

Wow! You changed camp now.

Hum... I used the wording " I find it interesting" because I didn't want to say "efficient" as I have no proof of that my way is better than yours in the long term when it comes to "convincing people". But I notice that for the short term does not seem to work well. So, I'm just curious why you would carry on down that path.

Besides, my understanding of moral is that it states for everybody what's wrong and what's good no matter the context or the time. I didn't say it was the way to be, I just express my personal opinion here, that I find other technique more interestings .

So you praise insults because it appears in the bible. Are yours messages in that forum the begining of a religious you are starting ??

 

[demo]

So you praise insults because it appears in the bible.

As long as the insults appear in the Bible, and because Bible convinced so many people, this is the proof that the insult of people who deserve it is an efficient technique you can use, in order to convince.

 

[TroyDASH]

As long as insults appear in the Bible, and as long as Bible convinced so many people, this is a proof that insulting people who deserve it, is an efficiant way you can use in order to convince.

@demo has a point

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Some people deserve to be insulted, so insulting them is the right thing to do.

No. Even if you are 100% correct in your assertions, the moment you insult someone is the moment you fail yourself and you become wrong. For if it was not true, you would never believe in, or uphold, self-improvement. Some people simply don't have the capacity to understand your "logic" or correctness. All the education and patience in the world may never give them the capacity to understand your assertions. More so, even if you felt correct for applying insult to someone, you may inadvertently insult others. For example, you can insult me and I'm big enough to take it on the chin.. but if you do that in front of my mother, I will physically remove you and make sure you never enter my life ever again.

 

[demo]

No. Even if you are 100% correct in your assertions, the moment you insult someone is the moment you fail yourself and you become wrong.
....
if you do that in front of my mother, I will physically remove you and make sure you never enter my life ever again.

Obviously when you insult someone, this means that you don't hope to convince him anymore. Your insult targets the others who are watching. You want to warn them about him. So you may fail convincing the person you insult, but if the person who you insults is obviously wrong, then you will convince many others who are listening to you. Because insults offer publicity and people tend to watch insults, even if they dont like them. And there is no such thing as bad publicity. So you may convince many others if you are right, including his mother too. And if his mother is convinced, then maybe there is a tiny hope to convince him too.

By the way, you just revealed yet another technique I am using. If someone is not convinced at all, I accuse him in front of his mother. This is my last hope.

 

[TroyDASH]

Obviously when you insult someone, this means that you don't hope to convince him anymore. Your insult targets the others who are watching. You want to warn them about him. So you may fail convincing the person you insult, but if the person who you insults is obviously wrong, then you will convince many the others who are listening to you. Because insults offer publicity and people tend to watch watever insults, even if they dont like them. And there is no such thing as bad publicity. So you may convince many others if you are right, including his mother too. And if his mother is convinced, then maybe there is a tiny hope to convince him too.

By the way, you just revealed yet another technique I am using. If someone is not convinced at all, I accuse him in front of his mother. This is my last hope.

The fact that people are sometimes influenced by logical fallacies does not mean that fallacies should be employed to influence people.

 

[demo]

The fact that people are sometimes influenced by logical fallacies does not mean that fallacies should be employed to influence people.

I dont think it is considered as a logical fallacy, that people tend to watch insults even if they dont like them. Whenever danger rings, it is logical to watch the danger. When there is a fire in the forest, you watch the fire, not the rest forest that is not burned yet. This is a rational behavior, not a logical fallacy.

So in our case people behave rationally when they watch insults, and when your insult is rational, you are using people's logic in order to influence them.

 

[solarguy]

Moving the goalposts again.

Demo, In the bible, people were insulted, and many people were convinced. Ergo, since it was effective, it is right and proper.

TroyDash. So if many people are convinced by a logical fallacy or fallacies, since it was effective, it is right and proper.

Demo, No, it wasn't a logical fallacy.

Thus, either Demo is utterly missing the point, or he moved the goal posts mid-game...again.

Either way, I am mystified why we still try to redeem Demo.

 

[demo]

Demo: In the bible, people were insulted, and many people were convinced. Ergo, since it was effective, it is right and proper.

I never said "since", neither I said something about "right and proper"
This is what I have said:

As long as the insults appear in the Bible, and because Bible convinced so many people, this is the proof that the insult of people who deserve it is an efficient technique you can use, in order to convince.

Using your wording:

Demo: In the bible, people were insulted, and many people were convinced. So insulting is an effective technique. Period.

An effective technique may be either "right and proper" or "wrong and improper", depending on the circumstances.

 

[solarguy]

I'm out. Demo goes back on ignore. I eagerly await the moderators to take action of some kind.

 

[Leonidas]

Either way, I am mystified why we still try to redeem Demo.

Because creativity and true collective intelligence rises from conflict, debate, discussion, different point of views. So getting demo to keep a non-violent conflictive approach would be a good thing. But I get your point . Either way, that might be my weird side too. I'm quite fascinated by demo's behaviours and filosophy that is quite far away from mine. By talking, I might get to understand it better (and him to mine). And, at least, since we have been talking about insults, there were no more insults from any side

 

[GrandMasterDash]

I'm quite fascinated by demo's behaviours and filosophy ....

There is no philosphy. Imo, demo is unable / unwilling to understand, compromise or redeem herself. Her "philosophy" is simple; "I have no money therefore I must embrace it and look to the positive i.e. money leads to greed and sin, therefore all money is evil". In other words, demo is trapped by her limitations to see beyond her own little world.

If the moderators decide to ban her, who will complain?

But regardless, demo is a good test case of how we might improve the forum. Perhaps it can lead us to automatic badge attributes reflecting reputation within the community.

 

[sinbad10]

Perhaps some other solution