Military Review

Twelve Receptions of Literary Controversy or A Guide to Newspaper Discussions

4
Entry author


This brief guide is not intended for the participants of the controversy, but for the readers, so that they can at least approximately be guided in the methods of the polemical struggle. I’m talking about tricks, but not about the rules, because in the newspaper controversy, unlike all other types of wrestling - fights, duels, fights, battles, fights, matches, tournaments and general competitions in man’s strength, there are no rules - at least least with us. In the classic wrestling, for example, it is not allowed that opponents swear during the competition. In boxing, you can not strike in the air, and then declare that the enemy is knocked out. With a bayonet attack, it is not customary for the soldiers on both sides to slander each other — journalists in the rear are doing this for them.

But all this and even much more are perfectly normal phenomena in verbal controversy, and it would be difficult to find anything that a connoisseur of journal disputes would recognize as an unlawful method, ignorance of battle, rough game, deception or ignoble trick. Therefore, there is no way to list and describe all the techniques of polemical struggle; The twelve tricks I give are only the most common ones encountered in every, even the most unassuming, battle in print. Those interested can add a dozen others.

1. Despicere (look down on - lat.), or the first reception. It consists in the fact that the dispute participant must give the opponent his intellectual and moral superiority, in other words, make it clear that the enemy is a limited, weak-minded, graphomaniac, chatterbox, perfect zero, exaggerated, epigone, illiterate cheater, bast, chaff, a scum and in general a subject unworthy of talking to him. Such an a priori premise gives you then the right to that lordly, arrogantly lecturing and self-confident tone, which is inseparable from the notion of “discussion”. Argue, condemn someone, disagree, and at the same time maintain a certain respect for the enemy - all this is not part of national traditions.

2. Reception second, or Terms (terminology - lat.). This technique consists in the use of special polemical turns. If, for example, you write that Mr. X, in your opinion, is wrong in some way, then Mr. X will answer that you “have fallen faithlessly upon him.” If you think that, unfortunately, there is something lacking in logic, your opponent will write that you are “sobbing” over it or “shedding tears”. Similarly, they say “sputtering saliva” instead of “protesting”, “slandering” instead of “noting”, “throwing mud” instead of “criticizing”, and so on. If you are even a human being extremely quiet and harmless, like a lamb, with the help of such expressions you will be visually described as a subject irritable, insane, irresponsible and partly abnormal. This, by the way, will by itself explain why your esteemed opponent attacks you with such vehemence: he simply defends himself against your treacherous attacks, swearing and scolding.

3. The third reception is known as Caput canis (here: to attribute bad qualities - lat.). It consists in the art of using only such expressions that can create only a negative opinion about the enemy being beaten. If you are circumspect, you can be called cowardly; you are witty - they will say that you are applying for wit; you are inclined to simple and concrete arguments - you can declare that you are mediocre and trivial; you have a penchant for abstract arguments - it is advantageous to present you as an abstruse scholastic, and so on. For a clever polemicist, there simply are no properties, points of view, or mental states on which a label could not be stuck, revealing, with one’s name, the amazing emptiness, dullness and insignificance of the persecuted enemy.

4. Non habet (here: state absence - lat.), or the fourth method. If you are a serious scientist, it is easy to triumph over you with the help of the third method, stating that you are a slow-witted, talkative moralist, an abstract theorist, or something like that. But you can be destroyed and resorted to the reception of Non habet. You can say that you lack the thin wit, immediacy of feelings and intuitive imagination. If you find yourself to be a direct person with a delicate intuition, you can be put off by saying that you lack solid principles, depth of conviction and moral responsibility in general. If you are rational, then you are no good for anything, because you lack deep feelings, if you possess them, then you are just a rag, because you lack higher rational principles. Your original properties do not matter - you need to find what you are not given, and trample you into the dirt, starting from this.

5. The fifth method is called Negare (here: to deny the presence of - lat.) It consists in a simple denial of all your, all that is inherent in you. If you are, for example, a pundit, then you can ignore this fact and say that you are a superficial talker, windbag and amateur. If you stubbornly asserted for ten years that (let's say), believe in a damn grandmother or Edison, then in the eleventh year you can be told in a debate that you have never risen to a positive belief in the existence of a damn grandmother or Thomas Alva Edison. And it will come down because the uninitiated reader does not know anything about you, and the initiate feels a feeling of gloating from the consciousness that they deny the obvious.

