The debate "One who insults observations and experiences of another always warrants special retaliatory insults" was started by
March 16, 2018, 4:33 pm.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 1 person is on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Najam1 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Gorgon posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Najam1, brontoraptor and 6 visitors agree.
I will give you one scenario to fortify my position.
If you are in a dark enclosed space with one known to slay more than one living person, and even stay there for a little while; how is it that those outside that radius have rights to dispute your own testimony of what took place in that little space?
also, a person can believe what they saying about their personal experience and still be wrong. witnesses in a courtroom are very useful, but they are actually quite unreliable. just because you interpreted something that happened to you a specific way does not necesarily make it truth.
Unfortunately, we're entirely capable as human beings of misjudging who is telling the truth or not. Now, I'm not saying you cannot both insult and give rebuttal---I'm only trying to figure out what constitutes, in your eyes, rebuttal, and how you figure retaliation would do you any good.
The insults don't take consideration that the one giving the testimony is telling the truth.
You can actually insult and give a rebuttal at the same time; regardless of those who advocate dictatorship tactics only.
It's way more fun to cover both sides of all coins.
"Insult" seems to me a vague term, and the suggested response doesn't seem like it'd alleviate the situation.
For example, if I say your personal testimony is not proof enough for me to believe something because I can't confirm it, would that constitute an insult?