Virgil

As a fellow New Yorker I have always found you the soul of tact and well thought out opinions and advice. I feel that I'm the borderline rude one as occassionally I could have been a bit nicer aboout an opinion. For instance I think I was a bit grumpy at the Countess at the last blog and I keep telling myself it's because I actually care about HER (as opposed to say certain others--names withheld--nobody special). Now I do believe growing up New Yorkers are educated in such a way that we come to have this huge ego and entitlement just from being born New Yorkers--at least I did and do. Ironically I have no desire to LIVE in my home state--mostly because of the expense and because over the years the New York image has come to grate on me. I have become an ego unto myself. Yes true Chrisitian humility does not come well to me which is why I suspect I like Jonah best as the prophets.

Long rambling done. Nah--you're fine with people. Once in awhile a point will be made that hits a nerve and pride prevents the cure so we bite the messenger. Frankly I wish I was more bold with my beliefs and opinions but I tend to think of Litnet as a peaceful community and would hate to see it become the Family Bickering Hour--which is why I rarely post to the religious forums--respect the person--fine--respecting the belief--a major challenge when one wants to sigh about the things people GOD think is responsible for or laugh but there but for the grace of God go I. Hope this helps. Don't obsess. But the way if I get touched in New York I check my pockets right away. Word to the wise.

I don't think you're rude so much as opinionated, and I think you and I have differing opinions on certain issues so if I seem kind of pissy toward you in certain posts or blog comments, there might be some of that coming through because I have strong liberal inclinations on certain (but not all) issues. I don't think you're abusive though, because I remember one of the first comments you made about one of my posts began with a polite, "I'm not picking on you, but..." and I appreciated that. I also know that sometimes people just need to speak their beliefs or truths and it is tiring to bother with the nicities ALL the time!! If you feel strongly about a subject you say your piece, and I can respect that. I may not like it, but I do respect it. And about global warming, well...it was in my third grade science book!!! It's got to be real!! Anyway, take care Virg!

Virgil- You didn’t make me want to visit New York. Actually I now feel sorry for everyone there. I don’t think you’re rude, but like Shalot said, you are opinionated. I think that there are several people here who are more accustomed to encouragement than opposition. That may be an unfair statement; I don’t mean to insult anyone. And, while I can’t say if you are living in reality, I do think you are pampered.

New Yawkers don't mince their words. I can respect that. A thing to note, while you brought up the 'global warming is bunk' idea -- I won't argue with you because you believe in what you believe in.... and I'll say this -- when you have posted your thoughts, you always have used the little smilies to try to ensure that your point isn't taken too strongly, or something like that. I did notice that, Virgil, and thought that was a nice thing. No, I don't think that you are rude.

I don't think I've ever found you to be rude, but I tend to be pretty blunt myself. I'm constantly worrying that I may offend both here and in life because of it since often what I say isn't really heard in the manner I meant it to be taken. I don't see how stating one's opinion is considered rude unless you attack a person. For clarification, I mean personal attacks. Some would view the act of disagreeing and stating the reasons an attack, but to me this is a normal part of discussion and debate. Rude would be to call someone a moron, or uneducated because they don't view things in the same light as you. Anyway, I ramble, but the point is that I've never found you to be rude. You've opinions, and you don't agree to just do so and maintain harmony. I find this an admirable quality:) Take Care, Meg

I think it is always very interesting to debate, I love it, but I think that calling someone else's ideas silly is being closed-minded and perhaps a little intolerant. Particularly about Fifth's point of view about dogs and global-warming: she is not being silly, she is being altruistic. This is very rare to me, to have someone who would be ready to forget about their own pleasures in order to preserve the planet, or other species. I greatly admire that because I would not be able to do it. I think all points of view are valuable, even if I don't agree with them all. I try to open myself to them, just like I did with the dog discussion. I just hated what Fifth said in the beginning, but I tried to stay open and I recognized that her point of view was really valuable, and I learnt something great from that even if it was hard to accept. But, to come back to you, Virgil, your way of debating is your own way to do it and I don't want to judge either. I appreciate your presence on the boards.

I'll get in line with those who have called you opinionated and I would add intemperate at times. I'm recalling your reaction to a story someone posted once in which they presented Ronald Reagan in a humorous light. You went ballistic.

And your defense of your mode of responding on the grounds that you're a New Yorker born and bred is, I think, the very opposite of a defense. New York is NOT the world. much less the universe and even if you had not travelled outside it, you would surely have learned that the New York way is not the only possible mode of social intercourse. When you vehemently object to someone else's position, I have felt that you suggest that they and not just their opinion is idiotic.

I probably shouldn't even comment here since I don't know of these threads you speak of, but I don't see you as rude. I have seen a person or two who remind me of little banty roosters, always ready for a fight, who eventually resort to name calling. But even that I can sometimes dismiss as passion.
Even with all of our talk, maybe even bragging, about our 'free' speech in America, I worry about all this politically correct stuff. Sometimes it almost seems dishonest, the way we have to be so guarded.
I don't know. I'll just go away now, back to my little corner.....
And Virgil, you've really got to come to Chicago. I love Chicago. I'm a California girl by birth but I wasn't offended by your comment about Los Angeles. But if you start on San Francisco, put up yer dukes. Them is fightin' words. Just kidding.