6. Imago (here: substitution - lat.) - the sixth reception. It lies in the fact that some unimaginable scarecrow, which has nothing to do with the real enemy, slips the reader, after which this fictional enemy is destroyed. For example, thoughts that the enemy never came to mind and whom he, naturally, never expressed, are refuted; he is shown that he is a fool and he is deeply mistaken, citing really silly and erroneous theses as examples, which, however, do not belong to him.

7. Pugna (beating - lat.) - Reception, akin to the previous one. It is based on the fact that the adversary or the concept he defends is assigned a false name, after which the whole controversy is conducted against this arbitrarily chosen term. This technique is used most often in the so-called fundamental polemics. The enemy is accused of some indecent "change" and then they get rid of this "ism".

8. Ulises (Ulysses (Odyssey) - a symbol of cunning - lat.) - reception of the eighth. The main thing in it is to turn aside and speak on the merits of the question. Due to this, controversy is livened up favorably, weak positions are masked and the whole dispute becomes infinite. This is also called “harassing the enemy.”

9. Testimonia (certificates - lat.). This technique is based on the fact that it is sometimes convenient to use a reference to authority (whatever), for example, to declare “even Pantagruel spoke” or “as Treychke proved”. With a well-known reading for each case, you can find some kind of quote that completely kill the enemy.

10. Quousque ... (until ... - lat.) The reception is similar to the previous one and differs only in the absence of a direct reference to authority. They simply say: “This has long been rejected,” or “This is a stage already passed,” or “Every child knows,” and so on. Against the fact that it is refuted in this way, no new arguments are required. The reader believes, and the adversary is forced to defend the “long-refuted” - a rather ungrateful task.

11. Impossibile (here: it should not be allowed - lat.). Do not allow the enemy to be at least right in anything. It is necessary to recognize him even a grain of mind and truth - all controversy is lost. If another phrase cannot be refuted, there is always the opportunity to say: “Mr. X takes to teach me ...”, or “Mr. X operates with such flat and long-known truths as his“ discovery ... ”, or“ Marvel the whole world! The blind chicken found the grain and now cackles that ... ”. In a word, there is always something, isn't there?

12. Jubilare (triumph - lat.). This is one of the most important tricks, and it consists in the fact that the battlefield must always be left with the air of a winner. The sophisticated polemicist is never defeated. The defeat is always his opponent, who was able to "convince" and with which "finished." This is what distinguishes the controversy from any other sport. The wrestler on the carpet honestly admits himself defeated; but it seems that not a single controversy has ended with the words: “Your hand, you convinced me”. There are many other methods, but save me from describing them; Let literary critics collect them in the field of our journalism.
Author:
Originator:
http://lib.ru/SOCFANT/CHAPEK/gazeta.txt
4 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Tersky
    Tersky 6 July 2013 06: 53 New
    17
    An excellent guide for other members of the forum for breeding with @ ach on the site laughing laughing , there are among our brother such that 12 points will be added wink . But seriously, always with great pleasure I read the works of K. Chapek, there is something to glean and laugh at. Article +!
    1. fisherman
      fisherman 6 July 2013 08: 13 New
      +6
      also put a plus :)

      since the forum has recently become, alas, more politicized, more saturated, say, with political economic research (smiling), then I think it would be nice to add the corresponding postulates (axioms) to the article, for more fruitful communication (almost not smiling)

      "- comparative analysis - the basis of human knowledge, comparison of current results with previous ones is widely used in all spheres of human activity, from accounting and medicine to economics and politics

      - allows you to assess the level and direction of development
      - allows you to make an approximate forecast of development (extrapolation)

      - The ability to grasp the connection between cause and effect based on previous experience to predict situations in the future is considered one of the facets of intelligence, namely, logical thinking "

      and also, probably, this - "who thinks clearly, he expresses clearly", I think this is very useful for all of us :)
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 6 July 2013 08: 36 New
        +7
        Quote: Tersky
        An excellent guide for other members of the forum for breeding with @ ach on the site

        Yes, you can take a couple of receivers into service!

        Quote: fisherman
        and also, probably, this - "who thinks clearly, he expresses clearly", I think this is very useful for all of us :)

        I absolutely agree with you!

        Friends to you, my humble gift.
        Does not matter...

        Whoever you are
        Is the janitor scientist
        Will you beat
        It's like a mattress!
        If your opponent comes across
        With wild imagination
        Or wit!
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 6 July 2013 10: 36 New
          +4
          Quote: Arberes
          Whoever you are, whether you are a learned janitor, you’ll be a bit, just like a mattress! If your opponent comes across with violent imagination or a wit!

