Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
That's problematic.
I *like* intense debates that veer into flamewars. I don't mind name-calling; I consider it a way to discover someone's true feelings (and something of their education level) when they're getting emotional about a topic. I like point-by-point critiques that go over every flaw in a piece of writing, sometimes with snarky asides about the writer's possible motives for writing it.
It took me quite a while to figure out that not everyone on the internet prefers that approach to controversial topics. (And I'm still always surprised when people who don't, participate in those discussions anyway. Because obviously, if you don't like sand, stay off the beach!) So "treat others as you want to be treated" is a really, really *bad* approach for some settings.
It works as a good starting premise among total strangers--but once you know someone a bit, ethical behavior involves *not* pretending they want the same things you do.
|
That is sort of why I threw in the "or better" part of it. But your right of course, I don't mind that sort of thing either, I do require however, that if you are going to dish it out, you have to be able to take it too. Unfortunately, for those of us that enjoy a good natured argument, what we have to use as the standard is the lowest common denominator.