BrainKing - Foros de discusión (Politics)

Moderador: Vikings

Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.

All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!

*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."

Lista de boletines
No tienes autorización para escribir mensajes en este boletín. Para escribir mensajes en este boletín se require un nivel mínimo de membresía de Brain Peón.

Modo: Todo el mundo puede escribir

11. Febrero 2009, 07:10:39

Papa Zoom

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: After all, "unthinking" and "irrational" not only have established meanings in the dictionary but far less pejorative connotations.

<span>mine are right from the dictionary:

whacko - 20 thesaurus results absurd, asinine, bedlamite, bonkers, cracked*, crackers, daffy*, demented, deranged, dopey*, flaky*, foolish, fried*, giddy, half-baked*, idiotic, inane, insane, in the ozone, lunatic, mad, mental*, nuts, nutty*, off the wall, out of one's gourd, ridiculous, screwy*, silly, simple, touched, unbalanced, unhinged*, unsound, wacky, whacko, witless

hmmmm, I like a few of these. I see nutty is in there so that qualifies. So "whacko" and "nutty" are legit.

As for perjorative, anytime you use words with the intent of belittling or disparaging, you are using those terms in the perjorative. Calling someone unthinking or irrational is not a compliment. It might be more sophisticated, but using "unthinking" or "whacko" are in the same camp. The camp of the stupid.

The words whacko and nutty can be used perjoratively or not. The same is true for unthinking and irrational. All have perjorative connotations. It's a matter of opinion which may be "worse" and certainly it's a matter of style. I think you're splitting hairs. It's like arguing that there is a polite way to tell someone they are stupid morons as opposed to just saying it outright. I dunno, an insult is an insult. But I like sounding like a hack sometimes. So whacko and nutcases and the like will do it for me.

11. Febrero 2009, 07:24:02

The Usurper

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: After all, "unthinking" and "irrational" not only have established meanings in the dictionary but far less pejorative connotations.

Artful Dodger: Just what I expected from one of those unthinking, irrational types. LOL :o)

11. Febrero 2009, 07:25:05

Papa Zoom

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: After all, "unthinking" and "irrational" not only have established meanings in the dictionary but far less pejorative connotations.

The Usurper: Don't be a whacko

11. Febrero 2009, 07:39:36

The Usurper

mostrar mensajes de este usuario | mostrar hilo argumental | enlace

Asunto: Re: After all, "unthinking" and "irrational" not only have established meanings in the dictionary but far less pejorative connotations.

Artful Dodger: Actually, sir, you are correct! As far as it goes, that is....

Calling your debating opponent "irrational" or calling him "whacky" is roughly the same. And calling his argument "irrational" or "whacky" is also roughly the same.

The difference, the crucial one, is that applying these terms to your opponent does not logically strengthen your argument, as it does not bear on the evidence presumably culled to support it. It is therefore a diversionary tactic.

If I say that a man who says 4+4 = 5 is making an irrational statement, my position is borne out by the evidence. If I say HE is irrational, that may or may be so but it is not germain to the topic at hand and that in itself, true or not, cannot be construed as evidence that 4+4 does not equal 5.

My point is that you, in my opinion, do not use these terms in a matter conducive to healthy debate or with an aim to establishing the truth of any assertion you make, based on evidence you present. You rather use it out of anger and/or more precisely for purposes of intimidation, to in fact lessen the substantial quality of the debate, to make it harder for others to pick up the threads....and to let others know they can expect the same treatment should they disagree with you. This is, for example, what your hero O'Reilly makes a living at. And it is the first defense of most who vehemently support the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. :o)