John Smith wrote on Mar 11
th, 2023 at 11:23am:
freediver wrote on Mar 11
th, 2023 at 9:59am:
Are you suggesting racism is a popularity contest John?
no, i'm suggesting that you're a dishonest wanker
Now now, JS, that's unfair. Before we establish dishonesty on the part of a fellow poster, we must first ask questions. This helps us to clarify the poster's thoughts, thinking and beliefs.
As an example, we might ask for FD's views on a particular subject. We then carefully read his response, and if we require additional information, we follow up with a supplementary. This means we're curious, keen to hear what FD thinks.
As another example, we might ask FD to clarify his views, typically through the use of a close-ended question, which allows for a more succinct response. E.g, do prawns feel pain? This question allows only one of two responses; yes or no. We may choose to establish this at the outset, informing our fellow poster that a simple yes or no will suffice.
We do so in the spirit of curiosity, careful to hear our fellow member's views, ready to capture any poignant information. Another method is the confessional, where we encourage the poster to say what he or she really thinks. Some members worry about their reputations and are wary of revealing their views. We direct such posters to be clear and concise. We remind them of the consequences of being seen as fearful in the light of our penetrative truth. We direct them to confess and, if relevant, to show contrition for any potential flaws in character. Are you a racist? We might ask. We might follow up with a courteous, please explain? Or an invitation to brevity, as outlined above; a simple yes or no will suffice.
It might help if you asked FD himself if he is a dishonest wanker. This gives him the opportunity to clarify his views or, if he disagrees, explain why.
If so, you can follow up with another question. As an example; are you a racist?
Our poster may, of course, concede at this point. If so, you have done your job in revealing the truth. But each negative response is fraught with the inference of hostile denial, which gives their response little or no credibility. In most cases, posters understand this problem and avoid answering altogether. In this case, you have them for avoidance, which is nearly as bad as denial.
Most posters will attempt to distract or divert at this point. The best way to keep them on track is through subsequent questioning. We can even put their diversion to them directly, as an example; why are you evading the question?
Most posters will respond with direct questions of their own. The best way to respond to this is to stick to one's role as the questioner. Such questions should
never be answered. I cannot emphasise this strongly enough.
Pointing out that you asked first rarely works to quell a rebellious querant. One should resolve such a stalemate with further questions. That's a question, one might say, would you care for an answer? If not, why not? What is the poster trying to hide? Are they scared? Why are they scared? We're all friends here, yes? Why evade such a question? Are they being dishonest? Are they having a wank?
Are they a racist?
As you can see, JS, our posts can draw much truth from our fellow members through the simple use of questions. Try adding a question mark to the end of your posts. You may well be surprised with the results.
Why not ask FD a question?
Ozpolitics....
(I was reading about 'dialectics' only yesterday, in the wiki article about Marx).
Forum
Pages: 
Racism Warning (Read 46038 times)
