BS: Bad temper in arguments

Subject: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 07:51 PM

Having had a few days away from the Mudcat with a computer away from repairs I've been skimming through the threads.

And it's set me thinking how it is that, for a lot of people, there seems to be an irresistible link between having an argument and having a quarrel. As if, unless it gets bad tempered, there is no point in exchanging opinion sand expressing disagreements.

On the one hand you have this tendency for discussions to turn hostile and insulting - especially anything to do with politics or religion, but also topics about which you wouldn't believe anybody could raise the temperature. (Not just on the Mudcat - I have two friends who got into a physical fight over what key was appropriate for some type of music, and they still avoid each other's company months later.)

And on the other hand you have people who think that the connection between argument and quarrelling is so inevitable that the best thing to do is to avoid argument entirely, or restrict it to topics where it is hoped there is no room for quarrels - which of course is a vain hope.

And that's a bit like trying to avoid excess noise by imposing a rule of silence.

Myself, I think that arguing is one of the great pleasures of life, and that turning it into a quarrel destroys that pleasure.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Amos
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:20 PM

Cheers, Kevin!! Wise distinction. I am often accused of being argumentative, and it is quite true, but I do not enjoy quarreling, or blasting at another person. I won't shy from it when it is called for but it isn't my preference.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Bassic
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:36 PM

Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: GUEST,fred miller
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 08:47 PM

Good thoughts. I enjoy arguing quite a bit, when I have a point of view to offer, and I think the risk of a quarrel makes people shy from saying what they have to say. That's a sad loss, especially on a internet forum. I don't see a lot of fistfights, but a quarrel isn't a disaster, necesarily. You can get over it.

I once worked with someone who had actually had fistfights with my predecessor. After a few years I was frustrated and set a meeting with our supervisor. When I pointed out that our plan to share duties had resulted in my assuming some of his, while he had never touched any of mine, I met with this mock-politeness warning, advised not to say things like that, because "you two have to work together". Well, no, we don't have to, I said, why do you suppose I'm meeting with you about my job?

Sometimes you can't be taken seriously, sometimes you can't BE serious, without arguing. Maybe the quarrel is what happens when people can't argue. They ought to practice more.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 09:02 PM

With one of my brothers, I used to have a great time arguing a point or an issue. The arguments could get heated but never got vicious- we always stayed on topic. Since he died, a few years ago, I have never enjoyed arguing, nor for that matter do I have anyone in my life who enjoys it. Another of my brothers who I'm close to is a peacemaker and he doesn't understand the thrill of verbal/cerebral gymnastics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Kim C
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 09:29 PM

I like to discuss. This often gets me accused of being argumentative. Some days you can't win.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: mg
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 10:18 PM

I don't like to quarrel and I don't like to argue and I don't like to disagree but often I must. I prefer everyone to see things like I see them and vise versa and we think as one and I certainly wouldn't do it for the sport. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 10:18 PM

Well, arguin' is good fir ya'. Okay, maybe not everyone but in general it's very important in helping society or individuals making good decisions. Its the heart of democracy. The more views that are heard, the greater the choices.

Now we here of this new stuff goin' 'round the Bush administration. I think they call it "office speak". Anyone heard of this? What it's all about is creatin' an atmosphere where folks ain't sposed to speak up, but just parrot the company line. This may explain a lot of the Bush administrations many, many screw ups and it's unwillingness to *hear* other perspectives...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 10:26 PM

I and a number of others in our group(s) tend to be somewhat analytical when it comes to the lyrics of a song. Lyrics that have the protagonist coming back to life and riding away after being safely buried is one eyebrow raiser, for instance, and we say so. Or we might say that this word or that word would have conveyed better the emotion the writer was trying to evoke than the word or phrase that was used. Several others in the group get flustered when we do that, as in 'Just sing the bloody song!' They think the tune is the thing, period. Well, words are important too.