Good Heavens, I don't know! How is the tap dancing going? Cheers, B

Nah, not really. I think the problem is that a large number of people are too nice and see any disagreement as being argumentative instead of attempting to have a discussion.

Nah, not really. I think the problem is that a large number of people are too nice and see any disagreement as being argumentative instead of attempting to have a discussion.

Ah, it's not nice to be too nice. I personally think that it is easier to have an interesting discussion when everyone tries to be as respectful as they can of everyone's opinion.

Wow, thanks for all the comments. I like what Shalot said, “If you feel strongly about a subject you say your piece.” Yeah, and the converse of that is also true. If you believe in what you stand, then why would anyone wilt under scrutiny? If you believe in it, stand for it and push back. Are we becoming a bunch of weenies? Shalot had the temerity to push back when we had that little debate over graffiti. Good for her. She’s got backbone. We got over it. I consider her a friend. And I could see Meg as a New Yorker. And Prince, New York may not be the universe but the rest of the universe circles around us. Ask all the New Jerseyians. And yes Mom-H perhaps I am pampered. I just can’t understand how people can consciously and deliberately lower their standard of living for something so nebulous. How many times have people read in the newspapers that scientists have changed their minds? How many times have they changed their minds on caffeine? One year they say it’s bad for you then it’s good for you then it’s back to bad. Who knows what it is today. You see that all the time. And I remember growing up in the 1970’s that we were supposed to be heading for an ice age. If you search the web you can find a Time magazine front cover stating that we were heading for the next ice age. Now it’s global warming. What’s it going to be in ten years? I ought to do a blog entry on the history in the standard of living. And Rich, I agree I don’t want lit net to be the Family Bickering Hour. I don’t mind the mods deleting my posts if I go over the line, as long as it’s fairly done. Hey that’s their job; they got to earn their pay.

Goodness, I struggle with the same thing. But a very wise man once told me,

I think of postings as walking in a crowd. Sometimes you can't help bumping into someone, but that doesn't mean you meant to be rude.

I am of the strong opinion that opinions are good. Cheers.

Andy - That is a very wise statement.

Mmm, isn't it just? I think you'd like the man who told it to me. Fascinating gent, really

Virgil, as it was I who made the statement I think it's only fair that I get the opportunity to explain it here. I have no objection to someone disagreeing with my opinion, in fact I welcome it as I firmly believe that only by discussing ideas can we grow and learn, but there are ways of doing this without having to attack people's characters.In this point, I entirely agree with you :

Originally Posted by Virgil

as long as we’re not attacking each other

and this

Originally Posted by Virgil

if I call someone’s idea (not them personally but their idea) silly, is that being rude?

is a debatable point, but the statement you made towards me was

Originally Posted by Virgil

are you silly or what?

which is an attack - it is a statement directed at the person "YOU" are silly, not the idea or the opinion. So by your own definition, isn't this rude? And with regard to your second statement above, I don't honestly think that it is ever necessary to refer to even the idea or the opinion in derogatory terms, and that in fact by doing so it only causes hurt, and quashes or degenerates the debate. I suppose the question is, why do you think it is necessary to use that kind of language? Isn't it enough to say, "I don't agree with that, and this is why..." (explanation), instead of saying "your idea is rubbish", or "oh, that's just crap". That doesn't tell me anything about why you think it is so. How is anyone supposed to learn from that? Perhaps this is a method we accept from our politicians, but I'm yet to find an occasion when our argument becomes more right just because we call the other person or their ideas by derogatory names.

Virgil: I just can’t understand how people can consciously and deliberately lower their standard of living for something so nebulous. How many times have people read in the newspapers that scientists have changed their minds? How many times have they changed their minds on caffeine? One year they say it’s bad for you then it’s good for you then it’s back to bad. Who knows what it is today.

Well. it's always a gamble, isn't it? And we make our wager based on the most objective analysis we can make but influenced, possibly by our emotional or ideological inclinations. You call on your experts; the other side calls on his or hers. But here are the prospects:

If you're right in disbelieving in global warming but the other side prevails and steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gases, then the outcome is the world survives as it is but industry has been financially inconvenienced, but...

If you're wrong in disbelieving in global warming and nothing is done, then the atmosphere and our earth as we know it may be destroyed.

Which is the worthier gamble?

which is an attack - it is a statement directed at the person "YOU" are silly, not the idea or the opinion.

Well, that's kind of semantics. When someone says, "you're being silly," no one actually means "you're an idiot." There is an informal connotation to "silly" that implies you're off the norm on this particular issue. That is how I meant it. If it didn't come across that way, I apologize.

So by your own definition, isn't this rude?

I guess by certain standards that would be considered rude. That's why I asked here. I was soliciting opinions.

And with regard to your second statement above, I don't honestly think that it is ever necessary to refer to even the idea or the opinion in derogatory terms, and that in fact by doing so it only causes hurt, and quashes or degenerates the debate.

