Rules for Rational Discussion

Let me put it differently: If you are arguing for a point without believing it to be true, you are probably doing one of three things: 1) engaging in sophistry, 2) playing devil's advocate, or 3) trolling.

If someone wants to ask for clarification on a point, or bring up a point they wish to have clarified, they do not need to represent themselves as taking a position. LarryC routinely presents himself (perhaps unintentionally) as taking positions that he does not actually hold, leading to a tremendous amount of confusion.

Again: You don't need to appear to take a position in order to ask about that position. You can participate by simply asking things. You can even participate by pointing out flawed logic or other problems in what someone is saying. However, making [em]arguments for a given point[/em] without actually having a desire to actually support that point and without letting people know that's what you're doing is rude. It might give people the mistaken impression, for example, that you support Libertarianism and are an authority on Libertarian ideas.

There shouldn't be anything wrong with asking people to be up front about why they are engaging in an argument. The default assumption is that you are engaging because you hold an opinion on the point in question. If you're not doing that, you should explain what you're doing. ("Playing devil's advocate here: X", or "Well, how would you counter the argument that X?" as opposed to "X!")

Otherwise, the next default assumption people make when they see you skip around between one argument and another without actually carrying through with each one is that you're a troll. That's unfortunate if you're not really a troll—and worse, it has an effect just as bad as if you were intentionally trolling, as tempers flare at the points that keep being made for no apparent reason other than to stir people up.

Edit: My mention of the Libertarian thread is related to my confusion about where CheezePavilion was going with some of his arguments. I had a really hard time figuring out if he was actually supporting libertarian ideas or playing devil's advocate possibly because it took the actual libertarians a while to chime in or what. I'm still not sure, to be honest. (Adding this note because he asked me if the mention was a jab at him. It was not intended to be a "jab". But it was a reference to my being confused at what he was about.)

I have clarified this belief thing. I can perceive the logic of certain arguments, and can perceive the validity of facts and theories, but I am not a rationalist by nature, nor by training. It is not in my nature to believe rational constructs, except as logical exercises, or as convenient mental constructs.

It is possible to argue for both points in a debate, and perceive in validity in arguments on both sides. This is not sophistry, nor trolling, nor playing devil's advocate. All those conclusions are derived from the basic assumption that the person involved perforce uses only rationalist thinking, which I have already said (and mentioned several times in other places) does not apply to me, or to others like me.

I do not like repeating myself, Hypatian, but I must reiterate when you keep pushing the same conclusions based on incorrect premises.

These ways of thinking are actually dangerously close to fallacious (illogical) thinking - specifically to engaging in ad hominem fallacy. There is no place for purposeful illogic in a rational discussion, by definition.

Hypatian wrote:

Edit: My mention of the Libertarian thread is related to my confusion about where CheezePavilion was going with some of his arguments. I had a really hard time figuring out if he was actually supporting libertarian ideas or playing devil's advocate possibly because it took the actual libertarians a while to chime in or what. I'm still not sure, to be honest. (Adding this note because he asked me if the mention was a jab at him. It was not intended to be a "jab". But it was a reference to my being confused at what he was about.)

You're not the only person to mention this, so maybe it's good to clear up some confusion. I think it's because of things I mention here and here. There's a third option in addition to "actually supporting" and "playing devil's advocate." It's...it's maybe best described as a situation where I agree with Person A's conclusions and disagree with Person B's conclusions, but if I was forced to choose between Person A's argument and Person B's argument, I would find Person B's argument more persuasive. What I'm doing is "actually supporting" my own position, which differs from both Person A *and* Person B.

I'd rather see a Libertarian go unconvinced that my solutions are right than see her convinced by arguments I consider to be even more wrong than the ones she originally finds convincing. Does that make sense?

Oh swoon. LarryC is debating me on semantics. Again.

Hypatian wrote:

Oh swoon. LarryC is debating me on semantics. Again.

You realize that you are debating a guy that can't answer yes to any of the first three questions for the Rules for Rational Discussion, right?

CheezePavilion wrote:

GREAT POST.

Hypatian wrote:

Oh swoon. LarryC is debating me on semantics. Again.

