(no subject)

[mangosteen]

There are any number of times that people who like to argue (but aren't really into the whole 'informed discussion' thing) roll out the same tired arguments or phrasings when talking about current events. Everyone likes to have something to say, even if they don't have anything to contribute. Ordinarily, I'd just point people at any number of listings of logical fallacies, but sometimes more concrete answers are necessary. As such, I'd like to list several of the more content-free utterances, along with appropriate responses. I invite others to leave additional instances in the comments. So, without further ado....

List: Annoying debate tactics I have known and loathed.

"If you knew what I knew..."
- But I don't, and you haven't given me any reason to believe you. Try again.

"Tell that to $person_something_bad_happened_to, [...]"
- Well it's a good thing that we're not talking about $person, then. Please state your counterexamples in the form of substantiated facts. Thanks.

"All $disadvantaged_minorty has to do is $vague_task."
- Anything is possible for someone who doesn't have to do it, good sir.

"Why are you hiding behind a dictionary? We should use the real meaning."
- Because if we can't agree on a meaning, then spatula egg martian woodchipper, by which I mean "your wankery flusters me".

"We haven't had any $event since $date. Obviously, $policy works."
- Actually, I think it's because I forgot to brush my teeth on $date. Prove me wrong.

"Well I have a cousin who did $thing"
- Well, I have a cousin who didn't do $thing. We're even. Can we get back to the topic?

"$assertion now more than ever."
- Like anyone could know that.

"So you would rather that $bad_thing happened?"
- Nice strawman. Glad you got it out of your system. Try again.

Finally, for one that's specifically on a topic:
"Give me ONE example of how YOUR civil rights have been violated since 9/11."
- They're ALL OF OUR civil rights, so an attack on one person's is an attack on all. If you can't figure that out, Pastor Niemoller has a poem for you. My one example is José Padilla. Next question.

Comments

[curly-chick.livejournal.com]

I have gotten to the point in my life where I don't enjoy having these debates with people anymore. If the point isn't to share information, or really discuss theories, but instead to engage in a "winning the debate" technique I lose interest in the topic pretty damn quickly. I find, honestly, it is a mainly male thing, and it is a form of communication that I just don't get.

Maybe it is because I am a lawyer and engage in this tomfoolery about cases, but I wonder what it is about our type of people (and I say this with all the love in my heart about many of our overlapping friends) that enjoy this kind of discourse.

Really, I would rather spend an hour with you discussing your perspective on the chinese language (which I know nothing about) or an hour with your lovely wife, asking her about censorship in children's books and libraries (which I know some about) than have a debate about foreign policy with people who I like, but am never going to learn from. Isn't the point, at this point, to learn from people rather than pulling my penis out and going "see, mine is still larger?"

Sorry for ranting in your journal...you opened the door and I stepped on through...

Some agreement, some disagreement

[wildraven.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree on the "male" thing because I have known women who are very much like this and I know many men who are not.

I would argue that is appears to be an "intellectual" thing to move beyond this. I can soooo feel Mangosteen's pain on this one. It's frustrating to have a conversation with someone who takes discussions as competitions where you try to wear down your opponent and the person is attempting to "win."

Am I debating with this person or are we discussing a topic?

The first one is annoying, the second one results in us learning.


As for my belief that being like Mangosteen, Curly_Chick, and myself is an intellectual thing, I'll explain. A long time ago, I used to be a bit like that, arguing and debating, trying to convince others of my views of the world. But at some point, as I learned more and more, I looked back at views I have previously held and realized that I had been wrong. Whenever I look back at times when I had been wrong, I want so badly to go track down those people and tell them I was wrong and apologize. It takes a certain amount of introspection to realize you were wrong and to be embarrassed by it.

Issues usually have more than 2 sides. Most are complicated. And with most issues and policies, there actually is no 100% right vs 100% wrong. Heck, some policies have both good and bad consequences.

I find it frustrating and a waist of my time to let myself get into a discussion that simply becomes an argument where nothing is learned.


By the way, since I started getting #$@% regularly, the Red Sox have made the playoffs every year. Clearly my policy of me getting plenty of &%#@ is working. Go Big Papi!!!
;-)

Re: Some agreement, some disagreement

[awfief.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's not an 'intellectual' thing. It's an ego thing. You don't need to be smart to have an ego.

"If you knew what I knew..."
- But I don't, and you haven't given me any reason to believe you. Try again.

Actually, stating this as "This is my experience" is a better way to state that. Not "your lack of knowledge disqualifies you from your opinion" which is what the example basically says.

"Tell that to $person_something_bad_happened_to, [...]"
- Well it's a good thing that we're not talking about $person, then. Please state your counterexamples in the form of substantiated facts. Thanks.

This falls under "sometimes a few suffer for the greater good of the many." It stinks when that includes someone you love. It also falls under "anectdote!=fact".

"All $disadvantaged_minorty has to do is $vague_task."
- Anything is possible for someone who doesn't have to do it, good sir.

