I expected her to shout hallelujah at multiple points.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
People got strong opinions about topics related to the topic usually, not an actual opinion on the specific topic. Which is why there is a debate in the first place. It would be rather silly to do if there was no actual effect.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Can you please expound?
Yes and if you do that you'll lose the audience. Because you can be sure your opponent is doing it.
We are getting a bit circular here. I have previously stated that, depending on whether the audience is mostly composed of the undecided or those who already have a strong opinion on the subject dictates whether this strategy is useful or not. If you have a split crowd your opponent is not going to win over people who support you by insulting you in ways to reflect on your allegiance
In order for a debate to have any point at all there must be a group who can be swayed towards your stance, right? And, given that people with strong opinions don't tend to change their mind easily and certainly not with just a debate, this means that there must be a group that has weak or no opinions. We can suppose this group is large enough that it persuades politicians that a debate is a good idea. That is, candidates think it helps them to debate other candidates so that they gain the support of voters.
This audience, the people who can be swayed by a debate, who don't have very strong opinions about the specific topic is the target of the politician or debater. And these people can be won if you ridicule your opponent and/or his stances.
You can do that but then it's not actually a debate. Debate is not just the same as discussion.
Perhaps this is an issue of semantics then. Under this definition, I'll of course agree with you that the point is not to convince your opponent. However, in split-crowd environments, you still want to effectively try to persuade the opponent, if only to persuade the oppositional crowd by proxy.
The opponent has a vested interest in not switching his stance. In formal debates this is something that you are required to be (defend your position as best as you can, even if you don't agree) but real-world factors pretty much guarantee it in any debate. I mean, yeah you have to argue like you want to persuade your opponent, but it shouldn't really be your intent.
So, I dunno, I think both sides have something interesting to say. I think that you can disagree without resorting to mocking outright during the initial conversation. While science is amazing, and awesomely provable, it's still something a lot of people have faith in.
Why does just one side get to define what is mocking and what is not? When I say Jesus is an imaginary friend, I'm not even mocking. They are literally exactly the same to me. Someone sits in a room, clasps their hands together, and talks to their self. The details may change, but the general characterization remains the same. If a religious individual is offended by this statement, I don't even know what to say except "Show evidence to the contrary". It would be like someone running in a hall and denying that they are running.
I have no idea how a combustion engine, or the LHC, works. I just believe they do.
Do you mean "believe" as in "I have faith that they will without any evidence whatsoever", or as in "I trust that they will based on past experience and a lot of supporting information"? Because anytime I use the word "believe", I mean the latter, but when people talk about religion, they often mean the former.
Do you mean "believe" as in "I have faith that they will without any evidence whatsoever", or as in "I trust that they will based on past experience and a lot of supporting information"? Because anytime I use the word "believe", I mean the latter, but when people talk about religion, they mean the former.
This is a common misconception, but probably outside the scope of the current discussion.
@Julius: I think I see the cause of the rift between us. I believe almost everyone can be swayed given the right conditions and sufficient social presence, and thus it is foolish to radicalize those who you could otherwise convert to your side. You believe that only those that are sitting on the fence can be converted to your cause, and thus can safely mock those who won't convert to your cause anyhow as a rhetorical device. Our respective modus operandi' reflect that.
Is this correct?
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
You keep up that amount of hand-waving, Jeep, and you're gonna start hovering mid-air.
I'm sorry you can't tell the difference between sarcasm and hand-waving.
Let me be entirely straight-forward: She was at an all-democratic event, and her speech was intended to motivate and rile up people to go out and help campaign.
I feel she was effective at that. You disagree? Feel free to explain how the audience wasn't responding the way she wanted.
Again, I can only speak anecdotally, but I did mean that they were basing their parenting and other decision based on their religious upbringing or tenets of faith. I mean, Unitarian universality is still a religion. Also, very few religions "strictly base their decisions and values on the supernatural realm." Fixing the broken world and all that.
I'm sure this could simply be a disconnect between ideologies, but there has to be a common discourse between different belief systems. I'm always curious as to how people reach the same conclusions as other people.
So, I dunno, I think both sides have something interesting to say. I think that you can disagree without resorting to mocking outright during the initial conversation.
Quite coincidentally, I've been having a meta-conversation on Facebook regarding abortion and a number of people have said, "Wow! A respectful abortion argument on the Internet!"
The pro-lifers in that particular discussion start with the assumption that an embryo is a human being (or should be considered a human being for ethical reasons). Some of them are religious (they believe in a soul), others are not (they have secular reasons for considering an embryo to be a human) but either way they've established their premises and - the next part is important - drawn their conclusions from their premises using decent logic.
So, for example, they unanimously agree "birth control is a good thing" and "abstinence education is a bad thing" because the absence of the former and the presence of the latter both of those result in more embryos (unborn humans) being produced by people unable to take proper care of those little humans. And they all accept the empirical evidence that shows that, yes indeed, giving out condoms and teaching people how to use them results in fewer pregnancies.
It is absolutely possible to have a respectful disagreement with somebody over inconsistent premises. I don't believe that embryos are people, these particular pro-lifers do, it is unlikely that we'll agree. But we can find some common ground because, for the most part, we're still living in the same world, and playing by most of the same rules of logic and evidence.
