Anybody who knows me at all, even here online, knows how silly I think all this is, and how saddened I am by it. I've said it a hundred times and it clearly needs repeating: Pay more attention to what was said, rather than to who said it. Stick to the issue itself rather than to the person arguing the debate.
Far too often people will read a posting, and then try to determine what the post is really saying, based on who posted it, rather than simply reading what was posted. Some go to great lengths to filter the text through the sieve of personality or political philosophy, when what they should be doing is simply reading the words on the screen. It's a classic logical fallacy when the validity of a statement or argument is based primarily or solely on who made it. An extension of that logical fallacy is when you try to discredit an argument by discrediting the person who is making it (an ad hominem attack).
Even worse is when you are engaged in an argument (or debate, or whatever you want to call it) and for whatever reason you cannot win the argument on its merits, and you resort to moving away from the issues and begin attacking the person. Generally, a dead giveaway is when the word "you" is used a lot in a response, as in "You always" or "You never" or "You are", "You, you, you". Once you go with "you" then you make it personal, and the natural response for someone who was just attacked personally is to respond in kind. The personal attacks exchanged are generally fast and furious, and the whole thing degenerates into a playground brawl. In the meantime, the issues are forgotten.
There are many here who would do well to learn the difference between a personal attack and someone disagreeing with them. Sarcasm is not a personal attack, either. If someone says "That's stupid", it's not the same as "You're stupid," especially if they state why they think what you said was stupid.
If you can formulate a reply without using "you" as a directed basis for the reply, or without using some third-party term as a direct replacement for it so as to try to get around attacking someone on a technicality, then you are well on your way to sticking to the issues in a debate. For some, this will be impossible, I know.
The whole TFC notion stands for something that I'm against, namely paying attention to who said it, rather than what they said. It would be fine with me if all posts in the Soapbox had all names, join dates, post counts, signatures, green boxes, avatars and all other identifying markings removed. That would force people to respond to what was posted, rather than to who posted it. And personal attacks would be all but eliminated, at least severely curtailed, as they wold stick out like a sore thumb.
Far too often people will read a posting, and then try to determine what the post is really saying, based on who posted it, rather than simply reading what was posted. Some go to great lengths to filter the text through the sieve of personality or political philosophy, when what they should be doing is simply reading the words on the screen. It's a classic logical fallacy when the validity of a statement or argument is based primarily or solely on who made it. An extension of that logical fallacy is when you try to discredit an argument by discrediting the person who is making it (an ad hominem attack).
Even worse is when you are engaged in an argument (or debate, or whatever you want to call it) and for whatever reason you cannot win the argument on its merits, and you resort to moving away from the issues and begin attacking the person. Generally, a dead giveaway is when the word "you" is used a lot in a response, as in "You always" or "You never" or "You are", "You, you, you". Once you go with "you" then you make it personal, and the natural response for someone who was just attacked personally is to respond in kind. The personal attacks exchanged are generally fast and furious, and the whole thing degenerates into a playground brawl. In the meantime, the issues are forgotten.
There are many here who would do well to learn the difference between a personal attack and someone disagreeing with them. Sarcasm is not a personal attack, either. If someone says "That's stupid", it's not the same as "You're stupid," especially if they state why they think what you said was stupid.
If you can formulate a reply without using "you" as a directed basis for the reply, or without using some third-party term as a direct replacement for it so as to try to get around attacking someone on a technicality, then you are well on your way to sticking to the issues in a debate. For some, this will be impossible, I know.
The whole TFC notion stands for something that I'm against, namely paying attention to who said it, rather than what they said. It would be fine with me if all posts in the Soapbox had all names, join dates, post counts, signatures, green boxes, avatars and all other identifying markings removed. That would force people to respond to what was posted, rather than to who posted it. And personal attacks would be all but eliminated, at least severely curtailed, as they wold stick out like a sore thumb.
