Your words hurt me

[Dogdoctor]

I think there are lots of errors in logic going on here. I am insulted by your words, your words hurt me, etc. while they may be true to the person saying them it has no relevance on the veracity of what is being said and is a logical error similar to an ad hominem. It is also an admission of lacking the ability to control your emotions. Why not just say I am a total wimp and cried like a baby because of what you said? Does that mean what was said was false? What was that childhood saying? Something about sticks and stones. Words never hurt is true up to the extent of libel or slander unless you allow them to. Even claiming libel or slander does not address the veracity of what is being said.

 

[Ducky]

I am a wimp and cried like a baby because of what you said.

That makes everything you said false.









(I agree with you, and if I have done this, I apologise and will not do this from now on.)

 

[Beth]

I think there are lots of errors in logic going on here. I am insulted by your words, your words hurt me, etc. while they may be true to the person saying them it has no relevance on the veracity of what is being said and is a logical error similar to an ad hominem. It is also an admission of lacking the ability to control your emotions. Why not just say I am a total wimp and cried like a baby because of what you said? Does that mean what was said was false? What was that childhood saying? Something about sticks and stones. Words never hurt is true up to the extent of libel or slander unless you allow them to. Even claiming libel or slander does not address the veracity of what is being said.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at here. True, whether or not words hurt people may be irrelevant to their veracity, but I consider a poster who continually insults, demeans, or disparages those who disagree with them to be, well, arguing in an intellectually inferior manner.

 

[Cosmo]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at here. True, whether or not words hurt people may be irrelevant to their veracity, but I consider a poster who continually insults, demeans, or disparages those who disagree with them to be, well, arguing in an intellectually inferior manner.

I understand what you're saying, but I think dogdoctor was focusing more on people who use those statements ("your words hurt me", etc) as a means of dismissing or refuting an argument, even if they were not emotionally affected by the argument at all.

Kinda like a reverse, unintended ad hominem. Is there a fancy latin phrase we can italicize for this sort of thing?

 

[Dogdoctor]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to get at here. True, whether or not words hurt people may be irrelevant to their veracity, but I consider a poster who continually insults, demeans, or disparages those who disagree with them to be, well, arguing in an intellectually inferior manner.

A person who continually insults demeans etc.. is making errors in logic also and can be counterd by pointing out the errors. While it may be difficult to do so and time consuming it is the logical thing to do.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I understand what you're saying, but I think dogdoctor was focusing more on people who use those statements ("your words hurt me", etc) as a means of dismissing or refuting an argument, even if they were not emotionally affected by the argument at all.

Kinda like a reverse, unintended ad hominem. Is there a fancy latin phrase we can italicize for this sort of thing?

That's about it. Those words don't have much use in a logical argument and the issues still need to be addressed. The logical error that made you upset needs to be explained otherwise you are criticizing them without providing evidence the same as what you imagine they did. If you don't do that then you allow the other person to assume that what they said was true and that was why you were upset. I am not really familiar with formal logic but I have a sense of it.

 

[Beth]

A person who continually insults demeans etc.. is making errors in logic also and can be counterd by pointing out the errors. While it may be difficult to do so and time consuming it is the logical thing to do.

Sometimes. Sometimes people are just mean about pointing out what is factually correct. Even when they are in the right, I still consider it an intellectually inferior argument. You may or may not, sway lurkers, but you don't convince the person you are arguing with by disparaging them. Thus, I consider it to be an ineffective approach.

On second thought, that's an intellectually rationalization. It may be true, but the bottom line is I don't care for such arguments. I either skip over them in threads I'm reading, or stop bothering to read such threads. Posters who do it egregiously go on my ignore list. I don't care if the person they are arguing with is a fool. If they maintain a calm and polite tone in response to insults and demeaning verbiage, as far as I'm concerned, they score points over the person who's posts are factually correct but mean-spirited.

But that's just me.

Cosmo wrote: focusing more on people who use those statements ("your words hurt me", etc) as a means of dismissing or refuting an argument

I may have missed where some posters were saying this. I do tend to gloss over the personal attacks and responses to them. This isn't a refutation of an argument, but if attacks are being used in place of an argument (and they often are), it's not dismissing the argument but pointing out the lack of solid argument.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Sometimes people are just mean about pointing out what is factually correct. Even when they are in the right, I still consider it an intellectually inferior argument.

If pointing out factual error is being mean, then we've got some mean SOB's here

LLH

 

[Cosmo]

I may have missed where some posters were saying this. I do tend to gloss over the personal attacks and responses to them. This isn't a refutation of an argument, but if attacks are being used in place of an argument (and they often are), it's not dismissing the argument but pointing out the lack of solid argument.

I wouldn't say it's too terribly common, though fowlsound (among others) has called kurious_kathy on it more than once.

 

[Ducky]

I wouldn't say it's too terribly common, though fowlsound (among others) has called kurious_kathy on it more than once.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1387516#post1387516


most recently today.