The difficulty I have is in people engage in flagrantly fallacious thinking, or simply refuse to follow a basic argumentative path, or reject evidence just because they don't like it. If somebody says, "I oppose gay marriage because gay people disgust me," and refuse to elaborate any deeper, that's not an argument. There's no respectful disagreement to be had. The most polite thing you can possibly say is, "That's nice. We don't make laws based on what Bob Smith finds disgusting," but that's going to lead down a retarded rabbit hole of unfounded appeals to popularity and misconceptions about the nature of majority rule in democracy, which are going to get into weird tangents about representative democracy and mob rule. I find it much more effective to go, "So you oppose gay marriage because you're a bigot. Alright then." For all the people saying, "That won't convince anybody!" I have found (on admittedly rare occasion) that it actually does work.
When entire bodies of evidence are rejected because the interlocutor just doesn't like them, how can you have a discussion? If somebody rejects the idea that condoms prevent teenage pregnancies, not because they have a problem with the methodology of the studies that say so, but because "who cares about statistics? Statistics can prove anything," then discussion about the matter is completely shut down. Not only is it completely shut down, but any discussion you might want to have about economics or science or politics is also shut down because unless you can evaluate statistics (at least on a really simplified high level) you can't really judge claims about large groups of people. Maybe you can have an educational discussion about the epistemology of statistics. That might be nice. But I'm not a statistics professor and sometimes it's just a hell of a lot more efficient just to point out idiotic that statement is. And it's not just statistics. I see similar sentiments levied against various academics and professional classes - in my personal experience, I see it a lot against physicians, social scientists, and earth scientists. "I think I have more faith in the guy with a PhD in geology than an armchair degree in bullshit."
Alternatively - and this is kind of important - it's possible to deeply insult somebody and be a complete asshole without breaking the superficial rules of civility laid out (vaguely) in this thread. A phrase along the lines of "who cares about statistics? Statistics can prove anything," insults an entire profession of people without uttering a single profanity. I find it personally insulting because I personally identify with statisticians and scientists. (Some of my best friends are scientists. ) In fact, as a general rule I find it more civil to use profanity against a thing ("this study's methodology is fucking retarded") than insult a group of people without it ("statisticians are liars").
Is it intrinsically wrong to insult an entire profession? No, not necessarily. I'll glady insult homeopaths, for instance. But I'm not going to make any bones that a statement like, "Homeopaths are all committing fraud" is deeply insulting. That's the point. It's an insult, but it's a deserved one, and one that needs to be said. It doesn't need to be whitewashed.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because *you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
**If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
This is where it gets frustrating. I never said anything remotely to the effect that I support the right of the religious to attack atheists. It's getting really tiring trying to have a meaningful discussion on these boards when anything longer than a sentence has a high chance of being turned into a straw man.
I didn't straw man you at all, I don't know what you're talking about.
*That's how I read your post. I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify it if that's not what you meant. Note: Clarify =/= cry
**And here I directly state your apparent argument that no one should get to attack. Wow, that's a pretty shitty strawman argument, what with posting all sorts of different interpretations of what you might have meant, and just leaving it open for you to clarify? Unless I'm still getting it wrong, in which case I guess you would have done better to clarify your point more and whine about non-existent strawmen less.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me just say that the magical happy fantasy world that you inhabit, where the Constitution doesn't give everyone the right to spew venom at one another and attack each others most closely held beliefs to make political hay, sounds like a pretty swell place.
It's not the place we live in at all though. The religious right isn't about to stop attacking atheists, and I see no reason that atheists shouldn't swing back. They are not bound to some sort of rhetorical pacifism, and I'm glad for that.
A strawman argument is when someone makes up an argument that no one advocated, and then attacks it loudly and vigorously.
Saying "This seems to be what so and so is advocating, but it could also mean this, or perhaps he meant this" is not a strawman.
OK then here's how it played out:
1) I post to the effect that I don't think it's productive to attack people on their religion, but rather on their actual policy stances (gay rights was the example used).
2) You reply implying that I subscribe to the idea that "religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up."
3) I get confused how you would think my defending one religious group (Mormons) means I support another group (atheists) being attacked on their religion. I could have accused you of straw manning here, but I thought it would be best to let you clarify.
4) You clarify that you are indeed straw manning my argument by saying #2 "directly contradicts" #1. Adding a weak qualifier doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally misrepresenting my argument and attacking the misrepresentation.
Your other interpretation "If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way." Is something I agree with but still not the original argument I presented (and doesn't give you an out for misrepresenting my argument per #5 below).
5) Then in your follow-up we get this gem:
"It's not the place we live in at all though. The religious right isn't about to stop attacking atheists, and I see no reason that atheists shouldn't swing back. They are not bound to some sort of rhetorical pacifism, and I'm glad for that."
And hey we're getting dangerously close to that straw man again, because I'm not advocating that atheists don't defend themselves (as your post heavily implies), just that they respond by attacking the shitty policys which should be pretty easy to denounce without dragging religion into it and alienating a subset of that religious group that might otherwise agree with them.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
And the way he is dramatically wounded by so very many comments here reminds me of World Cup soccer.
This is uncalled for.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Quite coincidentally, I've been having a meta-conversation on Facebook regarding abortion and a number of people have said, "Wow! A respectful abortion argument on the Internet!"
Oh hey, this is a thing that happened to me, almost precisely (from the other side of the conversation, though).
Until a couple of people came in and started mocking everything. The discussion became decidedly less productive after that.
:whistle: And so what we have learned applies to our lives today... :whistle:
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
By the way, is this thread about discourse on these boards or within the political realm? I assumed it was these boards (and amongst the populace in general) but then I got sucked into an argument that was more related to the behavior of prominent politicians.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Many atheists believe that religion is at the root of every social ill. It's not news. More troubling is idea that religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up.
