4 ms·

> Why is it that you think because someone has a gun they are incapable of acting rationally? Because they're a real live human fucking being with anger and em

> Why is it that you think because someone has a gun they are incapable of acting rationally? Because they're a real live human fucking being with anger and emotion and desperation and base needs and selfish wants, not a theoretical hyper-rational philosophical strawperson. Real live human beings are pretty classically incapable of acting rationally, and if you think otherwise, I would suggest that you have only very recently come out from under a rock.

aaronem 13y ago
Are you by chance familiar with the axiom that, given an audience without any other information about the parties or principles involved in a given argument, the side which presents its claims in a calm, level-headed fashion is more likely to be taken seriously than the side that's red-faced and flinging spittle? I can't imagine what's brought that so strongly to mind just now, but I figured I'd mention it all the same. Make of it what you like.
- nollidge 13y ago
  That's not an axiom, it's just an opinion. Personally, I find passion pretty compelling to read/hear, and I won't present my side with a false posture of academic distance if that's not how I feel. Additionally, I'm not really interested in winning over the people who are more concerned with the tone of an argument than the actual facts presented.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    Well, exhorting the choir is very satisfying, of course, and I can see the tactical benefit in so doing to the exclusion of any attempt to increase the size of the congregation. This does, of course, imply an abandonment of any desire to find a modus vivendi, but the impression I have is that such abandonment is more or less implicit.
    - nollidge 13y ago
      Thank you for descending from the mountaintop to dispense your advice to such a lowly thinker as I, great wise sage. (That was sarcasm. Opinions are not facts, and condescension does not signal wisdom.)
- pnathan 13y ago
  FYI, there is a certain branch of thought that believes that passion and anger increase validity of argument.
  - aaronem 13y ago
    I'm a former partisan of that sort of thinking, so I'm well aware of it -- from the inside, as it were. The trouble with it is that it only works on people who already substantially agree with you. When you're talking to people who don't, at best it does nothing, and at worst it actively impairs your efforts. Failure to acknowledge this fact is taken as a sign of commitment, I think, in certain quarters, but I've lately come to hold the opinion that such failure evinces a certain basic lack of empathy which augurs ill for the ability of the person so failing to make an argument capable of convincing someone not already in agreement with him.
    - nollidge 13y ago
      > When you're talking to people who don't, at best it does nothing Citation needed. As I said above, and you apparently did not read, I personally find conviction and fire far more compelling than dispassion. You may differ, but do not mistake the subjective for the objective.

aaronem 13y ago

Are you by chance familiar with the axiom that, given an audience without any other information about the parties or principles involved in a given argument, the side which presents its claims in a calm, level-headed fashion is more likely to be taken seriously than the side that's red-faced and flinging spittle? I can't imagine what's brought that so strongly to mind just now, but I figured I'd mention it all the same. Make of it what you like.

nollidge 13y ago
That's not an axiom, it's just an opinion. Personally, I find passion pretty compelling to read/hear, and I won't present my side with a false posture of academic distance if that's not how I feel. Additionally, I'm not really interested in winning over the people who are more concerned with the tone of an argument than the actual facts presented.
- aaronem 13y ago
  Well, exhorting the choir is very satisfying, of course, and I can see the tactical benefit in so doing to the exclusion of any attempt to increase the size of the congregation. This does, of course, imply an abandonment of any desire to find a modus vivendi, but the impression I have is that such abandonment is more or less implicit.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    Thank you for descending from the mountaintop to dispense your advice to such a lowly thinker as I, great wise sage. (That was sarcasm. Opinions are not facts, and condescension does not signal wisdom.)
pnathan 13y ago
FYI, there is a certain branch of thought that believes that passion and anger increase validity of argument.
- aaronem 13y ago
  I'm a former partisan of that sort of thinking, so I'm well aware of it -- from the inside, as it were. The trouble with it is that it only works on people who already substantially agree with you. When you're talking to people who don't, at best it does nothing, and at worst it actively impairs your efforts. Failure to acknowledge this fact is taken as a sign of commitment, I think, in certain quarters, but I've lately come to hold the opinion that such failure evinces a certain basic lack of empathy which augurs ill for the ability of the person so failing to make an argument capable of convincing someone not already in agreement with him.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    > When you're talking to people who don't, at best it does nothing Citation needed. As I said above, and you apparently did not read, I personally find conviction and fire far more compelling than dispassion. You may differ, but do not mistake the subjective for the objective.