They also tend to be the same ones who object mightily when someone changes something just on principle. For instance, I happen to like Gospel songs. When the theology gets a little too heavy for me, I change it to something I like better. Recently, I discovered a song recorded by the Williamson Brothers, called 'It Won't Be Long (It May Be Soon). The last verse says:

He's coming back with glory rare (It won't be long, etc)
We'll rise to meet him in the air (It won't be long, etc)
If he should call me, this I know: I'm saved and ready now to go
I'm waiting with my heart aglow (It won't be long, etc)

Well, I don't like the phrase "I'm saved" so I sing 'In faith, I'm ready now to go, etc'. It's saying the same thing, because it is a matter of faith, isn't it?

People. tsk, tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: toadfrog
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 10:30 PM

Boy, you're right, McGrath! If there's anything I hate, it's a quarrelsome son of a ________ who can't talk rationally and has to turn everything into a quarrel! Makes me want to kick him in the _________!

Does anyone remember that Doctor Dimento routine about the argument about the guy who refused to discuss things rationally, but repeated "why don't you go back to Russia or China if that's how you feel about the U.S.A.,"and ends up: "And we all beat the ___ from that f__ing conservative . . . "

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: LadyJean
Date: 29 Aug 03 - 11:04 PM

My father was what our friends across the pond call a barrister. He tried cases for forty plus years in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He almost never lost his temper. He taught us carefully that if you do lose your temper, you can't think clearly, and you are almost certain to say the wrong thing.
It's an old lawyer's trick to make a witness angry, in the hope that he'll say something he wasn't supposed to. (Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht falls for it every time.)
To win an argument, keep your temper, stick to your guns, and don't back down. It isn't easy, but it works every time.
Dad used to line up his points like bowling balls, and grin like a fool as we knocked them down.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 05:49 AM

"I prefer everyone to see things like I see them"

But that'd mean you never got to see things from another point of view. Like having the music played in mono all the time.

In her life of Chesterton, Maisie Ward wrote about the relationship between Gilbert Chesterton and his youinger brither "They always argied. They never quarrelled." That's the distinction I mean.

And I don't mean that argument is just a game, and that the things you argue with and disagree with shouldn't be recognised as serious. They can be life and death issues, but that's no reason to lose your temper. As LadyJean's father put it - "if you do lose your temper, you can't think clearly". Like other types of fighting in that respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Allan C.
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 09:46 AM

My opinion is that anger is the manifestation of frustration. Some (or should I say many?) people become frustrated when they are unable to easily persuade someone else to their way of thinking. Such words as argument, quarrel, etc., are used to describe the outward manifestation of such frustration. Usually such things can be eliminated by (a) listening with an open mind to the other side of the discussion or (b) searching more carefully for ways to clearly state your opinion - or more likely a combination of both (a) and (b).

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: kendall
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 10:48 AM

What I hate is when someone relly gets to me, and I allow them to piss me off. The first one to raise his/her voice has alreadt lost the arguement.

McGrath, I know your type you putrid pile of parrot droppings....toffee nosed pervert.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 11:16 AM

Surely that should be "toffee nosed prevert..."?

What gets me riled is when I am engaged in an argument, and someone chips in, ostensibly on the same side, but saying things guaranteed to undermine the case I am trying to present. Like a stab in the back. And it's almost as annoying when the same thing happens to someone on the other side. Either way the chances are the whole thing will turn into a brawl.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 11:19 AM

old Peanuts cartoon:

Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these day!"

Sadly, I am reminded of my ex-wife many years ago, where most of our 'arguments' deteriorated into 'quarrels' about HOW to argue! *sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 11:26 AM

Oh, McGrath, I read many years ago a gem that I have lost the source of, which I paraphrase:

"No matter what group, church, club or position you support, you will always have someone on YOUR side who you wish were on the OTHER side, because of the awkwardness of their support!"

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Aug 03 - 01:37 PM

"...most of our 'arguments' deteriorated into 'quarrels' about HOW to argue!"

