Debate Now People who do not control themselves in public

RandomPoster

Platinum Member
May 22, 2017
2,584
1,792
970
People who do not control themselves in public make me emotional. People calmly explaining to me that the earth is flat, people nonchalantly expressing agreement with Nazis (even though I'm part Jewish, though they don't know that), do not make me emotional. People getting emotional and using what I consider to be dishonorable, cheap, childish tactics in conversations offends me more than listening to even idiotic nonsense or morally reprehensible speech. I actually find myself feeling offended and getting emotional. I despise people who lack impulse control and do not control their emotions in public.

Two people screaming at each other makes me more uncomfortable than two guys punching each other in the face. Another thing, is that even in a conversation that I am not involved in and do not give a shit what the people are talking about, I feel disgusted when I see someone use the "cut them off at the pass" routine and respond to what the other person is saying before they are done talking in a not only dishonest, except more importantly cheap and dirty manner. That person is more deserving of a punch in the face than someone who calmly states that such and such group of people should be eradicated. The former is more dishonorable than the latter. It is like not following the code and taking your 30 paces in a duel.

When someone states even incorrect facts, they can be fact-checked. "Strong Opinions" are offensive because they can be pulled out of thin air and can not be quantified and tested, yet people sometimes give weight to them. Nothing is legitimate until we can measure it. Morality is the only gray area I can see and is tough to think about or discuss.

I cannot fathom how a calm, dispassionate turn taking conversation is not superior to any other form of verbal communication in every single imaginable way. It is the best we can do to try and eliminate emotional outbursts and psycho-drama bullshit. No yelling, no interrupting, and no displays of emotion. I have a hard enough time communicating the way it is without dealing with behavior that makes me feel nauseated. Who knows, perhaps those of us not gifted in the area of communication skills are better off not interacting too much with people who make us want to walk away from them.
 
Last edited:
Feminism?? Really? This was the lead up to that? I was semi interested in what you were saying until I read your last sentence.

To me, it sounds like you are too delicate to be out in public.
 
Feminism?? Really? This was the lead up to that? I was semi interested in what you were saying until I read your last sentence.

To me, it sounds like you are too delicate to be out in public.

I edited out the last bit about feminism, since it wasn't really what the post is about. However, it does seem that women do not care as much about keeping things impersonal and often are some of the worst offenders. Obviously, I'm generalizing. However, it does seem that women are typically less repulsed by emotional outburst and more repulsed by physical violence and certain topics that offend them overall.
 
Well, this one sure as hell pushed my buttons and continues to do so because you seem determined to make this about females causing your angst. Like I said..you are too delicate to be in public. Stay home.

/unsub Thread
 
I don't want this to be about women, except I am very cautious about discussing anything with them. If they refuse to control themselves emotionally, you can not respond with physical violence to defend yourself like you can with another man who is getting emotional. It's not totally unrelated to my reluctance to discuss something with a huge man who is known for physical violence.

If a man starts screaming at another man, the offended party is allowed to physical defend himself against the attack. This often keeps things more level headed because both men typically want to avoid a fight and results in a better conversation.
 
even though I'm part Jewish

No such thing. You're either Jewish (from a Jewish mother or conversion) or you're NOT. The concept of Fractional Judaism was an invention of another folk earlier in the 20th Century.
 
Yeah, like earlier tonite the local Capt. D's was locked shut...

... `cause some crazy lady threatened to shoot up the place...

... `cause she wanted an extra piece of fish.
 
If someone says that all people with Jewish ancestry, and by extension me and every member of my family, should be killed, should I start screaming at him? No. I should either ignore him, engage him in a calm, rational debate, or physically assault him. Those are the only appropriate responses. Anything else is a disgusting spectacle.
 
even though I'm part Jewish

No such thing. You're either Jewish (from a Jewish mother or conversion) or you're NOT. The concept of Fractional Judaism was an invention of another folk earlier in the 20th Century.

The point isn't about being Jewish. Anti-Semites that agree with Hitler about killing Jews aren't going to spare you because you're not full blooded or because you are agnostic.
 
If a man starts screaming at another man, the offended party is allowed to physical defend himself against the attack. This often keeps things more level headed because both men typically want to avoid a fight and results in a better conversation.

Ummm ... no he's not. In the eyes of the law, verbal assault is not a justification for physical assault. As someone who deals with altercations between people in public on a daily basis, I can tell you that once a situation escalates into assault, it NEVER results in a better conversation.

Much more often than not ... when a dispute breaks out in public between people who are unknown to each other ... the aggressor is drug, alcohol affected or has a mental issue. Once in a while, the aggressor is just a pure arsehole.
 
