5 ms·

My argument still fundamentally applies to your characterisation of the people involved. Who is the authority that is saying these people are unwilling to ente

My argument still fundamentally applies to your characterisation of the people involved. Who is the authority that is saying these people are unwilling to entertain different viewpoints? Why does anyone feel they haven't just examined those viewpoints thoroughly and decided they aren't worth holding? Is the motive and character of these people something quantifiable?

caconym_ 7y ago
I don't claim to be able to look inside somebody's head. Would you claim that motive and character do not, in fact, exist? And I don't think your argument applies to these characterizations, actually, because I'm talking about two fundamentally different approaches to discourse: in one you are interested in building up your own argument and crushing the other person's (or deciding you actually agree, or identifying subjective factors and agreeing to disagree, or whatever) and in the other you don't give a shit what they're saying, you just want to shut them up and make yourself look stronger. The motives mirror the rhetorical techniques involved. I'd argue that actually it's fairly clear when somebody's rhetorical strategy falls into one or the other camp, but just like many other parts of the human experience it's not something we can currently express with numbers. If that's your criterion for deciding whether some part of the human experience can be reasoned about, I think you're already overextending yourself by participating in this conversation at all. And it's fine to walk away from a conversation, or jump into the same old argument for the Nth time with no intention of changing your position, or whatever. But if you are going to attack an argument or viewpoint, you need to attack it and not the person behind it. My previous comment did not cover these bases because I wrote it on a smartphone on the bus. Sincerest apologies.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > Would you claim that motive and character do not, in fact, exist? No. I'd claim that people aren't able to objectively access those things in other people. > I'd argue that actually it's fairly clear when somebody's rhetorical strategy falls into one or the other camp, I also think that the people that think they have "common sense" think that what common sense is, is fairly clear. I also think that we can easily find people that disagree on what is and isn't common sense. > the human experience Implying that this judgement of the rhetorical strategies of a group of people is an obvious part of the human experience is immediately contradicted by the observation that the humans you're judging disagree with that judgement. Clearly there is at least something non-obvious about this judgement in some cases. So then we fall back to the same ol' question. How are we determining that the rhetorical strategies employed in "purity spirals" are an element of the human experience that can be objectively reasoned about? How are we determining that these people aren't hooked into the clarity of sight that you seem to be implying you have?
  - caconym_ 7y ago
    > I also think that the people that think they have "common sense" think that what common sense is, is fairly clear. I also think that we can easily find people that disagree on what is and isn't common sense. The lack of an authority certified to definitively classify something does not imply the lack of any theoretically applicable classifications thereof. > Implying that this judgement of the rhetorical strategies of a group of people is an obvious part of the human experience is immediately contradicted by the observation that the humans you're judging disagree with that judgement. Clearly there is at least something non-obvious about this judgement in some cases. Do they disagree, though? If they were somehow forced to tell the truth about their motives, what would they say? If we could look inside their heads with a machine, what would we find? And please note, I've said nowhere that people pursue either of these strategies consciously. Some people use both at different times; they seem to scratch different itches. For instance, a lot of people start with the first, and move on the the second when they start to "lose". > How are we determining that the rhetorical strategies employed in "purity spirals" are an element of the human experience that can be objectively reasoned about? I've identified two strategies: attacks on arguments, and attacks on the people fielding them. Do you claim that this distinction does not, in fact, exist? You're retreating into subjectivity, relativity, and uncertainty, but I've been here all along. I'm afraid I've used far too many words to describe that simple distinction, but it's all I'm talking about, and either it exists or it doesn't. Do you agree that it exists? Can a distinction be made, in any sense, between an attack on an argument and an attack on a person?
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      > Do they disagree, though? So you think they'd agree with your statement that - > you don't give a shit what they're saying, you just want to shut them up and make yourself look stronger. The motives mirror the rhetorical techniques involved. - is a fair characterisation of their own tactics??? > I've identified two strategies: attacks on arguments, and attacks on the people fielding them. Have you though? Because people seem to sometimes not see the distinction as clearly as you. Have you ever encountered someone who took what you thought was an attack on their argument as a personal attack? Isn't it possible that some arguments made by the "purity spiral" crowd are the former but you perceive them as the latter? > You're retreating into subjectivity, relativity, and uncertainty, but I've been here all along. For example, does accusing me of retreating fit into the attack on argument category, or the attack on people one?