Well, I disagree. There are ideas that don't merit equivilancy. If someone serioulsy (as Swift tongue-in-cheek) proposed that we start eating infants because it solved a, b, and c problems, I wouldn't just say I disagree. One would condemn the idea in the strongest terms and characterize it as savage. In a debate ideas are subject to evaluation and characterization. I characterized your idea as silly. Silly is a departure from common sense. To me anyone that is not going to travel, despite how much they long to do so, because they are guilt ridden of adding an infintesmal amount of polluition is departing from common sense.

I suppose the question is, why do you think it is necessary to use that kind of language? Isn't it enough to say, "I don't agree with that, and this is why..." (explanation), instead of saying "your idea is rubbish", or "oh, that's just crap".

Now I characterized your idea in a particular way. If I'm standing alone in the argument and everyone else agrees with you, then my characterization lacks support and I'm left isolated in the debate, and would be seen as lacking merit. If I were in your shoes, i would have turned around to me and said, "well, everyone here agrees with me, 80% of the world agrees with me, and so you're the silly one, not me."

That doesn't tell me anything about why you think it is so. How is anyone supposed to learn from that? Perhaps this is a method we accept from our politicians, but I'm yet to find an occasion when our argument becomes more right just because we call the other person or their ideas by derogatory names.

I think I went on to explain why. If I didn't fully explain it there, I have in many other environmental discussions and people pretty much know how i feel about it. Of course i keep getting my posts deleted , so perhaps people don't know my thoughts on this.

Well. it's always a gamble, isn't it? And we make our wager based on the most objective analysis we can make but influenced, possibly by our emotional or ideological inclinations. You call on your experts; the other side calls on his or hers. But here are the prospects: If you're right in disbelieving in global warming but the other side prevails and steps are taken to reduce greenhouse gases, then the outcome is the world survives as it is but industry has been financially inconvenienced, but... If you're wrong in disbelieving in global warming and nothing is done, then the atmosphere and our earth as we know it may be destroyed. Which is the worthier gamble?

Oh please. A) You assume if global warming is true then the outcome is catastophic, which is bogus, and b) I can think of hundreds if not thousands of potential catastrophies that we could spend billions or trillions each on. It's a waste of money. that's why. But you have a very telling sentence here:

then the outcome is the world survives as it is but industry has been financially inconvenienced,

Industry financially inconvenienced? No it doesn't work that way. The price my friend is always added into the cost and the consumer pays. A buisness will make its profit or go out of buisness. If General Motors has to acommodate a bunch of regulations, GM doesn't swallow the cost, those that buy cars swallow the cost. And who does that hurt the most? A rich person will always be able to buy that car. It's the person on the edge that won't be able to now afford it. What you've done then is lowered that person's standard of living, and pushed that person from potentially middle class to a lower class. Or if GM has to reduce its employees to hold down costs, how many people have you pushed out of work. If global warming is real then we'll have to bite the bullet and all reduce our standard of living; if it's bull ****, which i think it is, then how many people's lives have you minimized for nothing?

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, that's kind of semantics. When someone says, "you're being silly," no one actually means "you're an idiot."

That's the difficulty though, isn't it? Where you're dealing with the written word, and you can't add or detract weight or meaning to the statement by use of tone, you have to be aware of and weigh the possible way your words will be interpreted by the reader. Over here if someone says "you're being silly" unless it's a statement tempered by tone or familiarity, it means "you're an idiot". Just like "nice" doesn't mean nice On the whole I would always think it best to avoid subjective/judgemental statements about people, their views and opinions. This, I disagree with

Originally Posted by Virgil

Well, I disagree. There are ideas that don't merit equivilancy.

because whatever the merits or otherwise of someone's ideas/thoughts etc, it is always possible to disagree, even strongly disagree without using inflamatory or derogatory language. Take, for example, if one of my younger, more junior colleagues was to ask for my advice on what to do in a particular scenario. They might come to me with their ideas, and I might think that their ideas are rubbish, or naive but if I say so all that will do is crush them, and make them more afraid to come to me again, or to try and make decisions on their own. Instead it's better to explore why their ideas may, or may not work, then they learn something, and feel positive about it. Sometimes they might have an idea that I would usually dismiss, but when we explore it actually turns out to be quite good. If I said 'oh, that's just rubbish' and dismiss them out of hand, the likelihood is that they'd never get to the next step, and we'd both be poorer for it.

Originally Posted by Virgil

To me anyone that is not going to travel, despite how much they long to do so, because they are guilt ridden of adding an infintesmal amount of polluition is departing from common sense.

perhaps, but could you entertain the possibility that I, as a parent, have to weigh the effect of the choices I make now against my children's future? Isn't that being a responsible parent or even, to quote yourself ( Motherhubbard's blog)

Originally Posted by Virgil

But of course i believe in being good stewards of the environment..

I don't want to use something I don't need. Is that really so strange an idea? If you disagree with it, or you don't understand it, it doesn't make it wrong?