Interesting and Humour - page 4071
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Well, of the two arguing, the one who's smarter is wrong. Otherwise everyone is trying to send the other one to the asylum. When an argument comes to that, it's high time someone stopped instead of trying to have the last word.
Of the two arguing, one is a scoundrel and the other a fool.
Of the two arguing, one is a scoundrel and the other a fool.
At the research institute where I worked, someone would periodically put up a poster saying; 'Only complete idiots argue'.
The bosses fought it at first, and then ordered it moved to the hall where the scientific councils were held, after which the quality of the scientific councils improved considerably.
Every argument starts with someone simply stating their opinion -- and the other(s) start making an idiot of them, i.e. lowering them to their own level. That's exactly the kind of argument that plagues the entire humor thread. And who is who in it is known to all long ago.
Of the two who enter into an argument, one is a rascal and the other a fool.
An argument is when two people give their opinions to each other. And when there are many spectators, it is propaganda.
At the research institute where I worked, someone would periodically put up a poster saying; 'Only complete idiots argue'.
The bosses fought it at first, and then ordered it moved to the hall where the scientific councils were held, after which the quality of the scientific councils improved considerably.
Yes, yes. Those who like to propagate nonsense and nonsense especially don't like controversy.
Every argument starts with someone simply stating their opinion -- and the other(s) start making an idiot of them, i.e. lowering them to their own level. That's exactly the kind of argument that plagues the entire humor thread. And who is who in it is known to all long ago.
And if an idiot expressed a point of view, it means that someone else just pointed out his true face? That is to lower his ego to his real level, not his own. Otherwise you only have your opponent in a negative light. Situations are different. And why must one of the parties to an argument be an idiot.
There is a sensible argument. It usually goes like this. A point of view is expressed. An opposing point of view is expressed. One tries to refute the other, while at the same time presenting arguments in its defence. And if there is incontrovertible evidence, the point of view defends itself. If not, there are epithets-perhaps, I think, probably, not claiming to be true.
But when one point of view starts throwing out unequivocal assertions with no evidence, while attacking the other point of view which has it, it is no longer a sensible argument.
Even if the second point of view has no refutation of the first, just as the first has no refutation of the second. The assertion is made by the first, and unequivocally so.
And if an idiot made a point, the other just pointed out his true face? ...
That is the essence/objective of any argument -- to humiliate the other party.
When there is a mere discussion of a point of view (however wrong it may be), it is called a debate, a dialogue, a discussion, etc. -- The goal is not to demean and degrade the interlocutor, but to discuss the issue at hand.
That is the essence/objective of any argument -- to humiliate the other party.
When there is a mere discussion of a point of view (however wrong it may be), it is called a debate, a dialogue, a discussion, etc. -- The purpose of it is not to humiliate and degrade the interlocutor, but to discuss the issue at hand.
Andrew, I made fun of an aunt a year ago who was sitting on a bench with her dog.
The grandmother died without suffering a heart attack.
---------------------
I was told by the guys around the house
1
1
That is the essence/objective of any argument -- to humiliate the other party.
When there is a mere discussion of a point of view (however wrong it may be), it is called a debate, a dialogue, a discussion, etc. -- The goal is not to humiliate the interlocutor, but to discuss the issue.
Not to belittle, but to show that your own point of view is correct with specific arguments. If someone is humiliated by his/her wrongdoing or erroneous thoughts, that's their problem.
Maybe when both sides cannot reach a conclusion, because both sides have insufficient arguments.
But when in the course of an argument they say that white is black, can it be considered an argument. At this point it is not an argument at all, but a reaction to nonsense. And here the discussion about whether it is necessary to react to bullshit begins, and in most cases the answer is probably no. BUT. There can be variations here. First total inaction, then degradation of the environment, then who pisses in the entryway. It could be otherwise. Coming to shut up any point of view with all that entails . Perhaps part of all this should be taken up by the state, to make people more educated. But it is not up to it.
At the research institute where I worked, someone would periodically put up a poster saying; 'Only complete idiots argue'.
The bosses fought it at first, and then ordered it moved to the hall where the scientific councils were held, after which the quality of the scientific councils improved considerably.
No no, not idiots - one of those arguing is always a rascal.