Atheism is not a religion per se, but if you believe in freedom of religion at all, then you must believe that those same ideals protect atheist thought.
I don't see how this contradicts with anything I said unless you are trying to assert that all religious people are propogating social illness and therefore should be ridiculed/attacked for their beliefs.
It directly contradicts with what you said. Because *you seem to support the right of the religious to attack atheists, but not the reverse.
**If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way.
If you're agreeing that they all have that right (or should have that right, because obviously they all currently do enjoy these rights) but merely saying that atheists shouldn't say those mean things about religion, then we're right back to one side should be nice even though the other side will absolutely not under any circumstances return the favor.
This is where it gets frustrating. I never said anything remotely to the effect that I support the right of the religious to attack atheists. It's getting really tiring trying to have a meaningful discussion on these boards when anything longer than a sentence has a high chance of being turned into a straw man.
I didn't straw man you at all, I don't know what you're talking about.
*That's how I read your post. I'm giving you an opportunity to clarify it if that's not what you meant. Note: Clarify =/= cry
**And here I directly state your apparent argument that no one should get to attack. Wow, that's a pretty shitty strawman argument, what with posting all sorts of different interpretations of what you might have meant, and just leaving it open for you to clarify? Unless I'm still getting it wrong, in which case I guess you would have done better to clarify your point more and whine about non-existent strawmen less.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me just say that the magical happy fantasy world that you inhabit, where the Constitution doesn't give everyone the right to spew venom at one another and attack each others most closely held beliefs to make political hay, sounds like a pretty swell place.
It's not the place we live in at all though. The religious right isn't about to stop attacking atheists, and I see no reason that atheists shouldn't swing back. They are not bound to some sort of rhetorical pacifism, and I'm glad for that.
A strawman argument is when someone makes up an argument that no one advocated, and then attacks it loudly and vigorously.
Saying "This seems to be what so and so is advocating, but it could also mean this, or perhaps he meant this" is not a strawman.
OK then here's how it played out:
1) I post to the effect that I don't think it's productive to attack people on their religion, but rather on their actual policy stances (gay rights was the example used).
2) You reply implying that I subscribe to the idea that "religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up."
3) I get confused how you would think my defending one religious group (Mormons) means I support another group (atheists) being attacked on their religion. I could have accused you of straw manning here, but I thought it would be best to let you clarify.
4) You clarify that you are indeed straw manning my argument by saying #2 "directly contradicts" #1. Adding a weak qualifier doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally misrepresenting my argument and attacking the misrepresentation.
Your other interpretation "If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way." Is something I agree with but still not the original argument I presented (and doesn't give you an out for misrepresenting my argument per #5 below).
5) Then in your follow-up we get this gem:
"It's not the place we live in at all though. The religious right isn't about to stop attacking atheists, and I see no reason that atheists shouldn't swing back. They are not bound to some sort of rhetorical pacifism, and I'm glad for that."
And hey we're getting dangerously close to that straw man again, because I'm not advocating that atheists don't defend themselves (as your post heavily implies), just that they respond by attacking the shitty policys which should be pretty easy to denounce without dragging religion into it and alienating a subset of that religious group that might otherwise agree with them.
You clearly didn't read my post, or didn't read it very hard.
You have failed to understand, and understand again after I clarified, that my statement expressed confusion over your specific point, but tried to address a few different things that you may have meant by it.
My "weak qualifier" was not weak, and it meant exactly what it said on the face of it. It was unclear what you were getting at. It still is.
There never was a straw man, in the sense that I was never able to figure out what the hell your stance was. I addressed several possible interpretations, but was careful to point out that I did not know which one, if any, were yours.
And then you still failed to make clear what you were getting at. Is it free speech for everyone, no one, some, or what. Who knows. All that's clear is that you wish that people were nicer.
By the way, is this thread about discourse on these boards or within the political realm? I assumed it was these boards (and amongst the populace in general) but then I got sucked into an argument that was more related to the behavior of prominent politicians.
It started as a discussion about behavior on these boards, specifically. That's still where I'm at, but I think there's at least 3 different mini-conversations going on in here.
Feral, I'm going to let you finish but you are the best poster of all times. +1 to (almost) everything you just said. Some people are a lost cause and there is no reasoning with them, but there is a tendency to throw way too many people into this basket without considering how many of them actually truly believe the shit they are spouting. I've gotten a lot of conservatives I know to pretty much agree with me on socialism being the way to go, as long as I don't call it socialism. Oftimes its all an issue of framing, identity, and social pressure to conform to the standards one's community sets.
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
By the way, is this thread about discourse on these boards or within the political realm? I assumed it was these boards (and amongst the populace in general) but then I got sucked into an argument that was more related to the behavior of prominent politicians.
It started as a discussion about behavior on these boards, specifically. That's still where I'm at, but I think there's at least 3 different mini-conversations going on in here.
It's just confusing because the a lot of the anti-civility crowd seems to be pointing at the actions of the far-right as the excuse (they won't listen to reason so we must shame them/fight back is a common theme) yet I don't really think any of those types are reading or posting on these boards.
Please consider the environment before printing this post.