It's not a semantic thing. The way you're describing the situation is limited and your characterization of what I said quite simply false. A chair has four legs but it's not a table, and that's not a semantic difference!

I wouldn't call it a debate, either. That implies logic is being used.

If you're going to play devil's advocate, you must acknowledge it ahead of time. Theoretically, a logical argument could be made in a vacuum; one's personal beliefs are irrelevant in the face of a proper debate with logic governing the exchange of ideas and arguments.

Having said this, we're not robots. We have emotions that are often inflamed by heated topics of discussion. If we were perfect, we could argue any point without fear of ad hominem attacks or other logical fallacies, but we are not perfect. Acknowledging the devil's advocate argument is not a redundant gesture. It is a courtesy to all of those involved in the discussion as it helps soothe tension and focus specifically on the topic of discussion at hand.

Larry, I understand you come at things from a different angle, but in this situation, it's a matter of social norms not pure logical arguments. You can't have a good argument unless everyone is on board and that requires a bit of social finesse.

LarryC wrote:

I wouldn't call it a debate, either. That implies logic is being used.

Social. Finesse. Can you see how this last sentence might be mis-construed?

Well, now I can! It was meant literally, of course. We, neither of us, were using logical argument form, so it couldn't be called a debate.

As I said, I'm... ...less empathic than normal, and I'm skeptical to boot. I apparently don't understand what declaring "devil's advocate" means, because most popular positions are plausible in some way, viewed from the right angle. I can somewhat sense that it means that you're broadcasting an impaired ability to present the topic from emotional weaknesses, but I suspect that that's not really what it's supposed to mean.

I can say from personal experience (not just me, also with other people) that it is not necessary to be perfect to avoid fallacious logic. It only requires that you are not too invested in the position you're taking, and that you be aware of your own biases - precisely the opposite of the thing Hypatian suggests is the only valid reason for participating in what he calls a rational discussion.

EDIT:

I appreciate the clarification. It does make more sense that trying to engage in rational discussion with most people simply can't simply boil down to being literal with everything and using logic and/or facts. Social finesse isn't on the chart, though. Perhaps I require an alternate chart.

I'm used to dealing often with logical conversation with people who do not have irrational reasons for debate. In fact, just today I had to deal with a person who was too close to an issue, was dealing with it for reasons outside logical ones, and he kept using fallacies, repetitive content, and personal attacks.

It's a lot like bad discussions on the net. Pointless and aggravating.

I love seeing good exchanges of ideas so I hate to see arguments being bogged down by mutual misunderstanding. Part of that is because it's the internet (and an accompanying inherent lack of trust), but another part of it is because we're sometimes unclear about our goals in entering a discussion. That's really my point when talking about the devil's advocate. Debating arguendo helps remove people from their biases and emotional preconceptions.

I actually think that's why atheists are viewed as shrill and combative in the U.S. They make their arguments without establishing a "for the sake of argument" context. As such, many of their statements come across as personal attacks, because religion is so deeply personal to so many.

Really a lot of people, across these boards and beyond, need to understand how they're being perceived from time to time. A good message that is misunderstood is worse than a foolish message that is perfectly understood. With the latter, at least you can work to address the topic directly. With the former, things get muddled and heated quickly.

I digress--get back to arguing everybody!

LarryC wrote:

I apparently don't understand what declaring "devil's advocate" means, because most popular positions are plausible in some way, viewed from the right angle. I can somewhat sense that it means that you're broadcasting an impaired ability to present the topic from emotional weaknesses, but I suspect that that's not really what it's supposed to mean.

First thing; Rational discussion isn't about being solely logical, people's emotions are an important component of many of their beliefs. And you can have rational discussions that fully embrace people's emotionally based opinions. After all many of people's beliefs, are at base, axiomic to some degree. For instance, I think killing people is wrong and I have a whole load of post hoc reasons for thinking so (bad for society, I wouldn't like it, etc...). But I know, even putting aside those logical arguments that I additionally just feel that it's wrong. That form of emotional basis for an opinion is not only perfectly valid but there is no reason that it should be excluded from a rational discussion on the topic. Perhaps it would be valid to exclude it from a strictly logical treatment of the validity of killing people.