The point isn't about being Jewish. Anti-Semites that agree with Hitler about killing Jews aren't going to spare you because you're not full blooded or because you are agnostic.

It's not about blood ... being Jewish has absolutely zero to do with blood. Don't identify yourself as Jewish to any degree when you clearly aren't.

It's like going around pretending to be an Native American because you think it makes you special.

real-indian-V.A.-Shiva-Ayyadurai-challenges-fake-indian-senator-elizabeth-warren-dna-test.jpg


It's insulting to Native Americans and everyone else.
 
If a man starts screaming at another man, the offended party is allowed to physical defend himself against the attack. This often keeps things more level headed because both men typically want to avoid a fight and results in a better conversation.

Ummm ... no he's not. In the eyes of the law, verbal assault is not a justification for physical assault. As someone who deals with altercations between people in public on a daily basis, I can tell you that once a situation escalates into assault, it NEVER results in a better conversation.

Much more often than not ... when a dispute breaks out in public between people who are unknown to each other ... the aggressor is drug, alcohol affected or has a mental issue. Once in a while, the aggressor is just a pure arsehole.

The threat of potential physical violence typically keeps both men from getting too emotional. It is a sort of unspoken contract that if we both remain calm, things can stay calm. This is because we typically don't want to fight.
 
f someone says that all people with Jewish ancestry, and by extension me and every member of my family, should be killed, should I start screaming at him? No. I should either ignore him, engage him in a calm, rational debate, or physically assault him. Those are the only appropriate responses. Anything lese is a disgusting spectacle.

Neither is an acceptable response. You're not going to engage anyone screaming 'Death to Jews' (or 'Death to anyone else') in public in a rational discussion and if you physically assault him, you're committing a crime.

Go home and leave it alone. Jews don't need you becoming a violence statistic on their behalf.
 
The point isn't about being Jewish. Anti-Semites that agree with Hitler about killing Jews aren't going to spare you because you're not full blooded or because you are agnostic.

It's not about blood ... being Jewish has absolutely zero to do with blood. Don't identify yourself as Jewish to any degree when you clearly aren't.

It's like going around pretending to be an Native American because you think it makes you special.

real-indian-V.A.-Shiva-Ayyadurai-challenges-fake-indian-senator-elizabeth-warren-dna-test.jpg


It's insulting to Native Americans and everyone else.

As I said, it's not about being Jewish. It's about understanding that an anti-Semite does not care about your religious practices and yes anti-Semites do care about your blood and your blood only. Stop being dense.
 
The threat of potential physical violence typically keeps both men from getting too emotional.

You obviously have no experience with public violence. The threat of physical violence ALWAYS escalates the emotions.
 
The threat of potential physical violence typically keeps both men from getting too emotional.

You obviously have no experience with public violence. The threat of physical violence ALWAYS escalates the emotions.

Not if neither man really wants to fight and they both know from the outset that if they remain calm and maintain the proper tone of voice, body language, and conduct themselves in a rational manner, things can stay calm.
 
Not if neither man really wants to fight and they both know from the outset that if they remain calm and maintain the proper tone of voice, body language, and conduct themselves in a rational manner, things can stay calm.

I'm a cop. This is something I see every single working day. When two people (men or women) confront each other they don't remain claim, or rational, or maintain low tones or control their body language. The voices raise, the personal space diminishes, neither wants to physically fight but will not back down because that would be tacit surrender of the argument.

If the police don't intervene, it almost always escalates into physical violence ... whether they want it or not.
 
Put it this way. Who do you respect more, two men honorably rolling around on the ground punching each other or two men screaming at each other like cackling scatter-brained hens? I would suspect neither as much as the two men calmly debating the subject in classical public speaking contest format, except the two men engaging in physical combat are at least being honorable and dignified about it.
 
If a man starts screaming at another man, the offended party is allowed to physical defend himself against the attack. This often keeps things more level headed because both men typically want to avoid a fight and results in a better conversation.

Ummm ... no he's not. In the eyes of the law, verbal assault is not a justification for physical assault. As someone who deals with altercations between people in public on a daily basis, I can tell you that once a situation escalates into assault, it NEVER results in a better conversation.

Much more often than not ... when a dispute breaks out in public between people who are unknown to each other ... the aggressor is drug, alcohol affected or has a mental issue. Once in a while, the aggressor is just a pure arsehole.

I'm not so sure about that. In Texas, there are certain so called "fighting words" that can be used as justification for a fight or arrest. These are words that are said that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. I haven't found a complete list of these words yet, but I know that "fuck you" is included in the list.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top