7 ms·

> Men generally have the biological need to go do and wander and discover things. I don't know whether it's hormones or what. Debate all you like elsewhere (I'm

> Men generally have the biological need to go do and wander and discover things. I don't know whether it's hormones or what. Debate all you like elsewhere (I'm not trying to debate that point here). What an obnoxious thing to do. You know you're stating a controversial opinion, or you wouldn't have said that. You don't get to set the rules of conversation like that.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Especially without any attempt at citation. "I'm going to say a deliberately inflammatory thing and also it's not up for discussion. But it's also the foundation upon which my argument is built. No critiquing that though, because then my argument might not be sound."
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > No critiquing that though, because then my argument might not be sound." I also make statements and pose arguments about all manner of topics without citation of my foundations. I know and believe what I believe (which are different things), but it is not required that I simultaneously try to educate or argue with base topics that are not relevant to my topic. I can argue forever with people who dont or cant come to the same place, which is not constructive for me. Apologies, but I have already moved on. You disagree with the precepts and thats fine. Begging for the well tread evidence is noise when it will make no difference to either of us except require you to make up another reason to whine about how wrong the idea is. It is a loss every time I see this same kind of backhanded exchange (ie "You haven't convinced me and I don't agree with the precept") as a form of participation in a discussion.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    Interesting take, I suppose. It's pretty dismissive of people who don't agree with your beliefs as 'whiners' rather than trying to engage in some sort of discussion with you. I agree that sometimes it's useful to pose arguments and skip the citations, but that usually relies on both parties agreeing that the axioms are at least plausible. I'm willing to entertain discussion on things I don't necessary agree with or don't have data for if I think there's a chance they are true. I suppose if you are trying to be more evangelical about your ideas rather than inviting discourse on them, then by all means, continue. I just see so many people these days who are closed off to new perspectives who also insist they are having 'rational' discourse about a topic.
    - cmdshiftf4 7y ago
      Not the GP you're replying to, but thought it'd be interesting to chime in to point out that evidence shows that it seems we would have to be absolutely overwhelmed with contradictory evidence, and people we respect bringing it to us, to actually change our opinions or beliefs on anything. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont... As such, despite being the type to spend countless hours on back-and-forth, pulling up sources, etc. in conversations, I can fully understand GP's point of view that it's fruitless because neither of us (engaged in the back-and-forth) will come out any the better for it, if not worse off due to the entrenching effect the engagement an have on us.
- neilparikh 7y ago
  You can mentally translate the argument from "X is true", to "P implies X", where P is the statement that OP didn't want to debate, which I think leads to some valuable discussion, without having to assume anything about how true P is.
jdbernard 7y ago
They do, actually. They're clearly trying to frame the conversation ("I'm not trying to debate that point here") and I can understand because that debate is tired and most people have dug into their positions to the point where little more interesting conversation is likely to happen. That doesn't mean we have to accept that framing. I don't really think OP was trying to be obnoxious, nor do I think calling them out as such help the conversation. We have other options that lead to productive conversation. Hera are a couple: * call out the assumption before engaging on the topic. OP already did but we could say something like "not sure I agree with your premise but assuming it was true..." * decline to accept that framing and maybe point it out to others: "all of your points depend on the debate you don't want to avoid. I disagree with your initial statement and don't think any of the rest stands on its own."nts as given
- AlchemistCamp 7y ago
  I think the first option is a very constructive path. The second just leads to a dull and combative forum (albeit not quite as combative as starting a reply with "what an obnoxious thing to do..."). I'd prefer just downvoting and moving on before doing that.

Pfhreak 7y ago

Especially without any attempt at citation. "I'm going to say a deliberately inflammatory thing and also it's not up for discussion. But it's also the foundation upon which my argument is built. No critiquing that though, because then my argument might not be sound."

Supermancho 7y ago
> No critiquing that though, because then my argument might not be sound." I also make statements and pose arguments about all manner of topics without citation of my foundations. I know and believe what I believe (which are different things), but it is not required that I simultaneously try to educate or argue with base topics that are not relevant to my topic. I can argue forever with people who dont or cant come to the same place, which is not constructive for me. Apologies, but I have already moved on. You disagree with the precepts and thats fine. Begging for the well tread evidence is noise when it will make no difference to either of us except require you to make up another reason to whine about how wrong the idea is. It is a loss every time I see this same kind of backhanded exchange (ie "You haven't convinced me and I don't agree with the precept") as a form of participation in a discussion.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Interesting take, I suppose. It's pretty dismissive of people who don't agree with your beliefs as 'whiners' rather than trying to engage in some sort of discussion with you. I agree that sometimes it's useful to pose arguments and skip the citations, but that usually relies on both parties agreeing that the axioms are at least plausible. I'm willing to entertain discussion on things I don't necessary agree with or don't have data for if I think there's a chance they are true. I suppose if you are trying to be more evangelical about your ideas rather than inviting discourse on them, then by all means, continue. I just see so many people these days who are closed off to new perspectives who also insist they are having 'rational' discourse about a topic.
  - cmdshiftf4 7y ago
    Not the GP you're replying to, but thought it'd be interesting to chime in to point out that evidence shows that it seems we would have to be absolutely overwhelmed with contradictory evidence, and people we respect bringing it to us, to actually change our opinions or beliefs on anything. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont... As such, despite being the type to spend countless hours on back-and-forth, pulling up sources, etc. in conversations, I can fully understand GP's point of view that it's fruitless because neither of us (engaged in the back-and-forth) will come out any the better for it, if not worse off due to the entrenching effect the engagement an have on us.
neilparikh 7y ago
You can mentally translate the argument from "X is true", to "P implies X", where P is the statement that OP didn't want to debate, which I think leads to some valuable discussion, without having to assume anything about how true P is.

jdbernard 7y ago

They do, actually. They're clearly trying to frame the conversation ("I'm not trying to debate that point here") and I can understand because that debate is tired and most people have dug into their positions to the point where little more interesting conversation is likely to happen. That doesn't mean we have to accept that framing. I don't really think OP was trying to be obnoxious, nor do I think calling them out as such help the conversation. We have other options that lead to productive conversation. Hera are a couple: * call out the assumption before engaging on the topic. OP already did but we could say something like "not sure I agree with your premise but assuming it was true..." * decline to accept that framing and maybe point it out to others: "all of your points depend on the debate you don't want to avoid. I disagree with your initial statement and don't think any of the rest stands on its own."nts as given

AlchemistCamp 7y ago
I think the first option is a very constructive path. The second just leads to a dull and combative forum (albeit not quite as combative as starting a reply with "what an obnoxious thing to do..."). I'd prefer just downvoting and moving on before doing that.