          ... therefore, do not sit on someone else's sleigh and
          "a hundred wise men cannot answer the question of one fool" ... :)
          Those. nuno carefully approach getting involved in the spores of trained trolls.
          And of course this article is a guide to this. A plus!
      2. Normal
        Normal 6 July 2013 10: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: fisherman
        "- comparative analysis - the basis of human knowledge, comparison of current results with previous ones is widely used in all spheres of human activity, from accounting and medicine to economics and politics

        Quote: fisherman
        since the forum has recently become, alas, more politicized, more saturated, say, with political economic research (smile)

        Do you mean your pick with Yarosvet during the discussion of the article "Ordinary Russians will pay for the projects of the century"?
        In my opinion, you just used some of the tricks described in the article
        yelling about extremes and singing the International will be with fellow Schwonders :)
        modern educators do just that, they choose the parameters that are favorable to them, and compare exclusively on them, and draw global conclusions from these local parameters (balls)
        so, schizophrenics differ from normal people in that they constantly argue with themselves :)
        now a question for schizophrenics

        Is not it?
        1. smile
          smile 6 July 2013 12: 24 New
          +2
          Normal
          Is this an application for srach? :))))
          1. Normal
            Normal 6 July 2013 15: 32 New
            +2
            Quote: smile
            Is this an application for srach? :))))

            With you? Never! laughing
            1. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 6 July 2013 23: 44 New
              +2
              Quote: Normal
              Never!

              Twenty rams ... twenty Rosenleff Finnish refrigerator is a good and honorary diploma wassat
              1. Normal
                Normal 7 July 2013 00: 53 New
                +1
                Quote: Ruslan67
                Twenty rams ..

                You can’t buy us cheaply ... To fight with a smile? fool Ha! Look for the fool. There are some teeth ... belay
                1. Ruslan67
                  Ruslan67 7 July 2013 00: 57 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Normal
                  . Fight with a smile?

                  Quote: Normal
                  He has some teeth ..

                  Are you sure that he cleaned them in childhood? wassat
                  Quote: Normal
                  You can’t buy us for cheap ...

                  And a free ticket ... to Siberia laughing
        2. fisherman
          fisherman 6 July 2013 18: 58 New
          -2
          so, schizophrenics differ from normal people in that they constantly argue with themselves :)


          I see no contradictions :)

          Do you disagree with the form of discussion or are there objections in essence?
          1. Normal
            Normal 6 July 2013 21: 03 New
            +1
            Quote: fisherman
            I see no contradictions :)

            In my opinion, you replaced the essence of the discussion with accusations by your opponent of Shvonderism of Sharovkovism and schizophrenia. As soon as one of the polemicists switches to the value judgments of the opponent’s statements, it becomes clear on whose side the victory in the argument is. Or am I wrong?
            Do you disagree with the form of discussion or are there objections in essence?

            As a matter of fact, it makes no sense to speak out if you consider this form of controversy acceptable.
            1. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 6 July 2013 21: 07 New
              +3
              Quote: Normal
              Or am I wrong?

              Not enough phrases — Do you want to talk about it? and the clinical record will be completely filled laughing
              1. Normal
                Normal 6 July 2013 22: 03 New
                +3
                Quote: Ruslan67
                Not enough phrases

                Well .... They don’t give out clever .... sad
                1. Ruslan67
                  Ruslan67 6 July 2013 22: 15 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Normal
                  They’re not clever ...

                  The junta managed before request laughing
                  1. Normal
                    Normal 6 July 2013 22: 28 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Ruslan67
                    The junta managed before

                    Who is the "junta"? what By what right? stop What does it mean before, if I am better! fellow Who does not agree - to the garden! All to the garden! wassat
                    1. Ruslan67
                      Ruslan67 6 July 2013 22: 44 New
                      +4
                      Quote: Normal
                      What does it mean before, if I am better!

                      This is to Carlson with him and find out which of you is better than a dog. wassat
                      Quote: Normal
                      to the garden! All to the garden!