"Playing devil's advocate" is typically it's no more than a rhetorical device that allows people to declare that they are presenting an opinion that they don't personally hold. Principally to ensure that there is a degree of transparency in one's motivation for bringing an argument to the table. And there are plenty of motivations for doing so almost none of which are "emotional weakness". Usually it's to point out that you're bringing an important point to a discussion that hasn't yet been aired, is clearly not held by those participating and you believe is being overlooked. It can also be used to introduce an argument which will demonstrate some manner of reductio ad absurdum.

My second post is way cooler. keep reading!

DanB's got some great points there. I think a major distinction is that, similar to most of the rest of the Internet, P&C does not use terms like debate or argument or Rationalism in the classic, official sense. In other words, few of us are using this forum as practice for college debate class.

While that may inhibit some flow of ideas, it also makes things much, much less boring. I like it that DanB and I can have heated, emotional discussions about nutrition yet still maintain mutual respect for each other (at least, I hope it's mutual). Or Hypatian and I can discuss the genetics of morality. etc.

Without emotion, I don't particularly see a point in investing time. It's why I rarely post in topics I have no emotional investment in (the myriad atheist threads, the greece thread, the russia thread, etc).

Seth wrote:

I like it that DanB and I can have heated, emotional discussions about nutrition yet still maintain mutual respect for each other (at least, I hope it's mutual)

I'm just lulling you in to a false sense of security

A point stands on its own. It really doesn't matter whether the messenger believes it or not.

Points hardly ever stand on their own, they're almost always in a web of other facts. If someone is presenting an argument that they don't actually believe, that means they have additional information that they are hiding. This can be for good purposes, as when you're playing devil's advocate and letting everyone know you're doing so, but if you're making an argument that you don't really believe, without telling people that this is the case, you are engaging in a form of lying by omission.

You are fooling people into believing something that you yourself do not, and if/when I figure out that someone is doing this, any argument they make is automatically filed into the 'untrustworthy' basket forever. I will never know if they are deliberately hiding things to make the position look better than it actually is, so I must inherently distrust them as a source.

DanB:

First thing; Rational discussion isn't about being solely logical, people's emotions are an important component of many of their beliefs. And you can have rational discussions that fully embrace people's emotionally based opinions. After all many of people's beliefs, are at base, axiomic to some degree. For instance, I think killing people is wrong and I have a whole load of post hoc reasons for thinking so (bad for society, I wouldn't like it, etc...). But I know, even putting aside those logical arguments that I additionally just feel that it's wrong. That form of emotional basis for an opinion is not only perfectly valid but there is no reason that it should be excluded from a rational discussion on the topic. Perhaps it would be valid to exclude it from a strictly logical treatment of the validity of killing people.

I refer you to the chart on "Rules of Rational Discussion" on the first page. The very first requirement is that you should be willing to "change your mind," by which I mean that you should be willing to consider the possibility that the converse position is tenable or preferable. Of course, since I consider most positions tenable to a greater or lesser extent, for my part, new material only alters the balance.

It is true that people tend to let their emotions get away with them. It's understandable, and you can have rational discussions with certain items held as axiomatic - but you probably should not engage in discussions that question your axiomatic beliefs. You assert that there is no reason for that. I give you three.

1. It is more likely for an emotionally involved person to commit a variety of logical fallacies.

Begging the Question - since you assume the validity of your conclusion apriori for nonlogical reasons, it is easier for you to overlook logical arguments that assume the validity of your conclusion, leading to this fallacy (and it can be hard for emotionally blinded proponents to realize that they are Begging the Question, even when it is pointed out).

Ad Hominem - Emotionally involved participants often see their opponents in negative ways because their opponents hold positions that are abhorrent to them. It is all-too-easy to spin a statement or an argument to have subtle undertones of Ad Hominem, or to revert to this fallacious reasoning fully. We've seen this happen sometimes in P&C. It is common to well past the point of ridiculousness elsewhere on the net.