I think switching the topic in that way is called "meta-communicating", and it's supposed to be a way of stopping disagreements turning into fights. As in this case, it can have the reverse effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 03 - 10:05 PM

Actually this one was outside in the dark hiding under a rock mewling pitifully to be refreshed, so I couldn't very well ignore it!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 03 - 10:07 PM

(That last post should have been posted on another thread. Sorry.)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: GUEST,fred miller
Date: 01 Sep 03 - 10:36 PM

McGrath seems to be spewing low-key high-grade wisdom all over the place lately. What about those people who say what you'd like to say, but they always get there first?

I like argument for sport. Debate teams are good for kids. A friend of mine gets deflated because his wife will take up his side when they argue, and out-classes him. What's really awful is to argue with someone who doesn't see their own side-- you can't get into the spirit of it because you want to help them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 01 Sep 03 - 10:38 PM

My lately departed Father was a master of the argument, and was wont to start one in the quiet of the evening. He would pose a question, one of us kids would respond, my Mother would leave the room rolling her eyes, and my brother would sound the clarion call, "And the game is on" or "Women and children downstairs, Now!"

But Dad had a philosophy that went with a good argument. "Good friends come and go, but enemies accumulate".

I sometimes think that now the thunder in the evening means Dad just pissed off a Saint...

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: toadfrog
Date: 01 Sep 03 - 11:18 PM

Well, if you "keep your temper, stick to your guns, and don't back down," that is, if you are really determined nobody is going to persuade you, you stand a good chance of scoring more debating points than the other guy. But when the only purpose of the discussion is to score points it gets kind of uninteresting. What is more interesting is a reference to facts not everyone knows and which which might change someone's mind, or a fresh perspective.

The engaging thing about Doug R., who I almost never agree with, is that he sometimes admits he is mistaken. Never on major points, of course, but on some factual issues. That can be quite disarming. On the other hand, I often agree with McGrath. But one has the impression he could never possibly bring himself to admit a mistake, and that tends to put one off.

Am I wrong?

Am I wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 12:13 AM

.... and "exploring" ideas is often discarded as "preaching" or "being a knowitall.".... funny when you stop to think think that "exploring" pretty much cuts both of those out of the loop of possibility.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Amos
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 12:15 AM

Oh, I think so, TF, but then it could just be

me....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 03:54 AM

In the Summer I usually take an antihistamine for Hay Fever. Herself reacted to a wasp sting the other weekend and borrowed my tablets. She checked the small print and found they can cause irritability. So... when I was biting the heads off students at work I could have blamed it on the medication... but what would have been my excuse in the winter?
But... I seem much more equable since I retired.

I think the problem on the 'Cat is that some folks can't distinguish between arguing and quarrelling. I used to have this problem with my parents when I was an obnoxious student myself. I thought I'd been sent to College to question everything and argue my corner, they had been brought up to think any disagreement was a personal attack. I think we worked through it after I left home. They became less sensitive and I hope I became more sensitive.

RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 04:52 AM

"On the other hand, I often agree with McGrath. But one has the impression he could never possibly bring himself to admit a mistake, and that tends to put one off."

Chastening comment there , toadfrog. I'll try to keep it in mind. I'm sure I have admitted to mistakes, more especially on factual matters. I try to avoid making personal attacks, and if I slipped into doing so, I hope I'd realise that and apologise. But I probably do tend to dig in regarding opinions, and maybe I overdo that sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 06:40 AM

Then there are the people (like Conor Cruise O'Brien) who, once they begin to win people around to their point of view, have to change their position so that you still don't agree with them!

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: old git
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 06:47 AM

no they don't

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 07:13 AM

What gets me riled is when I am engaged in an argument, and someone chips in, ostensibly on the same side, but saying things guaranteed to undermine the case I am trying to present. Like a stab in the back. (McGrath)

I see that I have a completely different approach in that matter. From my training, I have not the slightest hesitation to bring an argument that undermines even my own opinion (or that of others whose opinion I share). Weak points have to be exposed and not swept under the rug. Only this way I think one can learn something new (and sometimes even change a position).

What puts me off is when someone doesn't want figures to be challenged, doubts to be raised, particular arguments to be called wrong for the sole reason that the figures and arguments come from 'our' side, the right side.

I think that it should be possible to see the difference between calling an argument or an opinion wrong.