                      Child? for re-education? laughing I also found Shirvindt a la Jerome tongue
                      1. Normal
                        Normal 6 July 2013 23: 08 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Ruslan67
                        I also found Shirvindt a la Jerome
                        Ah, Apollo, ah Apollo .... Yes! I am Apollo! Ah, is he Apollo? Well, don’t hi your own Apollo ... lol
                        And in general, I hear from "Shirvindt"! tongue
                      2. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 6 July 2013 23: 15 New
                        +4
                        He stood without herring for two thousand years. Let him stand now with a herring drinks Your dear God’s miracles: two Russophobes-anti-Semites on a patriotic site, last name of the national artist as an expletive what what the administration brought with its political correctness am wassat hi
                      3. Normal
                        Normal 6 July 2013 23: 44 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Ruslan67
                        two Russophobe anti-Semites

                        Not understood... belay I am a Russophile and have not been noticed in anti-Semitism. I don’t like Zionists and Habers, it’s true.
                      4. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 6 July 2013 23: 47 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Normal
                        Do not understand.

                        So fake lolGOAL! fellow 1-0 in my favor laughing
                      5. Normal
                        Normal 7 July 2013 00: 25 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Ruslan67
                        GOAL!

                        Take off your T-shirt and run to kiss ... corner flag wink
                      6. Ruslan67
                        Ruslan67 7 July 2013 00: 28 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Normal
                        Take off your T-shirt and run to kiss ... corner flag

                        In the past Volodya request in the past crying
  2. fisherman
    fisherman 6 July 2013 22: 41 New
    +1
    As soon as one of the polemicists switches to the value judgments of the opponent’s statements, it becomes clear on whose side the victory in the dispute is. Or am I wrong?


    many options are possible here

    as regards value judgments about the METHOD imposed on the public, it is better to rely on a scientific approach, on the practice that has developed in the scientific world

    an example of ordinary schizophrenia: a well-known human rights activist with a Japanese surname in the framework of one television program (when discussing the old question "On the role of personality in history ...") successfully argued with herself

    I quote from memory:

    a) "our people understand everything perfectly, so I must ..."

    b) "our people are zombified, so we must ..."

    time delay - approximately 5 - 10 minutes :)

    As a matter of fact, it makes no sense to speak out if you consider this form of controversy acceptable.


    Thank you, it turns out that for you in the discussion in the first place it is the form of communication, that's okay, this is a normal situation :)
    1. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 6 July 2013 23: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: fisherman
      for you in the discussion in the first place is precisely the form of communication,

      Have you ever managed to convince someone in a discussion? request And in the first place is the form for evaluation by third-party observers, based on their positive assessment
      1. fisherman
        fisherman 7 July 2013 00: 28 New
        0
        The occupation is initially meaningless. And the first place is the form for evaluation by third-party observers, based on their positive assessment.


        of course :)
    2. Normal
      Normal 6 July 2013 23: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: fisherman
      for you in the discussion in the first place is precisely the form of communication
      The form of discussion in the first place is not only for me. If I start a dispute (or answer in a dispute) with expressions that are not acceptable to my opponent, value judgments, insults, or just give in my ear, then there will not be many who want to discuss with me.
      In a decent society (I want to hope that a decent society is on the site), it is customary to choose expressions and respect the opinions of others, even if this opinion does not coincide with yours. hi
      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 6 July 2013 23: 26 New
        +2
        Quote: Normal
        In a decent society (I hope that a decent society is on the site), it is customary to choose expressions

        It’s for sure, sometimes you’ll rummage through all the dictionaries and re-read a bunch of treatises before you find a suitable expression bully
        1. Normal
          Normal 6 July 2013 23: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: Ruslan67
          It’s for sure, sometimes you’ll rummage through all the dictionaries and re-read a bunch of treatises before you find a suitable expression
          Yes, it’s not easy for you .... lol
          Or maybe it's simple, in our opinion, in Brazilian .... laughing
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 6 July 2013 23: 39 New
            +2
            Quote: Normal
            in our, in Brazilian ..

            Below has already written, but the truth is with a Spanish flavor wassat do not speak Portuguese request
      2. fisherman
        fisherman 7 July 2013 00: 27 New
        0
        The form of discussion in the first place is not only for me.


        we already talked about this

        In a decent society (I want to hope that a decent society is on the site), it is customary to choose expressions and respect the opinions of others, even if this opinion does not coincide with yours.


