Why was I insulted

Post Reply New Topic

I just simply want to understand where my logic is wrong. I thought I was polite when I asked this question but maybe I was not? Was I impolite in anyway? I do have an autism spectrum disorder and because of this I can come across as rude when I do not mean to be and I do have problems with deriving subtext and context behind some things. Why was I insulted? What did I do wrong?

http://news.yahoo.com/dad-furious-findi ... 14291.html

I posted this question in the comments of this article about our inalienable rights that is claimed we have.

This is what I said.

Me: How can our rights be inalienable in an absolute way if they contradict? Wasn't Typhoid Mary forced to give up her right to liberty for other people's lives? I don't understand this. Can someone explain this and help clarify please if they do not mind?

Garr Obo: Another moron with a computer.

Me: @Garr, did you graduate from Harvard? This was such a profound retort Seriously, I literally do not understand how our rights can be inalienable with a glaring contradiction such as this. According to the Oxford Dictionary the word inalienable means unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. By the definition of the word inalienable if one exception exists then how are our rights truthfully inalienable in an absolute way?

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 14 Apr 2013, 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Internet trolls don't define you

Well, unless you brought up the subject without provocation, I fail to see the problem. Bringing up politics in sports articles could be considered somewhat rude, but still acceptable. Other than that, this is just typical internet argument technique. Don't take it personally.

I think you have a pretty good point there, by the way. The world needs more people who ask questions like this.

Sorry I posted the wrong article.

This is the article. http://news.yahoo.com/dad-furious-findi ... 14291.html

I fixed it in my post.

Well no wonder you're receiving so much backlash. You're presenting a opinion that contrary to nearly everyone else commenting. So many Americans have a huge freedom boner, any threat to that whatsoever with stir them into a fury. Your logic is no good in that place. Good on you though, for asking questions of real significance, however. But you will find no support there.

They probably thought you were trying to pick a fight or start up an argument. It's a common tactic in some places online. A question that sounds innocent is used start a conversation meant to discredit something or someone. Either that or they were one of those people who feel that if they understand something then anyone else who doesn't understand it is unbelievably stupid. The internet is full of both.

Here's why you was insulted, (1) people less smart than you don't understand your question, (2) people less knowledgeable than you don't know about Typhoid Mary nor do they see the connection, (3) the topic pertains to the US constitution which is an emotionally charged topic, and (4) you included too many question marks as if you're inviting some sensible dialogue, which won't happen because it's the comments section of a newspaper article.

Basically if you want to discuss these things then go to specialized discussion forum. Also who cares if someone insulted you -- you ought to be surprised if people don't insult you on the internet.

Also, it's strange to me that the US constitution is not regarded with more flexibility given the amount the world has changed since the 18th century. Some people seem to forget the document was created to preserve citizens' best interests, not for citizens to blindly preserve its integrity even when contemporary issues and statistics suggest a different approach is needed to what was "enshrined" in the Constitution. The 'right to bear arms' comes to mind -- probably made sense a couple of centuries ago but crime statistics (and suicide statistics) suggest it is probably better to revise today.

I did not read all the comments, but based on what I read, here is what I think"

One issue with what happened was that the posters were offended that the sentence was dictated to the children, as opposed to something organically arrived at. So it was looked upon as being school/government propaganda.

Your post was a discussion of the merits of the sentence, which was out of sync with that part of the conversation.

The other part, is that the conversation degenerated as these things often do, especially on a subject that lends itself to to it, into a conversation with a "Tea Party" bent with a very particular point of view.

There is a big polarity right now in U.S politics and there is a very vocal minority that is so unhappy with the last two U.S presidential elections that they tend to turn every Internet post into a proxy referendum on the presidency. (I am not talking about people who have thoughtful objections with how things are going, but to a certain type of very angry person.)

**Note: There are nasty things that come out of any political ideology (especially on the Internet.) I am commenting on the Tea Party thing because the posts just happened to have been of that type, based on the site you were on.

Your statement was very much out of place in that context and people with outside opinions are generally not welcome, unless you can find a more genteel place to debate politics than a mainstream site. There are different sites that lean a particular way, and people tend to self-segregate. I am not personally aware of any site that welcomes an honest, non-snarky give and take on U.S politics.

The other thing is people tend to get nasty on the Internet, unless you are on a place that is a relatively safe haven.

I wouldn't waste too much time concerning yourself with an unintelligent critical post like that.

Read through any public comment section almost anywhere on the internet and you will see that anyone with any kind of dissenting opinion, whether it has merits or not, will get the same reception you did.

Comment sections that contain differences of opinion as a matter of course tend to be filled with insults to both sides. Most people who comment are not interested in learning nor are they interested in exploration of the topic - it isn't a place to practice or judge social skills.

You got that response because that is the kind of response you will get in the comments section of almost any article. I have yet to find an extended conversation in any "comments" section of any article. I think the purpose of that section is just to give people the opportunity to spout their opinion. Not engage in the exchange of information.

And as pp's have already said "freedom" and "rights" are highly charged subjects for some people. As much so as religion, I think. So articles like this tend to draw the extreme left and the extreme right, and with them they bring their extreme opinions. I find that both extremes view moderates as being stupid or lacking in conviction, so I find that moderate opinions sometimes drag out the most extreme reactions.