Coming Soon 👀 At the beginning of April, you’ll be
introduced to a brand-new GoComics! See more information here. Subscribers, check your
email for more details.
My honest thought is it gets back to intent. If I want to present what I consider facts I am not served to attack the other person.
For myself, I intend to show my point and not alienate.
You rightful called me out and I apologized. I had actually intended to be witty and that quote in my experience is credited to Winston Churchill though who knows who said it first.
I also like the quote credited to Churchill where he allegedly said, “I would engage you in a battle of wits but fear you are unarmed.”
Again, someone else may have said it.
When you pointed out it was a personal attack, I got it and could see your point no matter my intent. Instead of witty, it could easily and rightfully be seen as an attack.
I admitted my error and apologized.
My gratitude is I think it led to a respectful communication between the two of us which I have enjoyed and valued.
Appreciate your feedback. In asking my intent (I think that is your question) I prefer communication and know from experience when I’d right be “right” in shuts down communication. One aspect of social media I do not like is I find people use anonymity to say and act in ways they would not normally in person. Civility can be lost in forums like this.
In no way am I implying all points of view are equal.i am saying if the intent is to educate, personal attacks are going to continue the status quo. It gets back to what you intent is. Do you want dialogue or do you prefer being right over discourse. For my part, I support dialogue.
I get criticism for a politician of whatever party. Does not mean I need to lower myself to attack the people that hold a different position than I do.
I would offer you the personal attacks are the problem. People have the right to their positions. Resorting to personal attacks are the strategy of folks without answers. It is easier to attack than to articulate a real position.
You would be more effective if you care, to share your positions without resorting to person attacks of people you don’t even know or attempt to treat with any level of respect.
I respect your right to believe and support what you want. I fought for that until I was blown up in Kabul. What I do not respect is your attack of people. It shows your complete lack of breeding and moral character.
My honest thought is it gets back to intent. If I want to present what I consider facts I am not served to attack the other person.
For myself, I intend to show my point and not alienate.
You rightful called me out and I apologized. I had actually intended to be witty and that quote in my experience is credited to Winston Churchill though who knows who said it first.
I also like the quote credited to Churchill where he allegedly said, “I would engage you in a battle of wits but fear you are unarmed.”
Again, someone else may have said it.
When you pointed out it was a personal attack, I got it and could see your point no matter my intent. Instead of witty, it could easily and rightfully be seen as an attack.
I admitted my error and apologized.
My gratitude is I think it led to a respectful communication between the two of us which I have enjoyed and valued.