        I agree with you, a democratic society is different from totalitarian sects, if you are embarrassed to communicate with duped parrots, then present this right to others
        1. Ruslan67
          Ruslan67 7 July 2013 00: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: fisherman
          to communicate with fooled parrots, then present this right to others

          No way out request There are some parrots who need to turn off their little heads right away without discussion so that there are no trends about democracy and freedom of speech all kinds of liberoids
          1. fisherman
            fisherman 7 July 2013 01: 09 New
            0
            There are parrots that need to turn the golovenki right away without discussion


            I agree with the outcome

            but it seems to me that first you need to make sure that the global conclusions advertised by the parrots are not based

            on the scientific approach, on the practice established in the scientific world
            1. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 7 July 2013 01: 15 New
              +1
              Quote: fisherman
              global conclusions advertised by parrots are not based

              on the scientific approach, on the practice established in the scientific world

              Even if it relies, this does not eliminate the need to roll their head
        2. Normal
          Normal 7 July 2013 00: 46 New
          +1
          Quote: fisherman
          with gibberish budgies
          25 again! As I understand it, it makes no sense to communicate with you. I don’t want to start a fight. You can consider your opponents ball, schwonders, schizophrenics and foolish parrots, while considering yourself an intelligent and educated person. I will answer you in a kindergarten (the mouth of the baby says the truth) saying; who calls him names is called that. hi
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 7 July 2013 00: 49 New
            +1
            Quote: Normal
            talking to you is pointless. I don’t want to start a fight.

            Volodya! Well, in a year on the site you howled like a wolf wassat and still do not understand what their job is? The funny thing is that phrases will be torn out of our posts and laid out on other resources as a model And you want all the polemics fool
            1. Normal
              Normal 7 July 2013 01: 14 New
              +2
              Quote: Ruslan67
              Do you want polemics

              ... Citizens communicate with disgust.
              This is called the luxury of communication.

              Hama can curb only brute force.
              Say - a bullet, but not - from childhood I memorized.
              Humanism, back and forth ... philanthropy ...
              But about eight people, I would personally dunk.

              Rude in a trolley, barked at the clinic.
              Despise contemptuously at the passport office.
              Love your neighbor, rude cynics.
              Well, I love you, dear ones (where is the gun?) ...

              T. Shaov
            2. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 7 July 2013 01: 20 New
              +1
              Quote: Normal
              T. Shaov

              Respect good Been at concerts By the way, notice how Mr. Fisherman impersonally quotes quotes Congenital delicacy or something what laughing
            3. Normal
              Normal 7 July 2013 01: 23 New
              0
              All. I'm in Lyuli. Hang up ...
            4. fisherman
              fisherman 7 July 2013 01: 32 New
              0
              impersonal quotes quotes Congenital delicacy or something


              tremendous thoughtfulness
            5. Ruslan67
              Ruslan67 7 July 2013 01: 35 New
              +1
              Quote: fisherman
              tremendous thoughtfulness

              incomprehensible in time and space
    3. fisherman
      fisherman 7 July 2013 01: 04 New
      0
      The discussion form comes first not only to me


      As I understand it, it makes no sense to communicate with you.


      Of course, because we are not talking about the essence :)
  • smile
    smile 6 July 2013 12: 22 New
    +1
    Tersky

    Quote: Tersky
    An excellent guide for other members of the forum for breeding with @ ach on the site, there are among our brother such that 12 more points will be added.


    That's for sure ... he said Smile and did not blush ... :)))) There is such a thing-rhetoric called-there it is all listed in the section "forbidden techniques" ... but performed by Chapek, it is more interesting ... :)) ))
    1. S_mirnov
      S_mirnov 6 July 2013 14: 01 New
      +5
      For those who want to read not carbon copies from foreign authors, I recommend the book by S. Kara Murza "Manipulation of Consciousness 2" It is written popularly and with examples from the life of our television. Greatly helps to correctly perceive the streams of lies that are being forced on us. Here's a link:
      http://delokrat.org/product/manipuljacija-soznaniem-2/

      Article +
      1. smile
        smile 6 July 2013 15: 19 New
        +2
        S_mirnov
        The books of Black Murza of the series "Manipulations of Consciousness" are really interesting and talented and academic written ... the only thing is that all his argumentation, if approached objectively, can be effectively and effectively used against his political postulates ... and, forgive, your ... and even more successful, I mean the position-the leadership of Russia-agents of the State Department ... but +
        1. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 7 July 2013 11: 42 New
          0
          "that all of his argumentation, if approached objectively, can be effectively and effectively used against his political postulates." yes to health! The book describes the technique, but how to use it is your business. No one canceled the propaganda, the book gives an ordinary person a chance to remove the noodles from their ears, regardless of who hangs it.
    2. Tersky
      Tersky 6 July 2013 14: 13 New
      +6
      Quote: smile
      But performed by Chapek, more interesting ... :))))