Alternatively - and this is kind of important - it's possible to deeply insult somebody and be a complete asshole without breaking the superficial rules of civility laid out (vaguely) in this thread. A phrase along the lines of "who cares about statistics? Statistics can prove anything," insults an entire profession of people without uttering a single profanity. I find it personally insulting because I personally identify with statisticians and scientists. (Some of my best friends are scientists. ) In fact, as a general rule I find it more civil to use profanity against a thing ("this study's methodology is fucking retarded") than insult a group of people without it ("statisticians are liars").
The other thing that gets me about this sort of tactic is that there's also an implied insult to the person you're discussing an issue with. "Who cares about statistics?" Well, the person who mentioned the statistic in question sure seems to care about it. Rather than considering their argument on its merits or refuting it on its faults, you're dismissing it entirely out of hand on the grounds that only a mouthbreathing rube would consider evidence from that source in the first place, like the other person apparently did.
Sir Landshark, how do you justify your apparent (ie this isn't intended as a strawman; I may be misreading you) position that religious belief is distinct from policy stances? In some cases, particularly with gay rights and abortion, they are one and the same. Why should I accept that it is off limits for me to attack the fundamental emptiness of claims that gays are "abomination" or that embryos have souls?
Further, I have to wonder at what qualifies as an attack. A few pages back I said that many sects of the major Abrahamic religions are more or less constantly vilifying atheists as immoral or hellbound or whatever due to their disconnection from the Source of Morality. This could be construed as an attack, I guess, but it's so impersonal and so intrinsic to the belief system that no sane person expects that to just go away in the interest of maintaining civil discourse. But then, why is it too rude of me to say that someone's politics are justified by their imaginary friend? Should I instead try to argue with something that I know is based on religion, and my opponent is committed to with all the force of religion, while pretending that it is unrelated to religion?
Basically, I reject that it is reasonable to expect me to extricate the shitty policy from the religion when it's pretty clear that there's a causal relationship at work there.
I mean literally the person who's calling for civility in this thread, who throws his hands in the air and abandons the thread the moment anyone attacks him in another thread despite any rational arguments against his conveniently giving him an out, is being a dick to people in other threads.
I see no reason to treat that person like they're arguing in good faith.
Oftimes its all an issue of framing, identity, and social pressure to conform to the standards one's community sets.
Right, this is what I've been saying/alluding to in a way. Attentiveness to language use is always imperative when engaging dissimilar perspectives in argument, at least if you desire efficacy in portraying your views in a convincing or digestible manner. There's still a large degree of precision required when employing strategies that involve ridicule, vitriol, etc. So to say something like 'Ridicule works' is sort of beside the point or is somewhat dwelling in irrelevancy. Product placement works, but not all of the time and not in every way possible.
If you guys want to talk about behavior on these boards, I'll bite.
We have rules. We have moderators. This is one of the most heavily modded non-partisan general purpose forums of its kind on the internet.
And what I mean by that is that if you go to Free Republic you may find it is more "heavily modded" than Penny Arcade, but you will also find that the moderation is completely 100% directed only at people who do not buy into the political bent of that website.
The rules are a good guideline for this sort of forum. But you will note that they fall well short of what some people wish for. People are allowed to say mean things within reason, and strict rules of debate are not enforced. In fact, it's extremely rare to the point of being in unicorn territory to see a moderator intervene over a strawman, or a false equivalence or any of the many other things that would be a red flag in a college debate.
And that's about the best that can be hoped for. If this site were to enforce rigorous debate rules, it would need about 50x more moderators than it has currently. That's just not going to happen.
So the other possibility would be some sort of internal movement to make everyone voluntarily be nice. The obvious downside to that (other than it being most likely impossible) is that it makes it very difficult to debate hot button issues. It's far too easy to offend someone in a religious or women's rights discussion. Even if everyone is being civil, there are opinions which by their very existence are offensive to some. So that chills debate.
I'm sure some people would ultimately be pleased with the results. I imagine a lot more people would find it just tedious to post here and move to SE++ or some other forum entirely.
Also, let's not forget that scientists "fail to disprove" things, they don't "verify" or "prove" that their theories are correct. Until we find a way to explain every event in the history of time, and that there is nothing that happens outside of time of before time "began," the possibility that god or some other force exists has not been disproven. . .
It is not in the purview of science to disprove theology. Unless the God hypothesis makes testable predictions, it is not scientific, and asking scientists to disprove it is utterly absurd.
Many things can be prove to be true or untrue just by thinking about them. Is Up Down, Is negative positive, does 1+1=2, for instance.
And the way he is dramatically wounded by so very many comments here reminds me of World Cup soccer.
This is uncalled for.
So when a person is a hypocrite when is it appropriate to call them a hypocrite?
Or should we cower and hope they don't do the same with us?
The Civil difference is thus: It is perfectly acceptable to say "You've said A, and B. But A/=B that seems hypocritical" It is not civil to say "You are such a hypocrite." That is the difference in civil discourse.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The Civil difference is thus: It is perfectly acceptable to say "You've said A, and B. But A/=B that seems hypocritical" It is not civil to say "You are such a hypocrite." That is the difference in civil discourse.
I see being civil as especially important when it comes to controversial issues, because people are so easily offended. Through tiptoeing you minimize the chance of the whole thing erupting into a flaming clusterfuck - something that is a lot more likely if being rude is recognized as a valid approach to debate.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Also, I have to wonder where the movement towards all this passive-voice stuff is coming from. I was expecting to be filled with it quite forcibly when I started college, and I was completely surprised to find the reverse is entirely true.
Haven't had a single professor who wouldn't slash a paper all over with a red pen if I were to make statement as passive as "You've said A, and B. But A/=B that seems hypocritical."
