3 ms·

>asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. If you have something to say, say it. Pointing out that other

>asking for substantiations of claims is becoming on HN This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. If you have something to say, say it. Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas doesn't justify having a baseline conversation on the merits of those ideas. It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. Don't pretend otherwise.

mistermann 7y ago
> This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. Is it really though? Are people's opinions not shaped by what they read on forums? Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? I would argue that a recent presidential candidate was successful using largely that type of tactic. > If you have something to say, say it. I am: if some states an opinion as if it is a fact, then please provide some substantiation for the opinion. > Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas Are these ideas "bankrupt"? And, how might I come to learn that we know this is "well-known"? What is an authoritative source to which I can refer? What adjectives might we use to describe that e-debate tactic? Effective is one, but I can think of others. > It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. The "the debate is over" e-debate tactic, also very effective. > Don't pretend otherwise. Am I pretending anything, or making any particularly strong assertion? My intent is asking someone who has made a strong assertion (in this case, a backhand dismissal) to provide some supporting evidence. Am I the one that's out of order? Conversations like this seem to be a good example of the very problem we're experiencing. I believe most disagreements of this nature are fundamentally epistemological in nature, and by that I mean something like: people conceptualize reality based on a loose collection of incomplete, non-integrated, and inconclusive ideas, that they pick up from a wide variety of sources (forums being one of them) and integrate into their ongoing mental model of reality. At times, some of the ideas they pick up may not be entirely accurate, so constantly debating things in a marketplace of ideas seems to me like something that should be encouraged and re-normalized, not forbidden/stigmatized.
- kadendogthing 7y ago
  > Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? They're not really that complex. And you kind find all sorts of apologetics for the viewpoint, but there's a reason it's not reading material in an academic setting. So no, there is absolutely no benefit to rehashing the conversation and giving the illusion that Ayn Rand's philosophy is intellectually significant enough to merit a forum debate. It's enough to call a spade a spade.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > They're not really that complex. Once again: is this an opinion, or a fact? As stated, it sounds like a fact. > And you kind find all sorts of apologetics for the viewpoint... "Apologetics" sounds like a rhetorical "proof" that any and all viewpoints presented in the book are wrong. Is this so? > but there's a reason it's not reading material in an academic setting. There are many reasons why many different pieces of literature are not reading material in an academic setting. Is this fact sufficient evidence to conclude (and tell others) that the ideas are wrong? Or would it be more proper to state an opinion that they are wrong, with some supporting evidence or other actually substantiated opinions (of which there is plenty on Rand). > So no, there is absolutely no benefit A confident declaration of victory while ignoring the actual point and content of your rhetorical adversary's argument is another effective (psychologically persuasive) debate tactic that is employed to great success in the modern world across a variety of communication mediums. Again, see the last presidential election in the United States.

mistermann 7y ago

> This is a really shitty e-debate tactic. Is it really though? Are people's opinions not shaped by what they read on forums? Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? I would argue that a recent presidential candidate was successful using largely that type of tactic. > If you have something to say, say it. I am: if some states an opinion as if it is a fact, then please provide some substantiation for the opinion. > Pointing out that other people are quoting well-known bankrupt ideas Are these ideas "bankrupt"? And, how might I come to learn that we know this is "well-known"? What is an authoritative source to which I can refer? What adjectives might we use to describe that e-debate tactic? Effective is one, but I can think of others. > It's enough to call a spade a spade. It's been done to death. The "the debate is over" e-debate tactic, also very effective. > Don't pretend otherwise. Am I pretending anything, or making any particularly strong assertion? My intent is asking someone who has made a strong assertion (in this case, a backhand dismissal) to provide some supporting evidence. Am I the one that's out of order? Conversations like this seem to be a good example of the very problem we're experiencing. I believe most disagreements of this nature are fundamentally epistemological in nature, and by that I mean something like: people conceptualize reality based on a loose collection of incomplete, non-integrated, and inconclusive ideas, that they pick up from a wide variety of sources (forums being one of them) and integrate into their ongoing mental model of reality. At times, some of the ideas they pick up may not be entirely accurate, so constantly debating things in a marketplace of ideas seems to me like something that should be encouraged and re-normalized, not forbidden/stigmatized.

kadendogthing 7y ago
> Is the wholesale dismissal of complex ideas based on a simplistic claim something to be held up as a standard to work towards? They're not really that complex. And you kind find all sorts of apologetics for the viewpoint, but there's a reason it's not reading material in an academic setting. So no, there is absolutely no benefit to rehashing the conversation and giving the illusion that Ayn Rand's philosophy is intellectually significant enough to merit a forum debate. It's enough to call a spade a spade.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > They're not really that complex. Once again: is this an opinion, or a fact? As stated, it sounds like a fact. > And you kind find all sorts of apologetics for the viewpoint... "Apologetics" sounds like a rhetorical "proof" that any and all viewpoints presented in the book are wrong. Is this so? > but there's a reason it's not reading material in an academic setting. There are many reasons why many different pieces of literature are not reading material in an academic setting. Is this fact sufficient evidence to conclude (and tell others) that the ideas are wrong? Or would it be more proper to state an opinion that they are wrong, with some supporting evidence or other actually substantiated opinions (of which there is plenty on Rand). > So no, there is absolutely no benefit A confident declaration of victory while ignoring the actual point and content of your rhetorical adversary's argument is another effective (psychologically persuasive) debate tactic that is employed to great success in the modern world across a variety of communication mediums. Again, see the last presidential election in the United States.