Cats’n’dogs

~~~

Just one example today (but examples are all over the place) –

1

This comment is rightly highlighting the `mistake` in the article.

I am highlighting these things because, in the article, this is not a `mistake` … it is an example of `cheating`.

Argumentation is (seemingly) very important. But when large groups `cheat` by abusing the (non written) rules of argumentation, the whole purpose is upset.

What was once an `exchange of views` with one side `trying to convince the other` … turns into a `cat fight`.

~~~

poses.moda

poses.moda

~~~

Another example …

~~~

This sort of stuff is not `down the pub` sort of arguing (because if you tried it down-the-pub, you would get clobbered).

Repeat … Only womens would do this sort of thing (because you can’t clobber a women).

1

“You’re convinced that only one side in this argument is being dogmatic?”

Note … that JMC came-back with a good reply, but it doesn’t matter. The smart-ass answer has already done its damage.

You can’t clobber womens … and you can’t clobber people on the internet … so, this bollocks is everywhere.

This is why everyone is `getting their retaliation in first` … because the art-of-rational-argument is dead.

~~~

ghju78

~~~

Identity Politics (apparently)

~~~

GuardianUK
‘Don’t play identity politics!’ The primal scream of the straight white male
by Hadley Freeman (a womans)

This looks like it is `a thing`.
It is a thing that I don’t think I want to have much (anything) to do with (because it looks like juvenile shit to me).

3

The `shit` is in the second paragraph / The second paragraph is shit.
The kind-of-shit … that it is only sensible to `just walk away from` (re yesterday’s post).

And on it goes …

4

5

6

7

8

~~~

fssgf56

dcs2

asz2

jik87

hu8

cdf5

~~~