|
Post by Monolith on Feb 11, 2005 22:30:49 GMT -5
And what about rabbid dogs? They're hardly imperialist.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Feb 11, 2005 22:59:25 GMT -5
exactly...
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Feb 12, 2005 15:28:12 GMT -5
Congradulations. Everyone needs to have an opinion every once in awhile. And it is probably just a cultural insult to attach the name of some animal after the name of a government system someone prefers. It is supposed to degrade them to being less than human, like the animal they were called (duh) For some people, calling them an animal would not insult them. In example, calling a Hindu person a cow. Within our culture, a cow is something overweight and who stands there chewing their cud, grazing, being milked and defacating(this word is probably spelled wrong, but my dictionary is... sleeping) day in and day out.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Feb 12, 2005 22:30:05 GMT -5
hmm.. bezzerker, did you forget to log out or something? because scott is never serious! This is a first, he is making logical arguments, being rational, and constructively criticising!!!
Amazing. I wonder whether the change will be permenant (assuming that it is not someone else using scott account)
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Feb 13, 2005 0:23:37 GMT -5
Well, remember, we use animals for our political mascotts (i.e., the donkey and the elephant).
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Feb 13, 2005 0:25:13 GMT -5
They don't represent just one thing, you know.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Feb 26, 2005 21:27:55 GMT -5
hmm.. bezzerker, did you forget to log out or something? because scott is never serious! This is a first, he is making logical arguments, being rational, and constructively criticising!!! Amazing. I wonder whether the change will be permenant (assuming that it is not someone else using scott account) Blame my English class for having a huge project that centered around debating. In which, I proved that when my mouth opens, smart stuff can pop out. People now hate arguing with me. Personally, I still think that the best debators are women. There is just no way to really prove a woman she is wrong. And I do believe I was silly in my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Feb 27, 2005 16:27:55 GMT -5
The best debators are anyone who believes they're right so fervently that they won't even listen. This can be anyone, and it's one of the reason Fundies and dedicated politicians bother me so much (not to mention a certain candidate for Mod who's now complaining on the General board). Remember, when you start loosing an argument, just stop listening.
|
|
|
Post by Evilduck on Feb 27, 2005 17:31:53 GMT -5
I don't think they ever start listening...
I would arguen that those people a horrid debaters however. If we measure debating prowess by getting your point of view accepted through any means (ie, not listening to the other party) then a psycho killer would be the best debater because he would kill eveyone else insuring 100% agreement cause he's the only person left (this assumes that he does not have a double pesronality and is steadfast in his beliefs).
But I think a good dabater must convince the others of his point of view instead of just making them give up arguing due to frustration (or death).
|
|
|
Post by Haku on Feb 27, 2005 17:38:31 GMT -5
My sister was telling me something about how they called president Jackson a Jackass or something, and then they chose the donkey as the democratic mascot...I'm not sure how true that is though..
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Feb 28, 2005 21:47:21 GMT -5
I was reffering to getting the other person to accept your point of view. They don't really 'win' the debate, but leave usually having gotten the other person angry and still having the same views.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Feb 28, 2005 21:58:30 GMT -5
Nicholas does have a point.... but the problem with those people who keep on stubbornly reaffirming their point across, is that they end up losing the listeners trust when they are proven wrong. As a result, they are not always the best debators. When you listen to someone who doesnt make logical arguments and wont back down, you begin to distrust and dislike that person, which greatly prevents anyone you from actually listening to them. For this reason a good debator has to know when to back down and even better, when to compromise.
|
|