You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Off a duck's back
because when attack specific person need proof & convincing logic.
Not at all. They can simply disengage from the conversation because the personal attack doesn't add value to the conversation itself. What this does is close those that personally attack out of having influence in the conversation.
You are right, in conversation is like that, but when the views are contradictory, clearly we tend to attack to the other party's perception. I think it's a kind of personal attack. This happens often in my country, by different political views altogether, many conversations have no end.
Oh How suprised, You are a dolphin!
I'm a plankton :(
Conversation should be endless, personal attacks end discussion, polarize and are destructive for less gain than without.
Why surprised?
It is endless for the ego of the dialogue partners, according to my experience, the party will not be able to use evasion or change the subject, if not awake will not determine win and lose. This is important to me if I am discussing political topics. I do not know your country, but in my country, there are too many people who support one-party and dictatorship. We must fight right in our own homes. :(
I was surprised because I did not intentionally reply to the account of the dolphin or whale. And a dolphin or whale who has time to write is pretty rare, at least with the Steemit community of Vietnam is like that. :)