Have had lectures on why it's important to use short sentences that make only deliberate statements.
Maybe they are just teaching us to be really rude and inappropriate because we're in the south.
The Civil difference is thus: It is perfectly acceptable to say "You've said A, and B. But A/=B that seems hypocritical" It is not civil to say "You are such a hypocrite." That is the difference in civil discourse.
I strongly prefer the former in the majority of situations.
However, if somebody repeatedly demonstrates the same behavior, over and over again, across different topics, then "you are such a hypocrite" is perfectly acceptable. (Ideally, this should be followed by, "You've done this same thing in 12 different threads now.") Or even in the same thread, if they demonstrate that behavior in different ways.
I'm not saying spool32 has done this. My post has nothing to do with spool personally. I'm saying that if somebody consistently demonstrates a particular trait, calling them on that trait is accurate and acceptable even if that trait is undesirable.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Also, I have to wonder where the movement towards all this passive-voice stuff is coming from. I was expecting to be filled with it quite forcibly when I started college, and I was completely surprised to find the reverse is entirely true.
Haven't had a single professor who wouldn't slash a paper all over with a red pen if I were to make statement as passive as "You've said A, and B. But A/=B that seems hypocritical."
Have had lectures on why it's important to use short sentences that make only deliberate statements.
Maybe they are just teaching us to be really rude and inappropriate because we're in the south.
Well you can take the passive voice of "A/=B, that seems hypocritical" and say "What you're saying is hypocritical because x,y,z".
I think here on the boards, unless someone is being a fantastic goose, we can be fairly congenial with each other. With a few startling and quickly infracted exceptions, we're generally a thoughtful bunch.
In the wider world of political discourse, sometimes you do need to call peopel out on their shit.
Example:
Mitt Romney, at the last debate said "You asked the questions you want, I give the answers I want" and John King said "Okay, fair enough" and then started thinking about kittens or something.
That should've been a "No, sorry, you agreed to these rules now answer my question."
But you should steer clear from saying things like "Rick Santorum was kind of creepy after his kid died, that's all I need to know to not vote for him." That's reductive, opinion rather than fact, and not particularly useful.
And yes, the point of a debate is to convince the audience, not your opponent.
I see being civil as especially important when it comes to controversial issues, because people are so easily offended. Through tiptoeing you minimize the chance of the whole thing erupting into a flaming clusterfuck - something that is a lot more likely if being rude is recognized as a valid approach to debate.
I think free expression of ideas is more desirable than civility and self-editing. Comes down to personal preference I guess. It's sometimes possible to have both, but it is not always. Because there are valid ideas, and common opinions that are offensive to some people. Total civility requires people who hold those opinions or ideas to remain silent.
We have a few of those ideas and opinions covered in the forum rules, because this is not a free speech zone. People who hold racist ideas are obliged to hold their tongues (for example). But outside of those specified cases, people are allowed to express their opinions, even if others find those ideas offensive.
-edit-
I re-read that and it sort of sounds like I'm saying racism is a valid idea, and I'm totally not. So just keep that in mind when reading my post, thanks.
Passivity can be used to manipulate during debate as well. It's somewhat inane to be dismissive of it as a rhetorical strategy. It can be a calculated move, just as any other form. There is no absolute or perfect strategy to use, so declaring(or implying) one method or utterance to be ineffectual doesn't really mean anything.
Passivity can be used to manipulate during debate as well. It's somewhat inane to be dismissive of it as a rhetorical strategy. It can be a calculated move, just as any other form. There is no absolute or perfect strategy to use, so declaring(or implying) one method or utterance to be ineffectual in an overall manner doesn't really mean anything.
Generally I find that it just ends up weakening points that could have been stronger otherwise. Sometimes it's used to troll people. But that's not exactly civil so that's no good.
I am in no way in favor of censorship. If the only way an idea can be phrased is offensive, well, then that's that. You did what you could for civility, but one must put substance over style. I can't happen to think of something like this, mind, but in theory.
I do think that some ideas are unproductive, however, and do not understand why their representation is desired. If I think someone is an idiot (which I often do), I do not call them out on that. Instead, I try to convince them rationally. If this fails (possibly due to said person being an idiot) I give up on that person and go on. Calling someone an hypocrite or a homophobe might be relevant to the discussion if it is factual - I agree, but some things just aren't and never contribute to it.
EDIT: Passivity gives you a lot of flexibility. You do not have to commit to one style early. If you are passive in the beginning and recognize the proper direction mid-match, you can develop in that direction without possibly contradicting yourself.
EDIT2: Also, I just learned that 'passive voice' means something completely different in English. Disregard the above.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
@Julius: I think I see the cause of the rift between us. I believe almost everyone can be swayed given the right conditions and sufficient social presence, and thus it is foolish to radicalize those who you could otherwise convert to your side. You believe that only those that are sitting on the fence can be converted to your cause, and thus can safely mock those who won't convert to your cause anyhow as a rhetorical device. Our respective modus operandi' reflect that.
Is this correct?
I'm saying that you won't convert any zealous supporters during a debate, yes.
More importantly, I don't think being polite all the time is going to do you any favours. The other side is clearly thriving by this fucking tactic of mockery and ridicule, yet you think that our side shouldn't do it because it doesn't work? You give the losing option as the only option: we stay polite while the other side doesn't and they win because they can lie and attack without catching any flak for it.
