"The experience of no need to find the necessary emolument."

[Bring4th_Austin]

This is rather off-topic, if this discussion goes too far I'll probably move it to its own thread, or put it in Cognitive Distortions.

I am a pretty big fan of the idea of playing a Devil's Advocate with in depth discussions. It can be used irresponsibly, in the way reeay is talking about, where if a person is intentionally being emotionally provocative in order to amuse themselves rather than further the discussion. The idea of playing the Devil's Advocate is not to present emotional catalyst based on calculated statements, but to present an idea that is antithetical to another person's idea, or an idea to which an antithesis may be presented, so that the full range of discussion is made available and all viewpoints are presented. Sometimes it can be unconsciously used as an emotionally provocative tool when a discussion carries an emotional charge.

I've read Adonai's posts over and over and I'm struggling to really see what someone might consider "intentionally emotionally provocative." I also don't see what Vervex described as him "misleading" people. Is it not possible to present a counter argument and explore the logic of something without completely subscribing to what you are saying? How else can we explore new ideas?

I understand other people are seeing some dishonesty though. I think there is misunderstanding going on. I do see what could be a rather fruitful discussion of opposing viewpoints possibly changing into a personal matter.

In a discussion, if someone wants to counter Adonai One's ideas that he posts, it should be done by presenting a logical counter-argument to his idea. To start discussing Adonai One himself in order to delegitimize his statements derails the discussion, and ignores a very important part of the first guideline - "The participant may disagree to the bone with an idea without personally attacking the author of the idea."