Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Your skill will accomplish
what the force of many cannot
 
PerlMonks  

Re: What is "aggressive" argument?

by tirwhan (Abbot)
on Oct 30, 2010 at 10:58 UTC ( #868445=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to What is "aggressive" argument?

Since I was the one (amongst others? Dunno, you seem to imply it) to label your argument aggressive, I guess I should respond. I'll try to be as brief as I can. None of the following is meant to further castigate or accuse, just as clarification.

For definition of "aggressive" I'd go with the Wiktionary entry on aggression (which also pretty much corresponds to your second definition):

1. The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
2. The practice or habit of launching attacks.
3. Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

In recent weeks, I've repeatedly seen you jump on nodes that concern threading and forking in an aggressive (per the above definition) way. You attribute malicious intent to the writers of such nodes where, to my eye(tm), there is none. You also read meanings into these nodes that I cannot detect, then proceed to tear apart these meanings. You attack authors of such nodes personally, when you could just as well argue against the content of their nodes. All of that is aggression. If you'd like examples, is ||= threadsafe? contains several of each of these.

As for the comparison to Re^16: Musing on Monastery Content, what does that have to do with anything? Most people who've been in the monastery for a while have written an aggressive reply at some time or other. I certainly have. Everybody gives in to the dark side occasionally, that's human nature, and if it's reasonably funny and to the point you might even be upvoted for it. It just becomes annoying to see constant aggression whenever a certain subject comes up.


All dogma is stupid.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: What is "aggressive" argument?
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Nov 01, 2010 at 19:36 UTC
    In recent weeks, I've repeatedly seen you jump on nodes that concern threading and forking in an aggressive (per the above definition) way. You attribute malicious intent to the writers of such nodes where, to my eye(tm), there is none. You also read meanings into these nodes that I cannot detect, then proceed to tear apart these meanings. You attack authors of such nodes personally, when you could just as well argue against the content of their nodes.

    I'd ask you to reconsider 4 things:

    1. Is my participation in node on the subject of threading, "jumping"?

      What delineates "jumping" from: supplying answers; or questioning other supplied answers?

    2. Your primary choice of definition of "aggressive", suggests that "initiation" is an important characteristic.

      The time-lines in threads are clearly delineated. Did I initiate?

    3. How can I definitively argue "content" where no technical content is provided?

      Other than by asking for technical content, which I do.

    4. In the absence of an obvious technical reason for the posting of (questionable) content, one does try to discern one.

      Add context, history, knowledge of patterns to the mix, and individual interpretations will differ.

      For example:I find the posting of the assertion "I don't know any of a,b,c to be X", as an "answer" to the question "Is p, X?", to be of extremely questionable value.

      • Does it answer the original question?
      • It is phrased as a follow on question?
      • If it were so phrased, could the asker of the original question reasonably be expected to know the answer?
      • As an assertion, if true, it might shed some light on the original question. But as it is false, what then?
      • As an assertion by a monk known--even renown--for their accuracy and knowledge, what effect does such a false assertion have? What effect was it intended to have?

      I picked that example, because it has (eventually) been honourably withdrawn and corrected. As such, my questioning of it was right, proper and successful.

      There are other, similar assertions in that thread less well, or honourably resolved.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      Briefly:

      Is my participation in node on the subject of threading, "jumping"?

      No.

      What delineates "jumping" from: supplying answers; or questioning other supplied answers?

      It's "jump on", not just "jump", and again, the Wiktionary supplies a good definition.

      The time-lines in threads are clearly delineated. Did I initiate?

      From what I saw you initiated the hostile style, yes.

      How can I definitively argue "content" where no technical content is provided?

      "Incorrect content" (in your eyes) is not equivalent to "no content"

      Other than by asking for technical content, which I do.

      "I dare you to", "Utter FUD" is not asking. Not politely, anyway.

      ..one does try to discern one

      "One" should consider that ones conclusion may be wrong (I know of two times in the past where you were definitely wrong in your discernment). And even if one thinks one is right, jumping on a subjectively perceived and tenuously established malicious intention is still aggression. IMO.

      to be of extremely questionable value

      Agreed. The bait-and-switch tactic you then employed was more distasteful though.

      As such, my questioning of it was right,

      Yes.

      proper

      Not in style or tone.

      and successful.

      In an Operation-Enduring-Freedom-successful sort of way, yeah.

      Update: shit, I really just shouldn't have bothered replying, what an utter waste of time. I am now and forever done with this discussion.


      All dogma is stupid.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://868445]
help
Chatterbox?
[james28909]: im not quite how to explain it any better nick. you evolved from ignorance to intelligence. not the other way. the universe evolves from gas coulds and debris into planets stars and galaxies ect. it doesnt happen any other way. hence it has ....
[james28909]: some kind of logic behind it
[james28909]: and that is also anothe rpoint i made, i think it has to do with perception of the world around you. most people think of evolution on a human scale. why could life evolve on this planet? because this planet evolved in this solar system. and so on.
[holli]: here's something for you to watch, James. I think you will like it
[erix]: for the record: I have not downvoted anyone on that subthread that was my fault
[james28909]: there are all kinds of things that had to happen to let life come to be. but at the same time, life may not be the end goal IF there is any kind of end goal lol
[james28909]: well who is the person who gets to decide which behaviour is worthy of a downvote? a person with their own beliefs? xD
[erix]: teleology -- I've never understood why that was thunk up
[erix]: ( and when teleology was brought up, during my biology-study., I couldn't get an answer either )
[1nickt]: FTR I agree with you about "design." Just not sure about the trajectory of evolution. THere are a lot of dead-ends in the evolutionary paths. I suspect homo sapiens is just one of them.

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (18)
As of 2017-12-15 14:33 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    What programming language do you hate the most?




















    Results (433 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?