Only to mention things favourable for the own opinion is the lawyer's approach. It should have no place outside of their profession.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 07:37 AM

I see what you mean Wolfgang, and agree - if there's a possible weakness in your argument, it's best to bring it out into the open.

What I'm meaning is when someone "on your side" comes out with personal attacks, or confuses things by assuming a link with other issues, or brings into play some prejudice of their own, and derails the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 07:43 AM

Read in that sense, I agree.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 04:14 PM

>>>mock-politeness<<<

Insightful term, that.

Good lawyers, btw, know they can't bury bad facts. What they do is turn them over. An understandable misapprehension, certainly.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: GUEST,B-T-M
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 07:29 PM

I thought this thread was going to be looking at bad tempers from the angle of " I have a bad temper, can anybody help me control it ?"

Can I go off at a tangent a bit and see if anyone has any advice ?

Bad tempered mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 07:38 PM

Count to ten before giving in to it is a good start. Or, in the case of the Mudcat, wait till the next day before posting the angry response.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: LadyJean
Date: 02 Sep 03 - 07:40 PM

There is a difference between a friendly debate, and trying to convince a dimwitted bill collector that:

1. My mother has been dead for more than a decade.
2. My sister is the executrix of her estate, not me.
3. She didn't write the damn check in the first place, so they should quit dunning me!

Dad's technique has stood me in excellent stead.   

I think I have managed to convince them to deal with my sister, who followed our father to the bar. May God have mercy on them, for she will not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: GUEST,fred miller
Date: 03 Sep 03 - 12:11 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 03 - 06:08 AM

True enough, Lady Jean, there can be situations where sweet reason isn't going to do the trick and something more forceful is maybe needed. But actually losing your temper doesn't help in those situations either. It interferes with your ability to do what needs doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: jacqui c
Date: 03 Sep 03 - 05:04 PM

I never got involved in arguments, particularly with men, if I could avoid them as a result of having a very overbearing father who would brook no argument and whose point of view was law.

Luckily, a few years ago I made a very good male friend who takes delight in heated discussion. He is an excellent bullshitter and extremely knowledgeable and I have found, over a period of time, that I am quite happy to indulge in verbal fisticuffs with him. Most of the time I have to admit that I don't know enough about a particular subject to maintain any real position but, on the occasions where we are discussing matters of opinion, we can keep some of the passengers in the train carriage going home from work interested in the debate for up to the best part of an hour. When we really are at loggerheads and no amount of debate has changed either view in any significant manner I will usually finish things by suggesting that we will have to agree to disagree. I have, over the period, found that my own views on certain matters have either been altered or confirmed by the discussion, especially when it gets a little heated. When I recognise the signs that I am beginning to lose my temper during one of these arguments I try to relax, mentally and physically, and sit back a little to gain a better perspective.

The thing with this guy is that he can put both sides of the same argument, if he wants to, with an equal agility and that makes him a perfect sparring partner. It's helped me to put my own views across more cogently with other people and to feel more confident of my own position. That,in itself is quite often sufficient to keep from getting angry when argument doesn't go your way.

Anyway, if we don't put across divergent views. as has been said earlier, then nothing would move forward. sometimes there is no right or wrong view on a subject, just different perspectives.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 11:39 AM

Well, some people seem to really enjoy getting angry. I don't, so I have a hard time understanding that approach. I find that anger kind of messes up the nervous system, and it leads to saying things without thinking which leads to further problems. But still, some people seem to enjoy it. Perhaps because it makes them feel powerful and righteous.

Humour and a moderate amount of self-criticism are useful in deflating the angry response.

I think another key may be how insecure a person feels about whether or not others respect him/her. If you reach the point of not being all that worried about it, you won't tend to get angry nearly so easily.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 03:21 PM

But we get a kick out of others anger and hate!

Don't we?, Speaking of which when are we going to Winsor LH?

