hollowmoon wrote:
DeepHour wrote:
The primary meaning of 'argument' for me is an exchange of views in which the participants adopt differing, or opposing, stances. In that sense it's a 'neutral' word and I don't have any problems with being in an 'argument' so defined.
I think the difficulties arise when one gets into an 'argument' in the secondary sense of the word, ie a 'row', often involving abusive language, unfounded accusations against the opposing party and so on.
One would like to think that the difference between the two is obvious, but that sometimes seems not to be the case, on this forum and elsewhere.....
So if my opinion is different than someone i shouldnt say it?
That's not what I was suggesting at all! Why shouldn't you say it, assuming that it's relevant to the subject under discussion and stated in a calm, unthreatening manner?
If you take a look at
this thread, there's an illustration of what I meant. At one point Poster A (myself, as it happens) offers a perspective or opinion which is pretty matter of fact and not calculated to inflame, but which is opposed to Poster B's viewpoint. I would categorize this as legitimate 'argument'. Poster B then responds aggressively with a torrent of words in capital letters, exclamation marks and swearing. This I would categorize as the second, 'rowing' sort of 'argument'.
Then again, that's only my opinion - you, and others, may well feel Poster B was justified in so responding.
And as I said before, whereas the differences between 'legitimate' and 'non-legitimate' argument
should be obvious, when emotions become involved it's rarely that simple.
I personally try to keep arguments 'logical' and evidence-based, but am perfectly happy to engage with people who want to 'argue' on any basis, even if its based on emotion and is to some degree aggressive. For that reason I'm one of those people who expresses dismay when certain threads (usually in
PPR or
Love And Dating) are locked, though I'm not denying that such measures are occasionally necessary.