      Vladimir, hi ! I agree, when in the works requiring enhanced brain work there is a sense of humor, it is easier and faster to remember.
  • taseka
    taseka 6 July 2013 06: 54 New
    +1
    It seems to me that our politicians and officials have already studied this for a long time and sometimes listening to their thoughts about their People and Homeland becomes disgusting to listen to! Hypocrisy and political corruption!
    1. S_mirnov
      S_mirnov 6 July 2013 14: 03 New
      +1
      Well, what are you saying, only the TRUTH, right in the eye, albeit impersonal !!! laughing
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYwBFpJSuBA
  • papss
    papss 6 July 2013 10: 53 New
    +1
    Here are the techniques of the polemic struggle ... it is clear that
    among our brother, such that another 12 points will add
    ... you can only add something, but do they prevail in disputes? In many ways, they groping, since in order to gain the upper hand, you need to speak flawlessly and consistently and argue based on logic ... but where to get it? You need to have a culture of thinking and have knowledge ... I will not talk about logic ... it is also based on laws ... The author suggested adding ... willingly ... all the more so, what Chapek brought is, so to speak, methods of "dirty struggle "
    denial of false facts - true ... everything is clear
    criticism of the enemy, the opposite of the first ... show the lies and groundlessness of the arguments ...
    use in a dispute 2-4 refutation methods ...
    application of humor and sarcasm ....
    bringing the opponent to the expression of absurdities ... and their replication
    the rejection of arguments and the development of their ideas in a dispute ...
    counter attack ...
    the appeal of the argument against the one who expresses them (arguing here with one Kazakh, he got to the point that according to the Ukrainian proverb ... my hut from the edge, tried to judge all the Slavs, making it clear that folklore reflects national habits, and contrasted - Kazakhs - we do not have such moments)
    pickup replica ... remember newspaper headlines Boris are you wrong ... so here we use a replica of the replica of the enemy in order to strengthen their arguments ...
    I can bring a dozen more ...
    All this, is being studied at institutes ... on the subject of psychology ... for those interested, I recommend the book Povarnina SI "Dispute. Theory and practice"
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. smile
      smile 6 July 2013 12: 31 New
      +2
      pensioner
      It's easier, but ... not interesting, not elegant, or something :))) The difference is like a brick on the head and a rapier from an inconceivable position, with a deflection, into the armpit ... :))))
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 6 July 2013 12: 42 New
        +5
        Quote: smile
        It's easier, but ... not interesting, not elegant, or something


        In our school, the head of the garage, Colonel Chukhin SO knew how to send there that they came from the department of aesthetics ... But you are not elegant. You must be able to!
        1. smile
          smile 6 July 2013 13: 07 New
          +3
          pensioner
          Yes, yes, there are virtuosos ... :))) But here, in any way, the moderators will quickly knock on the pumpkin ... and you have to get out ... :)))
          1. pensioner
            pensioner 6 July 2013 13: 09 New
            +1
            Quote: smile
            so you have to get out ... :)))

            Also need to be able to. And in this case there are virtuosos ...
    2. Hleb
      Hleb 6 July 2013 14: 06 New
      +1
      sometimes really easier
    3. Ruslan67
      Ruslan67 6 July 2013 21: 15 New
      +5
      Quote: retired
      .. But isn’t it easier to send immediately to @ yy? Or where else ...

      Well, you can, for example, in the rotten vagina of an immaculate b .... Virgin Mary but I’m afraid that most of the current USEists will not understand half the words request We'll have to explain what the vagina is, who the Virgin Mary is and why she is not vicious. repeat
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 6 July 2013 22: 48 New
        +3
        Quote: retired
        I don’t know, I don’t know ... Isn't it easier to send right away? Or where else

        Quote: smile
        It's easier, but ... not interesting, not elegant, or something :)))

        Quote: retired
        In our school, the head of the garage, Colonel Chukhin SO knew how to send there that they came from the department of aesthetics ... But you are not elegant. You must be able to!

