Hi All:
A number of contributors have expressed their distaste for the manner
in which some write posts that are perceived to be low quality. Today's
post from 3WD expresses this dislike well:
> Thanks for the kind words. Maybe overly kind when you say, "still treat
> each other and everyone else with a sense of respect", in as much as the
> archives will prove I have from time to time slipped in to the low
> quality, back biting, ad hominen ways.
> My "conduct mentor" here is and has been Rog. He is the most consistent
> in making positive contributions, while maintaining his PoV, and
> avoiding "pissing" contests.
The question I have for anyone willing to take it on is why do 3WD and
others (including myself) consider ad hominems to be low quality?
What principle or principles of the MOQ make such attacks immoral?
I think that a personal attack plunges the attackee into a biological level
mode of knee-jerk emotional response. To have one's name taken in
vain is an assault on one's ego which, since it encompasses a bodily
image, is taken by the ego as tantamount to a slap in the face. The
emotion thus aroused swamps one's attempt to stay on a cooperative
social level or a sensible intellectual level. Biological emotions when
aroused quickly overcome the upper levels. It takes a heap of social
conditioning to restrain the emotional tide that swells up from below
when danger is perceived.
To allow emotion to drown the intellectual level in waves of anger and
resentment can surely be considered low quality--a lower level
swallowing a higher one. (Pardon the mixed metaphor.)
On the other hand, there are those who appear to be super sensitive,
as if almost looking to be offended. In a kind of reverse tactic, they use
a holier-than-thou, Rigel-like stance to avoid engaging in an intellectual
debate, writing at length about how awful it is that people back bite but
never responding to the intellectual challenges at hand . In that case,
they use the morality of the old Victorian social level to block the
intellectual level.
I plead guilty to both behaviors, but try to follow what Roger has pointed
to as the best method of conducting a debate--follow the other's lead in
raising the level of vitriol. In other words, self-defense is legitimate, but
don't initiate an emotional response by deliberately insulting the other
guy to begin with. Striking one's biological level below the belt without
warning is defintely low quality.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:41 BST