Passivity can be used to manipulate during debate as well. It's somewhat inane to be dismissive of it as a rhetorical strategy. It can be a calculated move, just as any other form. There is no absolute or perfect strategy to use, so declaring(or implying) one method or utterance to be ineffectual in an overall manner doesn't really mean anything.
Generally I find that it just ends up weakening points that could have been stronger otherwise. Sometimes it's used to troll people. But that's not exactly civil so that's no good.
Alternatively, it can be used to set up strawmen.
"Christian-hating seems to be a popular hobby around here."
That's harder to argue against than:
"People like to hate on Christians."
The latter invites the opposition to ask, "Oh really? Which people?"
The former just sounds like a general observation and it puts the opposition on the difficult territory of just flat denying it or picking a specific example to talk about.
Reconstructing a passive voice argument into active voice to demonstrate its veracity (or lack thereof) is one of my favored rhetorical tactics.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Even if the passive voice argument is true (for instance, Christian-hating is popular around here), using the passive voice lets the arguer set up a passive effigy* of a Christian-hater to kick around rather than engage with an actual human being who might be able to defend himself.
* - See what I did there?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
@Julius: I think that the reason the other side has not won a complete victory is because they stick to tactics that limit their base.
If someone is lieing, point out the inconsistencies in their claims. If the other side attacks, point out that this has nothing to do with the debate at hand, and that they are avoiding the subject. Both are purely factual rebuttals. You can do a whole lot of propaganda without dissing the enemy. Propaganda can be focused on showing the benefits you offer. All in all, I just think it is possible to do better.
Grey Paladin on
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes to make it possible." - T.E. Lawrence
Even if the passive voice argument is true (for instance, Christian-hating is popular around here), using the passive voice lets the arguer set up a passive effigy* of a Christian-hater to kick around rather than engage with an actual human being who might be able to defend himself.
Posts
In order for a debate to have any point at all there must be a group who can be swayed towards your stance, right? And, given that people with strong opinions don't tend to change their mind easily and certainly not with just a debate, this means that there must be a group that has weak or no opinions. We can suppose this group is large enough that it persuades politicians that a debate is a good idea. That is, candidates think it helps them to debate other candidates so that they gain the support of voters.
This audience, the people who can be swayed by a debate, who don't have very strong opinions about the specific topic is the target of the politician or debater. And these people can be won if you ridicule your opponent and/or his stances.
The opponent has a vested interest in not switching his stance. In formal debates this is something that you are required to be (defend your position as best as you can, even if you don't agree) but real-world factors pretty much guarantee it in any debate. I mean, yeah you have to argue like you want to persuade your opponent, but it shouldn't really be your intent.
This is a common misconception, but probably outside the scope of the current discussion.
Is this correct?
I'm sorry you can't tell the difference between sarcasm and hand-waving.
Let me be entirely straight-forward: She was at an all-democratic event, and her speech was intended to motivate and rile up people to go out and help campaign.
I feel she was effective at that. You disagree? Feel free to explain how the audience wasn't responding the way she wanted.
Quite coincidentally, I've been having a meta-conversation on Facebook regarding abortion and a number of people have said, "Wow! A respectful abortion argument on the Internet!"
The pro-lifers in that particular discussion start with the assumption that an embryo is a human being (or should be considered a human being for ethical reasons). Some of them are religious (they believe in a soul), others are not (they have secular reasons for considering an embryo to be a human) but either way they've established their premises and - the next part is important - drawn their conclusions from their premises using decent logic.
So, for example, they unanimously agree "birth control is a good thing" and "abstinence education is a bad thing" because the absence of the former and the presence of the latter both of those result in more embryos (unborn humans) being produced by people unable to take proper care of those little humans. And they all accept the empirical evidence that shows that, yes indeed, giving out condoms and teaching people how to use them results in fewer pregnancies.
It is absolutely possible to have a respectful disagreement with somebody over inconsistent premises. I don't believe that embryos are people, these particular pro-lifers do, it is unlikely that we'll agree. But we can find some common ground because, for the most part, we're still living in the same world, and playing by most of the same rules of logic and evidence.
The difficulty I have is in people engage in flagrantly fallacious thinking, or simply refuse to follow a basic argumentative path, or reject evidence just because they don't like it. If somebody says, "I oppose gay marriage because gay people disgust me," and refuse to elaborate any deeper, that's not an argument. There's no respectful disagreement to be had. The most polite thing you can possibly say is, "That's nice. We don't make laws based on what Bob Smith finds disgusting," but that's going to lead down a retarded rabbit hole of unfounded appeals to popularity and misconceptions about the nature of majority rule in democracy, which are going to get into weird tangents about representative democracy and mob rule. I find it much more effective to go, "So you oppose gay marriage because you're a bigot. Alright then." For all the people saying, "That won't convince anybody!" I have found (on admittedly rare occasion) that it actually does work.
When entire bodies of evidence are rejected because the interlocutor just doesn't like them, how can you have a discussion? If somebody rejects the idea that condoms prevent teenage pregnancies, not because they have a problem with the methodology of the studies that say so, but because "who cares about statistics? Statistics can prove anything," then discussion about the matter is completely shut down. Not only is it completely shut down, but any discussion you might want to have about economics or science or politics is also shut down because unless you can evaluate statistics (at least on a really simplified high level) you can't really judge claims about large groups of people. Maybe you can have an educational discussion about the epistemology of statistics. That might be nice. But I'm not a statistics professor and sometimes it's just a hell of a lot more efficient just to point out idiotic that statement is. And it's not just statistics. I see similar sentiments levied against various academics and professional classes - in my personal experience, I see it a lot against physicians, social scientists, and earth scientists. "I think I have more faith in the guy with a PhD in geology than an armchair degree in bullshit."
