» pink101 - Openers
.-- posted by pink101
» pink101 - ERATA
In response to Openers posted by pink101:
.
This line:
How does anyone think we should intelligently we go about qualifying any persons to whom we should pay any attention? Any suggestions?
.
Should have read:
How does anyone think we should intelligently go about qualifying any persons to whom we should pay any attention? Any suggestions?
.
Sorry about that.
-- posted by pink101
»
Brian Tubbs
- Qualification
I'm mulling over that last question still, Pink. It's a good one.
The first thought that comes to mind is the Golden Rule. In that spirit, I think we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That's what we would want, is it not?
As to when a person forfeits any "qualification" to be listened to respectfully and/or seriously...that's where the controversy begins. I'm still mulling this one over.
» pink101 - Qualification
In response to Qualification posted by BrianTubbs:-- posted by pink101
»
Brian Tubbs
- Qualification
I think one clear answer would be...
When a person ceases trying to persuade or reason and just wants to vent in an abusive and inflammatory manner, you are not violating any moral or democratic principle to simply walk away.
However, I think this should by and large be applied to the argument rather than the person. In other words, a person may be reasonable most of the time, but occasionally become unreasonable. I don't think you block such a person out entirely and across the board.
» pink101 - Recalcitrant
In response to Qualification posted by BrianTubbs:-- posted by pink101
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.