4 ms·

Well, the main problem with this essay is that sometimes mocking someone's argument is the best way to disagree with it. The parody of PG's last essay on havin

by Kaizyn 19y ago

Well, the main problem with this essay is that sometimes mocking someone's argument is the best way to disagree with it. The parody of PG's last essay on having a boss was highly effective at this: http://www.jsequeira.com/blog/2008/03/24.html http://www.jsequeira.com/blog/2008/03/24.html Is this a lower form of disagreement than DH6? Most definitely, however, the English language has a rich tradition of satire and mockery going back at least as far as Jonathan Swift.

pg 19y ago
I thought about the relation to parody, and the answer is that it's an orthogonal issue. Parody can be DH1 or DH6 depending on how well it's done.
- tel 19y ago
  I'd say that (good) parody and satire frequently make use of DH1-4 in order to effect an argument that's usually at DH6. It's the matter of creating straw men or ad hominem attacks which are implicit criticisms on the actual content of the argument.
asdflkj 19y ago
Depends on what you mean by "the best way to disagree". If you are preaching to the choir (and most disagreements on the web fall into this category), then mocking is the best way, because it entertains, whereas the alternative does nothing at all. But if you care about making someone understand your argument for the first time, why would you put extra layers on it, which will have to be unwrapped to get to the inner logic? I think I know why most people do it. The point made in the form of mockery is laborious to refute, so nobody bothers. And if somebody bothers, the refutation is laborious to follow, so nobody bothers to read it. Thus mockery, however idiotic, often stays unrefuted, and to the author and his camp that's close enough to "correct". Have you been to Reddit lately? Half of all disagreements are in the form of (idiotic) mockery. It wasn't like this early on.
- mejohnsn 19y ago
  You ask, "why would you put extra layers on it, which will have to be unwrapped to get to the inner logic?". There are two possible reasons: 1) you know your audience is not that logical to begin with, and need to be lured by illogical appeals to emotions etc. 2) you know they could be persuaded by logical argument, but need help summoning up the will to persist in following it. In that case, you mix logic with entertainment and exhortation. But you must mix carefully, to keep from falling into the trap of merely luring by illogical appeals (or even seeming to do this). Unfortunately, few have the patience for this, so many take the easy way, (merely luring). Plato took course 2) often in his dialogs. Augustine did the same in both sermons and treatises. Aristotle never did, at least not in his surviving works (his dialogs are lost).

by Kaizyn 19y ago

pg 19y ago

I thought about the relation to parody, and the answer is that it's an orthogonal issue. Parody can be DH1 or DH6 depending on how well it's done.

tel 19y ago
I'd say that (good) parody and satire frequently make use of DH1-4 in order to effect an argument that's usually at DH6. It's the matter of creating straw men or ad hominem attacks which are implicit criticisms on the actual content of the argument.

asdflkj 19y ago

Depends on what you mean by "the best way to disagree". If you are preaching to the choir (and most disagreements on the web fall into this category), then mocking is the best way, because it entertains, whereas the alternative does nothing at all. But if you care about making someone understand your argument for the first time, why would you put extra layers on it, which will have to be unwrapped to get to the inner logic? I think I know why most people do it. The point made in the form of mockery is laborious to refute, so nobody bothers. And if somebody bothers, the refutation is laborious to follow, so nobody bothers to read it. Thus mockery, however idiotic, often stays unrefuted, and to the author and his camp that's close enough to "correct". Have you been to Reddit lately? Half of all disagreements are in the form of (idiotic) mockery. It wasn't like this early on.

mejohnsn 19y ago
You ask, "why would you put extra layers on it, which will have to be unwrapped to get to the inner logic?". There are two possible reasons: 1) you know your audience is not that logical to begin with, and need to be lured by illogical appeals to emotions etc. 2) you know they could be persuaded by logical argument, but need help summoning up the will to persist in following it. In that case, you mix logic with entertainment and exhortation. But you must mix carefully, to keep from falling into the trap of merely luring by illogical appeals (or even seeming to do this). Unfortunately, few have the patience for this, so many take the easy way, (merely luring). Plato took course 2) often in his dialogs. Augustine did the same in both sermons and treatises. Aristotle never did, at least not in his surviving works (his dialogs are lost).