Alternatively - and this is kind of important - it's possible to deeply insult somebody and be a complete asshole without breaking the superficial rules of civility laid out (vaguely) in this thread. A phrase along the lines of "who cares about statistics? Statistics can prove anything," insults an entire profession of people without uttering a single profanity. I find it personally insulting because I personally identify with statisticians and scientists. (Some of my best friends are scientists.
Is it intrinsically wrong to insult an entire profession? No, not necessarily. I'll glady insult homeopaths, for instance. But I'm not going to make any bones that a statement like, "Homeopaths are all committing fraud" is deeply insulting. That's the point. It's an insult, but it's a deserved one, and one that needs to be said. It doesn't need to be whitewashed.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
OK then here's how it played out:
1) I post to the effect that I don't think it's productive to attack people on their religion, but rather on their actual policy stances (gay rights was the example used).
2) You reply implying that I subscribe to the idea that "religious people should be free to continue to preach the notion that lack of religion is the root of all social ills, but that liberal atheists should shut up."
3) I get confused how you would think my defending one religious group (Mormons) means I support another group (atheists) being attacked on their religion. I could have accused you of straw manning here, but I thought it would be best to let you clarify.
4) You clarify that you are indeed straw manning my argument by saying #2 "directly contradicts" #1. Adding a weak qualifier doesn't change the fact that you are fundamentally misrepresenting my argument and attacking the misrepresentation.
Your other interpretation "If you don't believe that freedom of religion gives the religious carte blanche to vilify atheists (and they do, oh yes they certainly do) then it's fair to say that atheists cannot (or should not) attack religion in much the same way." Is something I agree with but still not the original argument I presented (and doesn't give you an out for misrepresenting my argument per #5 below).
5) Then in your follow-up we get this gem:
"It's not the place we live in at all though. The religious right isn't about to stop attacking atheists, and I see no reason that atheists shouldn't swing back. They are not bound to some sort of rhetorical pacifism, and I'm glad for that."
And hey we're getting dangerously close to that straw man again, because I'm not advocating that atheists don't defend themselves (as your post heavily implies), just that they respond by attacking the shitty policys which should be pretty easy to denounce without dragging religion into it and alienating a subset of that religious group that might otherwise agree with them.
This is uncalled for.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Oh hey, this is a thing that happened to me, almost precisely (from the other side of the conversation, though).
Until a couple of people came in and started mocking everything. The discussion became decidedly less productive after that.
:whistle: And so what we have learned applies to our lives today... :whistle:
You clearly didn't read my post, or didn't read it very hard.
You have failed to understand, and understand again after I clarified, that my statement expressed confusion over your specific point, but tried to address a few different things that you may have meant by it.
My "weak qualifier" was not weak, and it meant exactly what it said on the face of it. It was unclear what you were getting at. It still is.
There never was a straw man, in the sense that I was never able to figure out what the hell your stance was. I addressed several possible interpretations, but was careful to point out that I did not know which one, if any, were yours.
And then you still failed to make clear what you were getting at. Is it free speech for everyone, no one, some, or what. Who knows. All that's clear is that you wish that people were nicer.
It started as a discussion about behavior on these boards, specifically. That's still where I'm at, but I think there's at least 3 different mini-conversations going on in here.
So when a person is a hypocrite when is it appropriate to call them a hypocrite?
Or should we cower and hope they don't do the same with us?
It's just confusing because the a lot of the anti-civility crowd seems to be pointing at the actions of the far-right as the excuse (they won't listen to reason so we must shame them/fight back is a common theme) yet I don't really think any of those types are reading or posting on these boards.
The other thing that gets me about this sort of tactic is that there's also an implied insult to the person you're discussing an issue with. "Who cares about statistics?" Well, the person who mentioned the statistic in question sure seems to care about it. Rather than considering their argument on its merits or refuting it on its faults, you're dismissing it entirely out of hand on the grounds that only a mouthbreathing rube would consider evidence from that source in the first place, like the other person apparently did.
It's basically ad hominid by proxy.
Further, I have to wonder at what qualifies as an attack. A few pages back I said that many sects of the major Abrahamic religions are more or less constantly vilifying atheists as immoral or hellbound or whatever due to their disconnection from the Source of Morality. This could be construed as an attack, I guess, but it's so impersonal and so intrinsic to the belief system that no sane person expects that to just go away in the interest of maintaining civil discourse. But then, why is it too rude of me to say that someone's politics are justified by their imaginary friend? Should I instead try to argue with something that I know is based on religion, and my opponent is committed to with all the force of religion, while pretending that it is unrelated to religion?
Basically, I reject that it is reasonable to expect me to extricate the shitty policy from the religion when it's pretty clear that there's a causal relationship at work there.
I see no reason to treat that person like they're arguing in good faith.
We have rules. We have moderators. This is one of the most heavily modded non-partisan general purpose forums of its kind on the internet.
And what I mean by that is that if you go to Free Republic you may find it is more "heavily modded" than Penny Arcade, but you will also find that the moderation is completely 100% directed only at people who do not buy into the political bent of that website.
The rules are a good guideline for this sort of forum. But you will note that they fall well short of what some people wish for. People are allowed to say mean things within reason, and strict rules of debate are not enforced. In fact, it's extremely rare to the point of being in unicorn territory to see a moderator intervene over a strawman, or a false equivalence or any of the many other things that would be a red flag in a college debate.
