Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

> > >This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
> > >But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they?

> > They can be used to describe a big part of the ideas posted here.

>They can be so used, but they should not be so used.

I disagree. If something is clearly too stupid to be discussed then we can point that and to move to more useful things.

>Indeed. That is why, when I am discussing issues such
>as civility with people who are ignorant on the topic, or
>who have some innate difficulty with it, I try to be
>patient and polite, in the same way that I try to be
>patient and polite with those who are ignorant or who
>have difficulty with technical subjects.

I try to do the same until I realize that I am discussing with a perseverant ignoramus who has not any intention to attend to reasons.

Ignoramuses might be intelligent, reasonible and they might learn. Perseverant ignoramuses are stupid and only deserve to be quickly debunked.

>Politeness is the hallmark of civilization; in its complete
>absense, civilization itself is impossible. I am not exaggerating.

But politeness should not be confused with sissiness. To call a spade a spade is reasonible.

> Civility and intelligence in discourse are independent; you have
> drawn a false dichotomy.

To me, civility and level of discourse are also independent.

In my opinion the occasional rudeness is the least of the problems in this group.

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 16:30:26 CEST