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 03:30 PM

There's a difference between feeling cross, which is always an annoying and unpleasant feeling, and allowing yourself to be angry, which can in certain circumstances be quite satisfying. But not in an argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 03:42 PM

That's true, Raptor. I can hardly wait for the opportunity to drive Clinton Hammond into a berserk rage by flinging grapes and anchovies at him while he tries to sing his way manfully through "Barrett's Privateers". By the way, that's "Windsor". Winsor is in Newfoundland, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Raptor
Date: 04 Sep 03 - 04:30 PM

You better drive then!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: GUEST,fred miller
Date: 05 Sep 03 - 09:29 AM

Can anyone else think of a few times they've lost their temper, and not regretted it? I can think of a couple I'm okay with.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Gurney
Date: 06 Sep 03 - 07:33 AM

I'm just reading the book 'Why Men Lie & Women Cry', having read their previous book 'Why Men Don't Listen & Women Can't Read Maps' by Allen & Barbara Pease.
Wish I could have read them 50 years ago. As funny as Terry Pratchett and explains a lot of my personal arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: Raedwulf
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 02:50 PM

My twopenn'orth would be "There's nowt wrong with strong opinions - why shouldn't you believe in your position. After all, I believe in mine!

But when you stray into opinionated... Ah! Well, if you're not going to listen to me, why should I listen to you?"

There's a difference between opinion & opinionated, if you see what I mean. The real problem lies in the fact that no-one will ever admit that they're opinionated. They're always happy to admit that you've got a right to a different p-o-v, but... :rollseyes:

Subject: RE: BS: Bad temper in arguments
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 10:55 AM

I really think that most of the irrationally heated rhetoric here on the mudcat stems from the manner of posting here (on a crowded forum).

In order to be "heard" in the midst of this very crowded, very noisy room, there is no way to "shout". (all caps notwithstanding - it's not exactly what I mean). So we adopt a few methods to stand out from the crowd...

1. Some are really skilled writers who stand head and shoulders above the din. Their comments, though often overlooked by the masses of those who come here to shoot the bull, seldom go unnoticed by their peers (other good communicators -- and even those who aspire to good communication). Their sense of "forum significance and security" is usually confirmed, if not by the masses, by the right people.

2. Some are givers. They are noticed because it is usually they who offer the search results, the lyrics, the chords, the trivial information. Other types of givers are those here who have forged real world relationships by sending needed "stuff" -- sheet music, recordings, etc. Still others have toted the mudcat barge and lifted its bales. They are more often treated with the common irrational rudeness that floats around this place like so much spent oil on a rain puddle -- but, again, their sense of "forum significance and security" is not in the responses of the generally rude, rather, in the warm friendships that their helpful ways have forged.

3. But when you can't offer anything uncommonly wise, can't write wortha shit, and don't want to take the time to be helpful...
...but you participate here out of a "neediness" for significance and security within a community (maybe because you've failed miserably in the real world), there are two fallbacks that are almost sure to get you some attention here. Unfortunately, they are the negative ones...

A. Read every post for its potential as a position to which you can be adversarial. Give me good attention, give me bad attention, but don't give me NO attention. I remember when Amos posted a discussion about "thinking outside the box". Everyone should have known what he meant by "thinking outside the box", as well as what he had in mind to discuss. Within the very first posts to the thread, more was made of the notion that Amos' example of thinking outside the box was "flawed". the concept of "thinking outside the box" was thus not discussed. I think our concept of being the smartest guy in the class may be too tied to the smartass kid who found his joy in correcting the teacher -- he stuck out in the crowded classroom...

...but didn't he sit alone at lunch?

B. Troll. You know the hot buttons here. Use 'em. Works every time.

The fact that the two negative ploys for attention here are so pervasive makes for some nasty arguments -- especially as one's negativity tends to stomp on the usefulness of the other's negativity, thus leaving two souls out for attention and each thwarted.

Other things that lead to real nastiness...

1. Folks reading "into" instead of reading others posts.
2. Posting information identical to information already posted in a thread, thereby "telling" the previous poster that they do not matter.
3. Neurotic people.
4. Folks telling what other people (the "other side") believe. We usually have it not only wrong, but flavored with a particularly nasty spin.