 

[Tricky]

If pointing out factual error is being mean, then we've got some mean SOB's here

LLH

It's kinda the way they do it. Teaching is one thing. Saying something like, "Only and idiot who is ignoring Dr. Flatulo's recent work in molecular nanotechnology would be so foolish as to suggest such a thing," probably isn't the way to educate.

 

[Beth]

It's kinda the way they do it. Teaching is one thing. Saying something like, "Only and idiot who is ignoring Dr. Flatulo's recent work in molecular nanotechnology would be so foolish as to suggest such a thing," probably isn't the way to educate.

Yes, it's the way they do it. Your description made me smile. I must endure a teacher who is much like that this semester. Wish me luck.

 

[rharbers]

I understand what you're saying, but I think dogdoctor was focusing more on people who use those statements ("your words hurt me", etc) as a means of dismissing or refuting an argument, even if they were not emotionally affected by the argument at all.

Kinda like a reverse, unintended ad hominem. Is there a fancy latin phrase we can italicize for this sort of thing?

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt, credunt.- Caesar

 

[Cosmo]

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt, credunt.- Caesar

Doctor! We need italics, STAT!

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt, credunt. -Caesar

Phew, much better. Now, how about a translation for the latin-impaired?

 

[kmortis]

From here



Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt - Men readily believe what they want to believe. (Caesar)

Geez, Taffer, leave for a while and you forget how to use Google?

 

[rharbers]

From here



Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt - Men readily believe what they want to believe. (Caesar)

Geez, Taffer, leave for a while and you forget how to use Google?

Or, "As a rule, men freely believe that which the wish to believe."

I apologize for not providing the translation.

 

[nosho]

I think there are lots of errors in logic going on here. I am insulted by your words, your words hurt me, etc. while they may be true to the person saying them it has no relevance on the veracity of what is being said and is a logical error similar to an ad hominem. It is also an admission of lacking the ability to control your emotions. Why not just say I am a total wimp and cried like a baby because of what you said? Does that mean what was said was false? What was that childhood saying? Something about sticks and stones. Words never hurt is true up to the extent of libel or slander unless you allow them to. Even claiming libel or slander does not address the veracity of what is being said.

This is all true. By the same token, we all know that it can be human nature to feel bad sometimes if someone says something to us that hits a nerve. And some people are pretty good at guessing what might strike a nerve, and then saying exactly the wrong thing (or the right thing, if the intent is to try to hurt).

The danger here is to fail to take any personal responsibility for what we say to others. As intelligent people, we know that certain outcomes are more likely based on the words we choose.

Our words can water the seeds of understanding, or the seeds of hostility. I think it's important for us to take appropriate responsibility (not too much, and not to little) for what we say to others and how we say it.

 

[Beth]

This is all true. By the same token, we all know that it can be human nature to feel bad sometimes if someone says something to us that hits a nerve. And some people are pretty good at guessing what might strike a nerve, and then saying exactly the wrong thing (or the right thing, if the intent is to try to hurt).

The danger here is to fail to take any personal responsibility for what we say to others. As intelligent people, we know that certain outcomes are more likely based on the words we choose.

Our words can water the seeds of understanding, or the seeds of hostility. I think it's important for us to take appropriate responsibility (not too much, and not to little) for what we say to others and how we say it.

Nicely put. Welcome to the forum.

 

[slingblade]

This is all true. By the same token, we all know that it can be human nature to feel bad sometimes if someone says something to us that hits a nerve. And some people are pretty good at guessing what might strike a nerve, and then saying exactly the wrong thing (or the right thing, if the intent is to try to hurt).

The danger here is to fail to take any personal responsibility for what we say to others. As intelligent people, we know that certain outcomes are more likely based on the words we choose.

Our words can water the seeds of understanding, or the seeds of hostility. I think it's important for us to take appropriate responsibility (not too much, and not to little) for what we say to others and how we say it.

I like you lots. This is, naturally, because you have expressed something I have long believed.

Mind you, I've been known to whip out the old sarcasm lash a time or many, myself. But I do accept the responsibility for my words; I chose them. If I didn't mean to hurt you, I try to restate so that I'm clear, and I'll sincerely beg your pardon. If I meant to hurt you, then you get to deal with it in some way.

Welcome!

 

[Dogdoctor]

This is all true. By the same token, we all know that it can be human nature to feel bad sometimes if someone says something to us that hits a nerve. And some people are pretty good at guessing what might strike a nerve, and then saying exactly the wrong thing (or the right thing, if the intent is to try to hurt).

The danger here is to fail to take any personal responsibility for what we say to others. As intelligent people, we know that certain outcomes are more likely based on the words we choose.

Our words can water the seeds of understanding, or the seeds of hostility. I think it's important for us to take appropriate responsibility (not too much, and not to little) for what we say to others and how we say it.

Yeah! What he said
.