Perverse?

[Sweetie]

Is it necessarily bad to be perverse?

I mean this definition for the record:

1. Marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict.
2. Arising from such a disposition.

[The Lone Ranger]

Is it necessarily bad to be perverse?

I mean this definition for the record:

1. Marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict.
2. Arising from such a disposition.


Bad? No.

But it's my opinion that it's foolishness to disagree for the mere sake of disagreeing.

Cheers,

Michael

[Sweetie]

Bad? No.

But it's my opinion that it's foolishness to disagree for the mere sake of disagreeing.

Cheers,

Michael

That doesn't make any sense. You can learn something from disagreeing.

I, for instance, in High School debate class while being forced to take a position of against prayer in public schools changed my opinion because I was originally for it. I became then against it, and I still am. :yup:

It all depends. :shrug:

What's the purpose of scheduled debates, debate class, debate teams then if not to argue for arguing's sake?

[The Lone Ranger]

That doesn't make any sense. You can learn something from disagreeing.

I, for instance, in High School debate class while being forced to take a position of against prayer in public schools changed my opinion because I was originally for it. I became then against it, and I still am. :yup:

It all depends. :shrug:

What's the purpose of scheduled debates, debate class, debate teams then if not to argue for arguing's sake?

For the mere sake of disagreeing is the key phrase.

Those who disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing are behaving thoughtlessly and foolishly. There are often other, perfectly legitimate reasons to disagree.

Cheers,

Michael

[Sweetie]

For the mere sake of disagreeing is the key phrase.

Those who disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing are behaving thoughtlessly and foolishly. There are often other, perfectly legitimate reasons to disagree.

Cheers,

Michael

And the perfectly legitimate reasons for debates especially for people forced to defend positions they don't hold is?

I say to hone one's debate and critical thinking skills, and thus its possible that it not be possible that anyone can disagree for the mere sake of disagreeing.

[The Lone Ranger]

If you're attempting to improve your debating skills, then you aren't disagreeing for the mere sake of disagreeing.

If you're disagreeing merely to be perverse, you're behaving foolishly and thoughtlessly.


Cheers,

Michael

[Sweetie]

If you're disagreeing merely to be perverse, you're behaving foolishly and thoughtlessly.
l

a) What if its enjoyable?

b) What if its conflict, nice conflict? Life runs on conflict.

c) What if it inspires?

d) What if it makes you think?

e) What if it gives people something to do as opposed to smile and nod prettily at each other? What if that happens to be thoughtless and foolish and it gives people toothaches, hmmmm?


And then, my original point, perhaps its impossible to be perverse without some gain to oneself, thus honing ones debate skills, critical thinking skills, gaining information, etc. By-products.

[The Lone Ranger]

With respect, you seem to be missing my point.

To be "perverse" -- to disagree automatically with whatever position is offered -- is indeed foolish and thoughtless.

This is not to say that a general policy of disagreeing for the sake of stimulating thought or discussion -- or even enjoyment -- is.

Cheers,

Michael

[Sweetie]

With respect, you seem to be missing my point.

To be "perverse" -- to disagree automatically with whatever position is offered -- is indeed foolish and thoughtless.

This is not to say that a general policy of disagreeing for the sake of stimulating thought or discussion -- or even enjoyment -- is.


I think you are missing my point, stimulating thought or discussion as well as enjoyment could very well be the result of someone being disagreeable, even if they are only disagreeing because they feel like it.

People are only nice because they feel like it, and it can have negative or positive effects. Some people think being nice and agreeable is very, very boring.

[Sweetie]

I suppose I just don't agree that its anymore foolish to be disagreeable than it is to be agreeable for the sake of niceness and peace. Both can have positive or negative consequences, both equally have their use, IMHO.

[The Lone Ranger]

I think you are missing my point, stimulating thought or discussion as well as enjoyment could very well be the result of someone being disagreeable, even if they are only disagreeing because they feel like it.


That others may be stimulated to think or discuss matters doesn't change the fact that the person who's disagreeing merely to be disagreeable is behaving thoughtlessly and foolishly. If the person being disagreeable hopes to stimulate thought or discussion, (s)he isn't being disagreeable merely to be disagreeable.

Cheers,

Michael

[Sweetie]

That others may be stimulated to think or discuss matters doesn't change the fact that the person who's disagreeing merely to be disagreeable is behaving thoughtlessly and foolishly. If the person being disagreeable hopes to stimulate thought or discussion, (s)he isn't being disagreeable merely to be disagreeable.

Cheers,

Michael

I just don't see how the latter follows.

I may or may not hope to stimulate but its only good if I do cause stimulation if I hoped to?

[The Lone Ranger]

If you have some goal in mind -- to stimulate thought, for instance -- then you aren't disagreeing merely for the sake of disagreeing. You have some purpose in mind.

Cheers,

Michael

[Sweetie]

If you have some goal in mind -- to stimulate thought, for instance -- then you aren't disagreeing merely for the sake of disagreeing. You have some purpose in mind.


I don't see that it matters I guess. :shrug:

Whether you have a purpose or not doesn't change the possibly good results and therefore I don't think its necessarily thoughtless in the sense of thoughtless and reckless, nor do I think it has any innate quality of "foolishness", it just is.

[Stormlight]

I don't see that it matters I guess. :shrug:

Whether you have a purpose or not doesn't change the possibly good results and therefore I don't think its necessarily thoughtless in the sense of thoughtless and reckless, nor do I think it has any innate quality of "foolishness", it just is.

So, in essence your position is that the end justifies the means? So, if I barge into a thread disagreeing with everyone and everything for the sole reason to annoy, and this leads to an interesting discussion about how to reduce trolling in general, then my behaviour is validated?

[Sweetie]

So, in essence your position is that the end justifies the means? So, if I barge into a thread disagreeing with everyone and everything for the sole reason to annoy, and this leads to an interesting discussion about how to reduce trolling in general, then my behaviour is validated?

Hopefully in order to disagree, there must be something there in a thread already to disagree with and therefore the subject matter is already there so I don't see a connection between go in and create a whole new subject for disagreement or just disagree with whats already there.

I think they are two different puppies.

[Shake]

Oops ... I thought she said 'perverts'. :lecher:

Carry on.