Actually, the answer is "if it's that simple, why not pass a law requiring it? If there is a law, why haven't they done that?" And if they say "they're lazy/stupid/whatever" then giving a counter-example might help - anectdote!=fact, but knowing that what they're saying isn't true, it's hard to convince them otherwise. Or agree and say, "yes, all they have to do is take the time to do blah, but they don't have time!"

(take losing weight for example. All you have to do is eat less and exercise more. Which requires planning, self-control, and more $$ to eat healthier. Not as simple!)

"Why are you hiding behind a dictionary? We should use the real meaning."
- Because if we can't agree on a meaning, then spatula egg martian woodchipper, by which I mean "your wankery flusters me".

This is perfectly fine to say, but it's a sidetrack. "Fine, what's your meaning then? But in this topic, when people say blah they sometimes mean that and sometimes mean this, so which case are we talking about? If we're only talking about what you say is the real meaning, then I have nothing to say, because our fundamental axioms are different."

"We haven't had any $event since $date. Obviously, $policy works."
- Actually, I think it's because I forgot to brush my teeth on $date. Prove me wrong.

True. Also, "We haven't had any *publicized* $event that we're aware of...."

"Well I have a cousin who did $thing"
- Well, I have a cousin who didn't do $thing. We're even. Can we get back to the topic?

Exactly.

"$assertion now more than ever."
- Like anyone could know that.

Eh, that I just let go.

"So you would rather that $bad_thing happened?"
- Nice strawman. Glad you got it out of your system. Try again.

If it means that $good_thing will happen, then yes. You cannot live your life avoiding all bad things. It's impossible.

Finally, for one that's specifically on a topic:
"Give me ONE example of how YOUR civil rights have been violated since 9/11."

This is a lack of understanding of what it means to have civil rights violated. That's like saying, "Don't put murderers in jail, give me one example of when YOU were murdered."

Re: Some agreement, some disagreement

[wildraven.livejournal.com]

"Actually, it's not an 'intellectual' thing. It's an ego thing. You don't need to be smart to have an ego."

I probably didn't state it correctly. I meant that it takes a sort of intellectual mindset to move beyond the "win the debate" method of discussion. There are some people I know who are very smart, but don't think about "stuff." In some cases, they may know more about some area like computers or nuclear fission than anyone else, but don't seem to spend any free time thinking about how life works, how people think, nor look at their own past actions with reflection.

I was not criticising intellectuals but complimenting them. I find people I regard as intellectuals are much MUCH more willing to say that they do NOT have the answers... but they have lots of questions.

BTW, I really liked your murder analogy. I am definitely going to use that one!

Re: Some agreement, some disagreement

[siderea]

I have to disagree on the "male" thing because I have known women who are very much like this and I know many men who are not.

As one of those women, I'm bound by the membership agreement in the Fellowship of Quarrelsome, Quibbling and Flamacious Assholes to point out to you that just because there's some women like me and some men like you, doesn't mean that the behavior isn't significantly correlated with being male. This has been substantiated by everything from widespread casual observation to formal research. It is not necessary for something to be a property of all men for it to be a "male" thing.

[bridgetminerva.livejournal.com]

Can I quote your Dictionary example?

[dariusk.livejournal.com]

"Why are you hiding behind a dictionary? We should use the real meaning."

This goes way, way, WAAAY deep into the prescriptivism v. descriptivism debate.

[dariusk.livejournal.com]

Also, my favorite logical argument is the "assertion, shmassertion" argument, also known as Counterproof by Ridiculous Prefix.

[lightcastle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was my reaction.

[pinkfish.livejournal.com]

I haven't found myself in a "discussion" like this in years; not since I de cided to stop reading usenet.

What is it about you, that you find yourself talking to people like this?

[mangosteen]

What is it about you, that you find yourself talking to people like this?

I know various people through other communication media, such as IRC and various blogs, where this stuff continues to happen. I also happen to know at least a few people locally who have been at least somewhat polarized by living in New England, and therefore take their dissent as some sign from above that they are obviously correct, and that everyone else is a left-leaning lemming who doesn't know The Actual Truth.

Additionally, there are still whole bunches of people out there who aren't in it for the game; they're in it for the wrasslin' and the beer. I think that's the part that mystifies me the most; people who relentlessly knowledge at each other, with no thoughts of actually discussing the subject at hand or making any forward progress towards truth. To that end, I wrote this post to show the ways in which I head off such discussions. It is my hope that by continuing to act in this way, one of two things will happen:

1) They will not attempt that crap in my presence, because I'll slowly take them apart, word by word.

2) They actually stop and think for a few seconds, and try to rephrase or rethink their arguments into something that's coherent, as opposed to a series of tired rhetorical devices.

I will continue to hope.

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

people who relentlessly knowledge at each other

Now I would never have dared use a noun as a verb in your presence! :-)

I'm with curly_chick on prefering to listen to a perspective until I either feel a sense of insight and affinity, or until I have to reject it. I've had close relationships with people who made devil's advocacy a never-ending game, and I've never done that nor appreciated it, even though I'm sure the vexing DA thought they were being quite clever. There was a time when I would argue back, to the point of screaming and tears, on any issue I felt strongly about. But I had to let go of that reponse. That's why a lot of my opinions end up as LJ posts and aren't put in the air for debate.