caconym_ 7y ago

I don't claim to be able to look inside somebody's head. Would you claim that motive and character do not, in fact, exist? And I don't think your argument applies to these characterizations, actually, because I'm talking about two fundamentally different approaches to discourse: in one you are interested in building up your own argument and crushing the other person's (or deciding you actually agree, or identifying subjective factors and agreeing to disagree, or whatever) and in the other you don't give a shit what they're saying, you just want to shut them up and make yourself look stronger. The motives mirror the rhetorical techniques involved. I'd argue that actually it's fairly clear when somebody's rhetorical strategy falls into one or the other camp, but just like many other parts of the human experience it's not something we can currently express with numbers. If that's your criterion for deciding whether some part of the human experience can be reasoned about, I think you're already overextending yourself by participating in this conversation at all. And it's fine to walk away from a conversation, or jump into the same old argument for the Nth time with no intention of changing your position, or whatever. But if you are going to attack an argument or viewpoint, you need to attack it and not the person behind it. My previous comment did not cover these bases because I wrote it on a smartphone on the bus. Sincerest apologies.

tomlockwood 7y ago
> Would you claim that motive and character do not, in fact, exist? No. I'd claim that people aren't able to objectively access those things in other people. > I'd argue that actually it's fairly clear when somebody's rhetorical strategy falls into one or the other camp, I also think that the people that think they have "common sense" think that what common sense is, is fairly clear. I also think that we can easily find people that disagree on what is and isn't common sense. > the human experience Implying that this judgement of the rhetorical strategies of a group of people is an obvious part of the human experience is immediately contradicted by the observation that the humans you're judging disagree with that judgement. Clearly there is at least something non-obvious about this judgement in some cases. So then we fall back to the same ol' question. How are we determining that the rhetorical strategies employed in "purity spirals" are an element of the human experience that can be objectively reasoned about? How are we determining that these people aren't hooked into the clarity of sight that you seem to be implying you have?
- caconym_ 7y ago
  > I also think that the people that think they have "common sense" think that what common sense is, is fairly clear. I also think that we can easily find people that disagree on what is and isn't common sense. The lack of an authority certified to definitively classify something does not imply the lack of any theoretically applicable classifications thereof. > Implying that this judgement of the rhetorical strategies of a group of people is an obvious part of the human experience is immediately contradicted by the observation that the humans you're judging disagree with that judgement. Clearly there is at least something non-obvious about this judgement in some cases. Do they disagree, though? If they were somehow forced to tell the truth about their motives, what would they say? If we could look inside their heads with a machine, what would we find? And please note, I've said nowhere that people pursue either of these strategies consciously. Some people use both at different times; they seem to scratch different itches. For instance, a lot of people start with the first, and move on the the second when they start to "lose". > How are we determining that the rhetorical strategies employed in "purity spirals" are an element of the human experience that can be objectively reasoned about? I've identified two strategies: attacks on arguments, and attacks on the people fielding them. Do you claim that this distinction does not, in fact, exist? You're retreating into subjectivity, relativity, and uncertainty, but I've been here all along. I'm afraid I've used far too many words to describe that simple distinction, but it's all I'm talking about, and either it exists or it doesn't. Do you agree that it exists? Can a distinction be made, in any sense, between an attack on an argument and an attack on a person?
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    > Do they disagree, though? So you think they'd agree with your statement that - > you don't give a shit what they're saying, you just want to shut them up and make yourself look stronger. The motives mirror the rhetorical techniques involved. - is a fair characterisation of their own tactics??? > I've identified two strategies: attacks on arguments, and attacks on the people fielding them. Have you though? Because people seem to sometimes not see the distinction as clearly as you. Have you ever encountered someone who took what you thought was an attack on their argument as a personal attack? Isn't it possible that some arguments made by the "purity spiral" crowd are the former but you perceive them as the latter? > You're retreating into subjectivity, relativity, and uncertainty, but I've been here all along. For example, does accusing me of retreating fit into the attack on argument category, or the attack on people one?