|
TAs you grow to hate more and more each day. (pg. 32)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
The few times I tried a different approach, they failed disastrously. |
Failed disastrously? Because a good deal of people spoke out against your underdone logic in an enduring dialogue, or because you failed to convince everyone that you were right (because of course you were)? Fairness, indeed! |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
I don't understand the tactic of taking what Lira says out of context and twisting his words around to use them against him.
Anyone who has spoken to him before should know better than that. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Failed disastrously? Because a good deal of people spoke out against your underdone logic in an enduring dialogue, or because you failed to convince everyone that you were right (because of course you were)? Fairness, indeed! |
Neither. Because the debate was way too heated, and communication was nearly impossible after a few pages.
Do I really come across as someone who wants to be right all the time, and wants to convince others I'm always right? Because, if I do, then it means every single tactic I've ever used failed disastrously... I mean, I don't even think I am right most of time, so a positive answer here would simply stun me. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
What was out of context? He thinks his thread was a disastrous failure. He wrote those words. You can read them. On your screen. Look above. They're in context to his thread.
Now why would one think such a discussion was a disaster? I'm calling him out on the notion that he tries to be as egalitarian as possible, but would still persist in thinking that any debate worth having (he started the thread) would be of negative value... because of how it turned out? Because several people disagreed with what he said? I certainly don't think he believes that staunch disagreement in itself is a bad thing, but it's not twisting his words at all to infer that he took such a thing personally for it to be a "disaster". |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
I'm fairly certain that he doesn't want to have debates that turn into heated arguments, not that he doesn't want to have debates in which he's "wrong" or where people disagree with him. You're trying to paint him as the type who thinks any debate that he doesn't win, or where he can't convince other people that his points are valid is a "disaster" but I don't think that's what he's getting at at all here.
You're taking his saying that the threads were a disaster out of context, in that you're seeming to use them as a premise in some sort of argument that Lira only finds debates to be worthwhile as long as he comes out on top. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
What was out of context? He thinks his thread was a disastrous failure. He wrote those words. You can read them. On your screen. Look above. They're in context to his thread.
Now why would one think such a discussion was a disaster? I'm calling him out on the notion that he tries to be as egalitarian as possible, but would still persist in thinking that any debate worth having (he started the thread) would be of negative value... because of how it turned out? Because several people disagreed with what he said? I certainly don't think he believes that staunch disagreement in itself is a bad thing, but it's not twisting his words at all to infer that he took such a thing personally for it to be a "disaster". |
Like I mentioned above, the reason why I believe the debate was a disaster is because it felt like we were talking past one another and communication didn't flow well.
Besides, I'm used to having people disagree with me... and there are instances in which I did this and it went swimmingly well. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
The very title of his thread called for drug users to kill/cripple themselves in alleviation or penance for the crimes of people they were distantly associated with. He persisted with this point throughout, that consumers were to blame for the abhorrent acts of others.
Yeah, he definitely didn't want to incite a heated debate! Nope, not our Lira! |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Don't play sheepish, you rabblerouser! :mad: |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
and it went swimmingly well. |
There he goes with his big words again |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
People taking what he's saying in an inflammatory way and ignoring the actual points he's trying to make, doesn't mean that he intended for it to be received that way.
In a way, he does have a point. As much of a point as people who eat McDonalds are contributing to McDonalds' slow obesification of America. Yes, people who buy drugs do in a way partially fund what is going on in Central America. Yes, if everyone stopped using them, there would be no demand, and thus the supply would be unnecessary. If there's no demand, the cartels lose power, the violence would stop (maybe), and we could all go on living our lives without hearing about the latest drug related murders in Mexico.
I don't agree with his argument, but I'm not going to jump to saying that he was trying to incite a heated debate about the topic. I've never seen him do anything of the sort before, and this thread was much like many others I've seen him create (albeit a bit more emotional).
He obviously saw what the thread turned into, and saw that it was going nowhere. There was no debate occurring, as it was mainly everybody vs. Lira. That doesn't mean he was backing away to save face or because he was angry that nobody would accept his views. There was just no point to continuing a thread in which civil and logical discourse had completely broken down. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
The very title of his thread called for drug users to kill/cripple themselves in alleviation or penance for the crimes of people they were distantly associated with |
The title presented two alternatives: one, which I assume is a reasonable idea (use/legalise drugs from your own market, avoid consuming goods of unknown origins and uncontrolled production) and to which I wanted to draw the readers attention... and the other which is just downright absurd, cruel, and possible only in a concentration camp. The goal was to show how the former alternative is not only more feasible, it's also way more appealing than the latter.
It worked fantastically well on the first page or two. Then, specially after the rebump, people apparently skipped the discussion altogether, and then I had to deal with emotional posters like Znack writing things like:
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
That's just horrible. Telling addicts basically to just go die. I'm lucky that I'm no addict and never have been, but I know people who have, and it usually has a root cause (abuse, poverty, depression or other undiagnosed illness) that is out of the control of the addict.
FFS, they are human beings. I agree with the War on drugs being retarded, but you are really pissed at the wrong people, here. If we treated addicts for underlying causes instead of like criminals (or like disposable garbage), we might actually improve the situation. |
This is a clear case the main point went unnoticed, and the rhetoric definitely failed. The fact that even you, whom I take to be an all-around top bloke, thought it was a call for a mass suicide, shows it didn't work out as originally intended. |
|
|
| enydo |
If you don't want inflammatory responses maybe not make the first thing people see in relation to the post completely inflammatory? Even if it's just in jest... you're basically trolling, and you got the type of responses you were asking for.
Regardless of how legitimate the actual conversation on the topic was, a post title like that, as innocuous as you may have thought it was, is going to color peoples' perceptions of what you're trying to say. Seeing as this is an electronic music forum with a lot of known drug-users, you were probably not looking at a favorable outcome from a debate perspective. |
|
|
|
|