        Quote: Ruslan67
        Well, you can, for example, into the rotten vagina of an immaculate b .... Virgin Mary but I’m afraid that most of the current Unified State Examiners will not understand half the words. I will have to explain what the vagina is, who is the Virgin Mary and why she is not vicious

        laughing laughing laughing
        The full house is resting. All + for the development of national art.
        Z.Y. So be it let it be 13 trick, so to speak, the last argument. laughing
  • papss
    papss 6 July 2013 11: 56 New
    +2
    Quote: retired
    I don’t know, I don’t know ... Isn't it easier to send right away? Or where else ...

    simpler ... of course, only from this, all kinds of Russophobes, nationalists and other * hells calling the rest cheer patriots will remain with themselves and at the thought of being right ... but this should not be allowed ... You need to beat them in all directions. .. The truth is after us ...
    1. smile
      smile 6 July 2013 12: 38 New
      +3
      papss
      You are absolutely right! I can not stand swearing, but in this case, it’s simply impossible otherwise. I must admit, if it were not for the ones that you listed - I would practically not write comments, it’s much more interesting to read ... but they also need to be stopped ... remember the motto - who, if not us?
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 6 July 2013 23: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: papss
        They need to be beaten in all directions ... The truth is, after all ...

        I support, but Do not beat, that’s why they are still more bullied, they need to be taught / treated and somewhere, even with a kind word, the main thing is that they would not have guessed.
        Quote: smile
        You are absolutely right! I can not stand swearing, but in this case, it’s simply impossible otherwise. I must admit, if it were not for the ones that you listed - I would practically not write comments, it’s much more interesting to read ... but they also need to be stopped ... remember the motto - who, if not us?

        I agree. In fact, many opinions are important and necessary, but we must fight, first of all, against their extreme manifestations.
        ZY "I'm not for anyone, I'm against those who have an elliptical orbit."
    2. Normal
      Normal 6 July 2013 16: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: papss
      The truth is after us ...

      For the cheers-patriots? laughing
      Well thing
      11. Impossibile (here: not allowed - lat.). Do not allow the adversary to be right in any way. It is worth recognizing after him even a grain of reason and truth - the whole polemic is lost ....
      yes
  • Hleb
    Hleb 6 July 2013 12: 54 New
    +4
    Sophisticated polemicist is never defeated
  • igordok
    igordok 6 July 2013 13: 08 New
    +4
    Karel Chapek 1937 g. And today is relevant.

    Modern fables

    Down with the war

    Here is the proof that we really do not want war: we are at war without declaring war.

    Wolf and goat

    We will agree on an economic basis: I will not eat your grass, and for this you will voluntarily supply me with your meat.

    Доказательство

    As proof of our desire to come to an agreement with neighboring states, we began the bombing of its open cities.

    Message

    The enemy tried to villainously bombard our planes, peacefully dropping bombs on his city.

    Good will

    We agree to bring our conflict to the international conference, but on the condition that the decision will be in our favor.

    Principle

    The cunning fights while the wise gives in.
  • poquello
    poquello 6 July 2013 13: 20 New
    +1
    I will not put anything - too simple fabrications of an outdated author.
  • KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 6 July 2013 13: 59 New
    +5
    make it clear that the adversary is a man of limited, weak-minded, graphomaniac, talker, perfect zero, inflated magnitude, epigone, illiterate con man, bast shoe, weeping, and generally a person unworthy to talk to him.

    fellow wassat this is probably the most frequent method
    1. pensioner
      pensioner 6 July 2013 16: 46 New
      0
      Quote: KG_patriot_last
      this is probably the most frequent method

      But not in Russia ... We just come out to talk angry their name is ...
    2. poquello
      poquello 7 July 2013 01: 49 New
      +1
      "make it clear that the enemy -"

      cut another piece of paragraph

      "a subject unworthy to be spoken to."

      and I completely agree with you. +
  • papss
    papss 6 July 2013 17: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: igordok
    Karel Chapek 1937 g. And today is relevant.

    Modern fables

    Down with the war

    Here is the proof that we really do not want war: we are at war without declaring war.

    Wolf and goat

    We will agree on an economic basis: I will not eat your grass, and for this you will voluntarily supply me with your meat.

    Доказательство

    As proof of our desire to come to an agreement with neighboring states, we began the bombing of its open cities.

    Message

    The enemy tried to villainously bombard our planes, peacefully dropping bombs on his city.

    Good will

    We agree to bring our conflict to the international conference, but on the condition that the decision will be in our favor.

