If one says, "I disagree," and then proceeds to take apart the other individual's position with other arguments about the facts, opinions and speculations upon which the first position is based, that's not a personal attack.
When one says, "As usual you avoid the hard question," one has first, personalized the argument ("you avoid") and implied that the individual's behavior is a personal failing, and an habitual one ("as usual"). In one fell swoop, the subject is no longer "the hard question" (either rhetorically or grammatically), but "you". "What's wrong with 'you'?" "Why are 'you' doing this again, 'as usual'?" The issue is no longer the focus as soon as the argument becomes personalized.
If one chooses to do this, that's OK, if not always admirable. Judging from Mark's reply, I don't think he chose to do that, but he doesn't understand how to avoid it. As usual, he avoids the hard practice.
Language is a poor thing, but it's all we have.
Flame » in reply to I think it works this way Mark
No, it works this way: attention to pronouns, among other things.
The whole thread (48 posts)
- Balance
- re: Balance
- Tell me about it. . .
- Sorta like mugging a Girl Scout and then buying some cookies?
- re: Yeah , Balance
- When Has The UN Succeeded At A Tough Task?
- At the moment, it looks like they did a pretty good job of disarming Saddam (n/t)
- re: Ok, fine, Great!
- re: Polio, smallpox and childhood immunizations
- You Correctly Admitted This Was Beside The Point
- P.S. Have you been following my CE posts on the U.N.? (n/t)
- Not really relevant to this argument.
- Herdin' cats.
- re: Yeah , Balance (n/t)
- re: Yeah , Balance (n/t)
- When Has The UN Succeeded At A Tough Task?
- How about not having suppressed the photos of the dead of 911?
- probably wouldn't make much difference
