Civility in dialogues.

[john_gabriel]

I recently had a discussion at http://www.sciencefo...ied-as-a-ratio/.

 

Although I ended up insulting the individual (Dr. Rocket) who would not cease insulting me, I thought about the entire discussion and wrote up a short document that addresses some key mistakes people make in any bad dialogue. The document is attached.

 

Insults are unpleasant, but in my opinion someone who dishes out insults should learn to take them also. My advice to bullies is: Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

In this document I discuss a recent dialogue I had with a physicist at Scienceforums.net.

 

My commentary is in blue font.

 

That is great site for those with a strong stomach and aweak mind. - Dr. Rocket

 

This is never the correct way to start a dialogue with anyone. It is insulting and addresses none of the content it claims is suitable only for weak minds. You will see how this so-called physicist puts his foot in his mouth over and over again. The best way to respond to such a statement is to mirror it because the accuser evidently needs to experience the unpleasant nature of his initial comment.

 

You say a lot of things. Most of them are wrong. - Dr. Rocket

 

Not a civil statement even if it were true. Rather than make such a statement, choose one (or two at most) topic that you think is wrong and address this topic, not the person who made a comment related to the topic. Rocket failed throughout the dialogue to provide even one example of what he thought was wrong. Ironically, almost everything he wrote was wrong.

 

That is evidence of nothing more than a failing on your part.

 

Again, rather than provide evidence of what he claims is wrong, he chooses to attack the person. This is what is commonly known as ad hominem. Many academics are guilty of this type of dialogue. What it shows is that they know very little or are very unsure of their arguments. In Rocket's case this was evident because he constantly accused me of being wrong but never once provided evidence to support his claims.

 

You are missing the point.

 

This comment is disdainful. It's almost as good as a slap in the face. Coming from Rocket who was guilty of this, it was even more obnoxious.

 

Clearly you don't know what I am talking about. But that is not surprising since you don't know what you are talking about either.

 

At this point the gloves are off. Rocket knows he is wrong and tries intimidation but has no idea that it can bite him in the butt. I decided to give Rocket the spanking he deserved, but as you will notice from the dialogue, he did not learn much!

 

Your opinion on the superficiality of the difference is incorrectand evidence of abject ignorance concerning the most important definition inall of mathematics, that of a function.

 

The insults just keep intensifying when I don't play his game and just go away. The use of phrases such as abject ignorance are entirely uncalled for and have no place in any civil dialogue.

 

Individuals such as Rocket can never admit their mistakes. They will first attempt to back out gracefully. I would have allowed this had Rocket not been such an arrogant asshole but I decided to chastise him. A fool should not be allowed to intimidate others.

 

Conclusion:

 

I think one should mirror the behaviour of creeps like Dr. Rocket even if it appears not to have helped. Rocket should not be discussing any topic he knows nothing about as if he is an authority on the same and insulting others who are in fact an authority on the subject.

Edited January 12, 2012 by john_gabriel

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

It never ceases to amaze me how people think they can argue a call with a ref and win.

The concept is rather simple: you are free to attack the argument, and not the person making it. Saying that a website is poor, however it is phrased, is a critique of the material and not a personal observation. Saying that your statement is wrong or that you are missing the point is, once again, about the material. Some statements are brusque, but they are about the material.

On the other hand, "do not feed [his] huge ego", "You don't have my respect because you are a fool" and "Where did you read that you moron? Are you delusional as well?" are quite clearly personal attacks.

Another simple concept: if you think you have been the target of a rules violation, you have two options. 1. Report the post and let the staff take care of it. 2. Ignore it. There is no third option. Escalating a discussion by resorting to insults just won't fly.

A third comment, while I'm here: your "New Calculus" sounds like it is non-mainstream and thus discussion of it in regular threads constitutes hijacking. That should be discussed in its own thread in speculations. Please do as you have been asked and become familiar with the rules.

This thread is closed. Closed means that one is not to re-introduce the topic.