[lightcastle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, DA to try and probe the thoughts and reasoning of someone is ok. DA to hack people off and be clever is rarely so.

(Like the recent one I heard of "to be liberal means to be against the status quo by definition, so all liberals should be anti-abortion since abortion is the law of the land.")

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

*shudder*

I even stooped to checking 3 different dictionaries for "against the status quo " in any definition whatsoever. My condolences to you for having to endure whatever conversation that came from.

[lightcastle.livejournal.com]

OK, here is the original quote:

"I object to the misuse of lots of terms, including "Conservative" and "Liberal" - To whit: "pro-choice" can't be a "liberal" philosophy because choice is the law of the land - the desire to change the law of the land is, by definition, liberal. Anti-choice people are liberal, pro-choice people are conservative. "

When challenged, he then gave me the M-W definitions

Main Entry: 2liberal
Function: noun
: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways

Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: adjective
1 : PRESERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions

Main Entry: con·ser·va·tism
Pronunciation: k&n-'s&r-v&-"ti-z&m
Function: noun
1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

And now, his argument:

"Once something is the law of the land, it is "an existing ... situation," and therefore (by definition) preferred by someone who is "conservative," and opposed by someone who is "liberal."

That's how the words work. A person can go on believing that they're "conservative," and still be anti-choice, but they're wrong. They're really a liberal, and become one the day the law changed and they failed to support it. Political views may change, but language is beautiful and constant.

Only by changing the definition of the word can they keep from changing sides of the isle, and in order to change the word, they would have to be liberal in their use of language, proving me right."

That's the point where I wrote back "ROTFLMAO" since it was obvious that he was trying to be clever and "provocative" and didn't actually have an argument, but was just DAing for the sake of it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

Some people really need to stop huffing on the crack pipe and get some fresh air.

[lightcastle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but this was a pretty obvious case of "playing Devil's Advocate" only in the sense of "trying to push buttons and seem clever" as evidence by his defense of the statement (which is below in comments).

[awfief.livejournal.com]

As someone who does devil's advocacy a LOT, part of the point when I do it is to make people understand that the issue is not as simple as they feel. It's not a never-ending game (for me), it ends when the other person acknowledges that their "solution" works in most cases, but falls apart on the boundary, or that it's a good idea but has a flaw, or whatever. In other words, with me, it's not trying to say "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG" but more of a "Have you thought about all the angles?" kind of thing. If people say "yeah, it won't work in all cases, but it's a pretty good solution and I haven't thought of a better one" then that's the end of it, for me.

Most people say "but it's a good idea!" as if that's all that mattered. I acknowledge it's a good idea, but I point out where it's not and folks take it personally, refusing to admit that their idea isn't a blanket solution.

yes

[wildraven.livejournal.com]

yes!

[plumtreeblossom.livejournal.com]

It's actually good to hear from someone who does DA, to find out more about why you do it, so thank you for the perspective on it. I simply never do it myself outside of my own head, but come to think of it, I do it inside my own head quite a lot. I think that's why, when someone DA's me (oh fie, I used an acronym as a verb), it's doubling up on my own internal efforts toward circumspect thinking, which often feels like too-much-too-soon when it happens in face to face debate.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

Well, in my case, I sometimes feel bound to try to make people think, because their faulty thinking and outright stupidity can affect me, usually around election time.
Also stupidity annoys me and this is a way of trying for a long-term fix.

[awfief.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure where you get that mangosteen is *involved* in these discussions other than a casual observer.

[dancingwolfgrrl.livejournal.com]

Everybody loves truth by assertion!

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

A less thorough refutation of the "show me how your civil rights have been violated", in my personal case, is "Someone just like me [ a goth in Camden ] did something just like me [ made rude comments sotto voce about the ineffective security measures ] and was harassed and threatened with arrest by the police for doing so".

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

"This will cause unimaginable disaster! You can't imagine how bad it will be!"
No, even if it did happen, it will cause a completely imaginable disaster, and we can start going through the consequences now. I can imagine it just fine, thanks, even if it doesn't make me happy.

"If we don't do this the enemy have already won!"
Let's first check out what the enemy objectives might be, and compare that with the effects of your proposed action, shall we? They should not match.

[xeger.livejournal.com]

"If you knew what I knew..."
- But I don't, and you haven't given me any reason to believe you. Try again.


Well - given that I've been in the position of having information that I can't share, it can be hideously frustrating trying not to say "If you knew what I knew..."

Then again, I'd rather say "I have information that I wish I could share".

[mangosteen]

The primary issue I have with "If you knew what I knew" is that it implies "You'd obviously agree with me if you were as enlightened as I, but since you're not as enlightened, you're not entitled to any opinion on the matter."

It can legitimately happen, but there are ways (as you've mentioned above) to express it without insulting the other person.

totally off topic...

[1muse.livejournal.com]

sooo great (finally!) seeing you again last night!

Re: totally off topic...

[mangosteen]

Yay! I missed you like a thing that really misses things.
I'll make sure to inform you when I'm out in the bay area again.

I also need to post about this weekend. Travel is the one exception to my "no breakfast blogging" rule.