Elias K. Mangosteen (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mangosteen) wrote2006-08-13 11:42 pm
mangosteen) wrote2006-08-13 11:42 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
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.
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 $bad_thing happened?"
- Nice strawman. Glad you got it out of your system. Try again.
Finally, for one that's specifically on a topic:
"Give me ONE example of how YOUR civil rights have been violated since 9/11."
- They're ALL OF OUR civil rights, so an attack on one person's is an attack on all. If you can't figure that out, Pastor Niemoller has a poem for you. My one example is José Padilla. Next question.
Some agreement, some disagreement
I would argue that is appears to be an "intellectual" thing to move beyond this. I can soooo feel Mangosteen's pain on this one. It's frustrating to have a conversation with someone who takes discussions as competitions where you try to wear down your opponent and the person is attempting to "win."
Am I debating with this person or are we discussing a topic?
The first one is annoying, the second one results in us learning.
As for my belief that being like Mangosteen, Curly_Chick, and myself is an intellectual thing, I'll explain. A long time ago, I used to be a bit like that, arguing and debating, trying to convince others of my views of the world. But at some point, as I learned more and more, I looked back at views I have previously held and realized that I had been wrong. Whenever I look back at times when I had been wrong, I want so badly to go track down those people and tell them I was wrong and apologize. It takes a certain amount of introspection to realize you were wrong and to be embarrassed by it.
Issues usually have more than 2 sides. Most are complicated. And with most issues and policies, there actually is no 100% right vs 100% wrong. Heck, some policies have both good and bad consequences.
I find it frustrating and a waist of my time to let myself get into a discussion that simply becomes an argument where nothing is learned.
By the way, since I started getting #$@% 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
"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
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
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.