Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Are you arguing against the tactics which bojan already sees as unfit here Carl ?
Cheers
|
What I am saying is that words, even the most innocuous, can have a great impact. Whether they're for or against an opinion/argument/debate. That's why you have to choose not only the words carefully, but the position from which you are coming.
We use words at all levels (as Bojan would put it), but unfortunately it seems to be the baser levels that many operate at most, if not all, of the time.
Sometimes it is quite obvious that no matter what you try to do to convince people to the contrary, they will believe these nutcases to the letter. That's what you get with the EU, this guy and others. The problem being that we know that if allowed to fester for too long, you will get these opinions holding sway over everything else at the expense of everything else. It's the same "engine" which drives religion and politics. Unfortunately, we have all seen what history has shown us when people or groups of people who have some notion of their opinions as being the "only opinions" get to hold sway. This is what Gaede is trying to achieve. Anyone who advocates the death of someone just because they hold contrary views (about anything) is as evil as the Inquisition.
I fully support having good and well structured arguments to counter guys like this. But you have to be aware that it might all be an exercise in futility if you let them get too much of a foothold and that to weed them out is going to take a monumental effort, which mightn't succeed. Sometimes attacking these guys doesn't work, at other times it does. It's entirely dependent on the individual situation.
Any sane person would laugh this nutcase off, but even lunatics can get away with appearing sane, if they have good enough arguments or a clever sales pitch and a willing audience.