6 ms·

If we are talking about internet discussions we should not forget that the act of finding truth does not only concern the person you are discussing with, but th

by atoav 4y ago

If we are talking about internet discussions we should not forget that the act of finding truth does not only concern the person you are discussing with, but the silent bystanders and those who stumble upon the scene way after. I cannot imagine many situations where shouting ad hominem! would give you better chances at convincing the audience you were right, than for example explaining why you think the other person is misrepresenting your argument unfairly. If you play this the right way you might be even able to get the person opposite towards some realization. Humour is a good way, but another good way is pretending not to know things, have them explain things to you — all while naively asking the painful questions. This can be as simple as asking Why? till they come to the point where they suddenly have to talk about the base of their believes: A: I hate foreigners B: Why? A: Because they are stealing our jobs! B: Why are they doing that? A: Because they cannot get jobs in their home country. B: Why do you think that is? A: I think $Nationality is just lazier than us. At this point you can go on, or you could ask why he is afraid of them stealing his job when they are lazy. But the point is: this provides more insight to the emotion based thinking of the other side than any discussion where you were going against the guy from the start could have done. Of course it is not always the right move to start a discussion with someone just because they are saying something that is wrong. Just start a discussion if you are willing to follow through.

gadders 4y ago
I think that is perhaps the weakest strawman I have ever seen.
- dasz 4y ago
  Three paragraphs and you dismiss it with a sentence. Since you're criticising I think you could have done better. The asking questions approach is a great way to dig out the weeds especially when someone's thinking appears to be a mess. Especially if you think they are somehow malicious or have a less than positive intent.
  - gadders 4y ago
    I was referring to the seven lines of dialogue.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  B: Why do you think that is?
zimpenfish 4y ago
This is Schrodinger's Immigrant[1], often spotted in the UK Murdoch papers, sometimes even in the same edition. [1] https://www.econlib.org/schrodingers-immigrant/ https://www.econlib.org/schrodingers-immigrant/
- gadders 4y ago
  Yes, the lazy mid-wit dismissal used by the upper-middle classes, safe in the knowledge that they would never be replaced. Perhaps in 100,000 additional people a year, there could be groups that do either?
- dasz 4y ago
  Lazy yet stealing jobs. Yup that makes sense. The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs. Difficult doesn't imply impossible however. One countering argument is that the more people there are the more taxation there is to support social programs. The truth therefore is that immigration has both good and bad aspects so there's a balancing point: Fully open or fully closed borders are likely a bad idea in general. "Social programs" here being things like education and health. "Minor" things like that...
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs The counter argument is that in an aging Country like mine, less immigration is killing social programs (caregivers are mostly immigrants here) and entire economic sectors (like catering and hospitality) because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job, but the trumpets both left and right shout that the other party is not doing enough to create new jobs and people lament that they can't find one. We can call it the Schrödinger job that's both nowhere to be found by employers and yet highly prized among the population. I believe Schrödinger would be very surprised to see that his experiment can be applied to social phenomenon and not only to quantum mechanics.
    - 4y ago
inglor_cz 4y ago
At the moment where instead of "Because they cannot get jobs in their home country." the counterpart says "Because they are willing to work for very low pay for which locals would be unable to make ends meet." you have some thinking to do, not him.
mynameishere 4y ago
B: Because of Economics 101. Look it up sometime before talking rot.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Genuinely curious if this is a joke or not. In a thread about arguments, I honestly cannot tell.
naasking 4y ago
> This can be as simple as asking Why? till they come to the point where they suddenly have to talk about the base of their believes: While I generally support this type of argument, it's not necessarily helpful. Someone can observe something real but misattribute the cause, and you can end up dismissing their observation because their explanation of it doesn't make sense. For your example, just because immigrants aren't lazy doesn't mean they aren't "stealing jobs".

by atoav 4y ago

gadders 4y ago

I think that is perhaps the weakest strawman I have ever seen.

dasz 4y ago
Three paragraphs and you dismiss it with a sentence. Since you're criticising I think you could have done better. The asking questions approach is a great way to dig out the weeds especially when someone's thinking appears to be a mess. Especially if you think they are somehow malicious or have a less than positive intent.
- gadders 4y ago
  I was referring to the seven lines of dialogue.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
B: Why do you think that is?

zimpenfish 4y ago

This is Schrodinger's Immigrant[1], often spotted in the UK Murdoch papers, sometimes even in the same edition. [1] https://www.econlib.org/schrodingers-immigrant/ https://www.econlib.org/schrodingers-immigrant/

gadders 4y ago
Yes, the lazy mid-wit dismissal used by the upper-middle classes, safe in the knowledge that they would never be replaced. Perhaps in 100,000 additional people a year, there could be groups that do either?
dasz 4y ago
Lazy yet stealing jobs. Yup that makes sense. The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs. Difficult doesn't imply impossible however. One countering argument is that the more people there are the more taxation there is to support social programs. The truth therefore is that immigration has both good and bad aspects so there's a balancing point: Fully open or fully closed borders are likely a bad idea in general. "Social programs" here being things like education and health. "Minor" things like that...
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > The better argument is that the more immigration there is the more difficult it becomes to provide various social programs The counter argument is that in an aging Country like mine, less immigration is killing social programs (caregivers are mostly immigrants here) and entire economic sectors (like catering and hospitality) because there aren't enough workers willing to do the job, but the trumpets both left and right shout that the other party is not doing enough to create new jobs and people lament that they can't find one. We can call it the Schrödinger job that's both nowhere to be found by employers and yet highly prized among the population. I believe Schrödinger would be very surprised to see that his experiment can be applied to social phenomenon and not only to quantum mechanics.
  - 4y ago

inglor_cz 4y ago

At the moment where instead of "Because they cannot get jobs in their home country." the counterpart says "Because they are willing to work for very low pay for which locals would be unable to make ends meet." you have some thinking to do, not him.

mynameishere 4y ago

B: Because of Economics 101. Look it up sometime before talking rot.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
Genuinely curious if this is a joke or not. In a thread about arguments, I honestly cannot tell.

naasking 4y ago

> This can be as simple as asking Why? till they come to the point where they suddenly have to talk about the base of their believes: While I generally support this type of argument, it's not necessarily helpful. Someone can observe something real but misattribute the cause, and you can end up dismissing their observation because their explanation of it doesn't make sense. For your example, just because immigrants aren't lazy doesn't mean they aren't "stealing jobs".