    Principle

    The cunning fights while the wise gives in.

    sayings are simple, but everything simple is ingenious ... I personally + ... And the fact that the sayings are worthy of the Goebbels ministry I agree to 100% ...
    Take the first
    Here is the proof that we really do not want war: we are at war without declaring war.
    ... isn't that what Ribbentrop said at a press conference in Berlin, June 22, 1941?
  • papss
    papss 6 July 2013 18: 20 New
    +2
    I see that the article really aroused interest ... then I will develop Chapek and a little about the dirty and clean methods of fighting in disputes
    1. "We postpone with an objection", in other words, with an answer ... since we all have discussions here in writing, everyone uses it. and a belated answer - the answer remains ... but, in life ... there are other ways - translating the topic into "indirect" ... and in a firm and confident voice ... The method is often used on screens ... by liberal human rights activists ... This is a clean trick, so to speak ... but there is also a dirty one - a "psychological trick" ... often used by Zhirinovsky, they are usually based on knowledge of the nature and character of the opponent ... I remember how he wanted a polemic with Putin in an election campaign .. I would also like to look at them ...
    2. "Playing on the fear of losing dignity" - we give a false argument ... something like this - Don't you know ...? Everyone has known for a long time ... The whole public is buzzing about this ... It is also used by the Western media and our liberals ...
    3. "Playing on pride" - related number 2, we are just starting to push a false argument ... something like this ... As a person who reads a lot ... or you, as an intelligent person, what do you say ...
    4. Link to age (experience), mother suit ... again, I give my example from VO, the opponent in my sense, what you say to me, the site moderators have long said ... This is also a dirty trick ... here it is what they say ... moderators could not cope ... where am I ...
    5. "Leaving into contradictions" - based on the knowledge of the opponent, by the type of word-deed ... Recently I watched the "battle" between Starikov and Gozman ... the latter applied this method ... by asking how many votes were cast for Starikov in the elections in St. 2002 ..., Starikov said - does not remember (mistake), thereby giving Gozman a trump card - he is 247 ... I don't remember exactly ...
    6. "Transferring the dispute to the scales from the point of view of harm and benefit" ... it is also understandable, instead of evidence on facts, we discuss the harm or benefit of this or that event ... Often on the body screens ... especially in disputes on the USSR, Stalin and so on ...
    7. "Reading in the hearts" ... we analyze not the subject of the question, the words of the opponent, but the motive that prompted them to speak ... Something like this ... Are you saying this out of pity? Do not be fooled ... You apparently have an interest in this ... The dispute about the role of Stalin, between Prokhanov and Svanidze ... Prokhanov - apparently from all those gathered here ... historians only from our side. Svanidze, no, why am I also a historian ... Prokhanov - you are a publicist, and, moreover, engaged ...
    Well, I think this is enough for the first time ... Use ...
  • shurup
    shurup 6 July 2013 20: 58 New
    +1
    The author has clearly not read The War with the Salamanders. Probably because he wrote it himself. Some military officers read, but inattentively.
    I will add that the use of Latin sayings makes the impression mentioned in the first paragraph. 99% of the military school graduates did not finish even the Page Corps.
    I will add the Figurae item (numbers are lat.) - fill the opponent with numbers. They are able to overshadow any facts. The polemic on the topic of Rezun is interesting in this regard. It is impossible to count the tanks, because they do not stand still.
    1. poquello
      poquello 6 July 2013 23: 35 New
      +1
      "Interesting in this respect is the controversy about Rezun. It is impossible to count the tanks, because they do not stand still."

      + I didn’t understand anything, but I liked the tanks
  • pamero
    pamero 7 July 2013 11: 23 New
    +1
    Bloggers !!! Shark pen! Learn from a literary guru.
  • Ruslan_F38
    Ruslan_F38 7 July 2013 12: 20 New
    +1
    Article plus. In my opinion, the basis of any polemic is respect for the opinion of the interlocutor, the ability to hear arguments by the parties to the discussion. But at the same time, you need to understand that the strength of the parties is not in the techniques described above, but in the truth. In our time, there is a substitution of eternal values. Any evil and crime is justified. Very often I meet people on this forum who, with the help of the above techniques, just for the sake of getting advantages and "victory" in a dispute, are ready to justify any crime, any event or action negative in its essence. For example, gentlemen, Israelis, mind you, I do not name their nationality, because I have nothing against it - quite often they use similar techniques to justify any atrocities and crimes of their illegally created entity. Or gentlemen from Azerbaijan, who unequivocally justify any criminal actions against Armenia and Armenians (killing a sleeping person with an ax), while I have not met Armenians at the forum who shouted with gusto about the murders of Azerbaijanis during the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Therefore, before discussing, I advise some "smart people" to read carefully the article, and ideally the book of Chapek (The War with the Salamanders), and try to understand what the author really wanted to convey. And commentators using similar techniques in discussions should be put in place. I want to remind you once again - the power is in the truth.