Discussion»Questions»Communication» We have differences of opinion. We can state them calmly, insult/attack viciously or fight to the death. Which makes more sense to you? Why?
In my opinion, when we state our opinions rationally, without hatred, without resorting to insults we hold the upper hand.. This can be respected. When we resort to mudslinging and descend to personal insults in response to valid points we just look silly, out of control and as though we have no reasoned answer.
I think it is because we don't. Or rather those who engage in personal attacks have nothing else to go with and they want to be in the mix so they go with what they have. Now of course I believe strongly that all politicians are subject to attack. Someone has to call them out for what they do. But we the people should be civil to one another no matter what. It's not hard. In fact it's a lot easier to be cordial than to be hostile and viciously argumentative. For me personally. Thank you for your reply Addb! :)
If the proposed question is not calm, is absent of polite civility, filled with obsessive name calling and childish immaturity, does it really warrant a calm or rational answer?
In my opinion.. yes, we should still answer with reasoned responses. If we descend to their level then we have lost the upper hand. Luckily there are almost no inflammatory unreasonable questions here.
This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at September 10, 2017 9:55 AM MDT
Adaydreambeliever 