And that's about the best that can be hoped for. If this site were to enforce rigorous debate rules, it would need about 50x more moderators than it has currently. That's just not going to happen.
So the other possibility would be some sort of internal movement to make everyone voluntarily be nice. The obvious downside to that (other than it being most likely impossible) is that it makes it very difficult to debate hot button issues. It's far too easy to offend someone in a religious or women's rights discussion. Even if everyone is being civil, there are opinions which by their very existence are offensive to some. So that chills debate.
I'm sure some people would ultimately be pleased with the results. I imagine a lot more people would find it just tedious to post here and move to SE++ or some other forum entirely.
Many things can be prove to be true or untrue just by thinking about them. Is Up Down, Is negative positive, does 1+1=2, for instance.
The Civil difference is thus: It is perfectly acceptable to say "You've said A, and B. But A/=B that seems hypocritical" It is not civil to say "You are such a hypocrite." That is the difference in civil discourse.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
...
Wow.
Wonderful. Except I personally refuse to adhere to it, hoe noes!
Haven't had a single professor who wouldn't slash a paper all over with a red pen if I were to make statement as passive as "You've said A, and B. But A/=B that seems hypocritical."
Have had lectures on why it's important to use short sentences that make only deliberate statements.
Maybe they are just teaching us to be really rude and inappropriate because we're in the south.
I strongly prefer the former in the majority of situations.
However, if somebody repeatedly demonstrates the same behavior, over and over again, across different topics, then "you are such a hypocrite" is perfectly acceptable. (Ideally, this should be followed by, "You've done this same thing in 12 different threads now.") Or even in the same thread, if they demonstrate that behavior in different ways.
I'm not saying spool32 has done this. My post has nothing to do with spool personally. I'm saying that if somebody consistently demonstrates a particular trait, calling them on that trait is accurate and acceptable even if that trait is undesirable.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well you can take the passive voice of "A/=B, that seems hypocritical" and say "What you're saying is hypocritical because x,y,z".
I think here on the boards, unless someone is being a fantastic goose, we can be fairly congenial with each other. With a few startling and quickly infracted exceptions, we're generally a thoughtful bunch.
In the wider world of political discourse, sometimes you do need to call peopel out on their shit.
Example:
Mitt Romney, at the last debate said "You asked the questions you want, I give the answers I want" and John King said "Okay, fair enough" and then started thinking about kittens or something.
That should've been a "No, sorry, you agreed to these rules now answer my question."
But you should steer clear from saying things like "Rick Santorum was kind of creepy after his kid died, that's all I need to know to not vote for him." That's reductive, opinion rather than fact, and not particularly useful.
And yes, the point of a debate is to convince the audience, not your opponent.
I think free expression of ideas is more desirable than civility and self-editing. Comes down to personal preference I guess. It's sometimes possible to have both, but it is not always. Because there are valid ideas, and common opinions that are offensive to some people. Total civility requires people who hold those opinions or ideas to remain silent.
We have a few of those ideas and opinions covered in the forum rules, because this is not a free speech zone. People who hold racist ideas are obliged to hold their tongues (for example). But outside of those specified cases, people are allowed to express their opinions, even if others find those ideas offensive.
-edit-
I re-read that and it sort of sounds like I'm saying racism is a valid idea, and I'm totally not. So just keep that in mind when reading my post, thanks.
Generally I find that it just ends up weakening points that could have been stronger otherwise. Sometimes it's used to troll people. But that's not exactly civil so that's no good.
I do think that some ideas are unproductive, however, and do not understand why their representation is desired. If I think someone is an idiot (which I often do), I do not call them out on that. Instead, I try to convince them rationally. If this fails (possibly due to said person being an idiot) I give up on that person and go on. Calling someone an hypocrite or a homophobe might be relevant to the discussion if it is factual - I agree, but some things just aren't and never contribute to it.
EDIT: Passivity gives you a lot of flexibility. You do not have to commit to one style early. If you are passive in the beginning and recognize the proper direction mid-match, you can develop in that direction without possibly contradicting yourself.
EDIT2: Also, I just learned that 'passive voice' means something completely different in English. Disregard the above.
I'm saying that you won't convert any zealous supporters during a debate, yes.
More importantly, I don't think being polite all the time is going to do you any favours. The other side is clearly thriving by this fucking tactic of mockery and ridicule, yet you think that our side shouldn't do it because it doesn't work? You give the losing option as the only option: we stay polite while the other side doesn't and they win because they can lie and attack without catching any flak for it.
Alternatively, it can be used to set up strawmen.
"Christian-hating seems to be a popular hobby around here."
That's harder to argue against than:
"People like to hate on Christians."
The latter invites the opposition to ask, "Oh really? Which people?"
The former just sounds like a general observation and it puts the opposition on the difficult territory of just flat denying it or picking a specific example to talk about.
Reconstructing a passive voice argument into active voice to demonstrate its veracity (or lack thereof) is one of my favored rhetorical tactics.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
* - See what I did there?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If someone is lieing, point out the inconsistencies in their claims. If the other side attacks, point out that this has nothing to do with the debate at hand, and that they are avoiding the subject. Both are purely factual rebuttals. You can do a whole lot of propaganda without dissing the enemy. Propaganda can be focused on showing the benefits you offer. All in all, I just think it is possible to do better.
Which is a fairly dirty trick.