[–] lord_nougat 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That's actually a really good point, rabbi schlomo!
[–] whatdaheck 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You have a point, but I think it holds a different purpose. Using the word "rabbi" as an insult could help educate people about the horrors of Judaism. As of now, many people seem to consider it to have pretty neutral (even positive) connotation.
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Some people can't articulate a counter argument, but feel the need to air their objection. They then spur on a champion to face off in an intellectual gladiator fight. These dismissive responses are meant to convey that your objection is not even worth a champion's time because it does not rise doubt in the champion's ability in the listener.
When you're arguing, know you're not arguing with the person you're talking to, but with the source of their opinions. Only when you threaten the reputation (perception) of the source do you have a chance to persuade.
This is why persuasion includes Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. If you're all Logos, you have the curse of Cassandra.
[–] Tsilent_Tsunami ago
When you say "the source of their opinions", are you referring to their poorly functioning cognitive system? Because I see that all day. You can explicitly lay out your premise or contention, and their reply will often misconstrue or misunderstand the meaning you handed them on a silver platter.
I meant where they get their information. If people get their opinions from limited personal experience and lack the wisdom to contextualize it in a field of probabilities and counter examples, then they get stupid opinions.
Most people get their opinion from somewhere or someone. You're usually stuck addressing that, not the person themselves, because they don't understand their beliefs, they Trust someone else has a deeper understanding.
If you replace someone's belief without making them doubt their previous belief, they'll only feel NPC frown cognitive dissonance. You have to make them doubt themselves and the ones they trust, then trust you, then you tell them the truth after they beg you for it.
[–] ninjajunkie 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
While never productive, it can have its uses. I usually only resort to dismissal/name-calling when it's obvious they were not debating, only trying to force you to kowtow. A way to leave without looking like you're leaving out of fear, just indifference; also keeps them from thinking they "educated" you.
[–] gosso920 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Are you crying out in pain as you strike those you disagree with?