When the debating point involves my life and my body, yes, any means other than physical violence are acceptable. I exclude physical violence b/c including it would be doing the same to others as I am unhappy they are doing to me. Others believe that when it involves one's soul any means *including* physical violence are acceptable, perhaps because mere physical violence does not compare to the loss of a soul.
Anger can win an argument through means other than intimidation - showing opponents you are passionate about a topic can be convincing in and of itself, or others can go along just to shut you up (also not ideal, but again when it comes to my life and body I'll accept that).
Well, fine- but remember that what started this thread was me complaining that what you tagged a 'rational' rant was anger and obscenity-filled, hardly rational. If you're willing to win arguments through non-rational means, okay. Don't go around calling it a triumph of rationality.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 01:20 pm (UTC)Anger can win an argument through means other than intimidation - showing opponents you are passionate about a topic can be convincing in and of itself, or others can go along just to shut you up (also not ideal, but again when it comes to my life and body I'll accept that).
no subject
Date: 2008-07-18 01:37 pm (UTC)