Debate? and Discuss?

[linderlizzie]

FYI. I don't believe that just calling people names is a form of debate or discussion. 

I understand that people don't like people for whatever reason, but state the reason you disagree with them instead of bashing them. 

It's so much more civilized that way. Don't you agree? After all, a forum is defined as "a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged."

[sfreeman8]

I feel the same way but you can't chastise someone for name-calling. The idiotic (sorry!) response is that this country was based on free speech, then they yell FIRST AMENDMENT rights.   

So, you ignore them or go down to their level and return the "favor," which is very hard unless you're mad enough. 

[themrs13]

well said .... totally agree 

[paints]

Name-calling is a way to distract from the discussion when you know your argument isn't valid.
Once someone starts calling names, I dismiss them, because I realize that they don't know what they're talking about.

[JaniceSW]

Name-calling is a way to distract from the discussion when you know your argument isn't valid.
Once someone starts calling names, I dismiss them, because I realize that they don't know what they're talking about.

I agree with your response wholeheartedly.  Name-calling is a distraction from the issue at hand and usually means that the person has no more of significance to say.  It is rude and shows a lack of impulse control on a forum or blog such as this.  However, just look at all the internet/social media trolls who say such mean, irrelevant, and sometimes downright vicious things to others.  You have to wonder what barn they were raised in.  Lord forbid you try to state something useful and informative or supportive.

[DwanaMR]

The problem with uncivil speech in political debates/discussions is that only one side is ever called out for it.  The other side is allowed to indulge in it with little consequence.  As long as that double standard persists, political civility will be scarce.

[paints]

Name-calling is a way to distract from the discussion when you know your argument isn't valid.
Once someone starts calling names, I dismiss them, because I realize that they don't know what they're talking about.

I agree with your response wholeheartedly.  Name-calling is a distraction from the issue at hand and usually means that the person has no more of significance to say.  It is rude and shows a lack of impulse control on a forum or blog such as this.  However, just look at all the internet/social media trolls who say such mean, irrelevant, and sometimes downright vicious things to others.  You have to wonder what barn they were raised in.  Lord forbid you try to state something useful and informative or supportive.

I've learned to just say what I need to say, and move on.  It's a waste of time and energy to argue with someone who insists on being hateful. 

[vg7405]

This is why I get so irritated whenever people bring up the Constitution and interpret it to suit them. For instance, if someone wishes to burn the American flag (or a politician wants to resort to mud-slinging name-calling), all they have to do is say: "It's my first amendment right (freedom of speech). Total BS. There has to be a boundary at some point.

[sfreeman8]

This is why I get so irritated whenever people bring up the Constitution and interpret it to suit them. For instance, if someone wishes to burn the American flag (or a politician wants to resort to mud-slinging name-calling), all they have to do is say: "It's my first amendment right (freedom of speech). Total BS. There has to be a boundary at some point.

We can thank SCOTUS for allowing the flag burning. I find it disgusting. I don't find flag burning freedom of speech. No respect for our flag equals no respect for our country.  You can't do that in other countries.

[lvstephanie]

This is why I get so irritated whenever people bring up the Constitution and interpret it to suit them. For instance, if someone wishes to burn the American flag (or a politician wants to resort to mud-slinging name-calling), all they have to do is say: "It's my first amendment right (freedom of speech). Total BS. There has to be a boundary at some point.

The boundary is when one person's free speech infringes upon another person's rights. But because words by themselves have no real power (ie as in the adage "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"), it becomes difficult to show when hurtful speech (name-calling, mud-slinging, etc.) actually does more hurt to a person than bruised feelings. Our country was established to allow people to freely express themselves, both in words and deeds. Once you start imposing "boundaries" by making certain speech illegal, you begin to deteriorate our freedoms. Oppressive / totalitarian governments grow and strengthen when they can start to control people's thoughts and values. By silencing opposition (even silencing worthless ad hominum attacks) you only serve to ensure that only one point-of-view is the only point-of-view that is legally acceptable. So while I may dislike when someone starts name-calling instead of debating the issue with facts, I'm still glad that the 1st Amendment does allow that person to spew that garbage.