[MD] Social level for humans only

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 22 Aug 2010 at 6:08, X Acto wrote:

Platt to Horse:

Thanks. Fair enough. The only doubt left is what constitutes "provocative
remarks." The line between disagreement and provocation is hard for me to
discern. Any guidance on that question would be appreciated.

Ron:
A good indication of why we often fail to explain our ideas, the difficulty
you have with making this discernment.

The definition hints to a willful intent to incite or provoke an emotional 
response,
typically as a rhetorical device to derail a civil dialog or discussion 
concerning
differences of opinion.

Hey Ron, thanks for the example of "willful intent to incite or provoke an 
emotional response."   


Typically it is employed when one feels the discussion is going against their 
own
opinions and beliefs. In lieu of reflection and the threat of  possible 
restructuring of ideas,
this device is employed as a mechanism to secure existing beliefs and reject 
the 
dialog.