False Dichotomy - Emotionally charged participants are often closely familiar with other converse positions and are ready with counter-arguments specifically for those positions - usually via reductio ad absurdum. This becomes a logical fallacy when they are trying to use the same device for arguments that may sound the same to them, but are different. Moreover, the same emotional mental kneejerk reaction also commonly results in Strawman Fallacy, again commonly observed elsewhere, and I have observed this in P&C and in Everything Else as well (actually, all over the place).

Appeal to Authority - Emotionally involved participants will generally accept the word of allied authorities at face value, and believe in the defacto truth of such statements by virtue of the authority's credentials. Such statements can secretly be held to be axiomatic, even when they are not declared to be, and thus needlessly complicate logical proceedings.

2. It is more likely for emotionally involved people to commit vital cognitive errors. Confirmation bias is only one of these errors - you are more likely to overlook the weakness of an argument if it supports a position you emotionally prefer; or to ignore, dismiss, or downplay the significance of evidence that is emotionally abhorrent to you. Said simply, you will strongly prefer and remember (for instance) weak studies that uphold your beliefs instead of opposed strong studies that violate it.

3. It is unlikely for an emotionally charged person to both abandon his emotionally defended place and ally himself with a position he so recently declared abhorrent. This is why it is common for "rational discussion" to end with "agree to disagree," as the best possible ending, violating the first Rule in the OP of this thread. You're not supposed to do that, apparently. By adversarial axiom, you are supposed to admit that you were mistaken on your previous belief. Emotional involvement complicates that.

"Playing devil's advocate" is typically it's no more than a rhetorical device that allows people to declare that they are presenting an opinion that they don't personally hold.

That seems to be more of a logical device rather than a rhetorical one.

Principally to ensure that there is a degree of transparency in one's motivation for bringing an argument to the table. And there are plenty of motivations for doing so almost none of which are "emotional weakness".

Exhibit 1.

Questioning the motive underlying a person's presentation of argument is a form of Ad Hominem fallacy. There is no reason to forestall the application of the fallacy unless you are certain that the other person will attack your person because you are presenting an emotionally abhorrent position (probably because you are, yourself, emotionally involved). Moreover, it is more effective, more elegant, and more logical to simply point out the logical error, rather than to try to forestall it.

Arguments are either valid or invalid. It is immaterial to its validity what motivation the person had in bringing them to the table for discussion. An instinctive attack on the motivation rather than on the logic of the argument is a weakness.

As far as I understand it, the principal logical purpose for arguendo positions is to allow a hostile position to pursue the logical thread of the opposing party, without admitting the validity of prior arguments or facts. This can be used in a reductio ad absurdum, or to show that the end point of both lines are functionally the same.

That said, I was aware enough to perceive that these latter perfectly valid reasons for using the form is not usually why it's done.

Seth:

DanB's got some great points there. I think a major distinction is that, similar to most of the rest of the Internet, P&C does not use terms like debate or argument or Rationalism in the classic, official sense. In other words, few of us are using this forum as practice for college debate class.

I'd say it'd improve the forum greatly if it were.

The point of all those terms and forms and formats is to strengthen the power and rigorousness of the logic and the reasoning behind what we think and how we perceive the world. Insisting on putting them on the bookshelf in favor of personal attacks and purely rhetorical devices is not what I would call an improvement.

If rationalism isn't the philosophy of using rigorous logic to arrive at conclusions, then all it is is a rhetorical beatstick to tell everyone who disagrees with you that "I'm right and y'all are wrong because y'all are dumb."

If argument isn't the process of using logic to arrive at conclusions from axioms, then it's just a couple of fools on the internet typing incoherent twaddle.

Personally, I can't see how anyone can find this entertaining. I certainly don't.

For emphasis and context, I would like to qualify again that my primary purpose in participation is to find new logic, new material, new rhetoric, new facts, and to present the same where I think it has not yet been presented.

Secondarily, I like to point out fallacious reasoning, misunderstood facts, and various myths.

It's likely my experience, but:

I would like to qualify again that my primary purpose in participation is to find new logic, new material, new rhetoric, new facts, and to present the same where I think it has not yet been presented.

I dont really care about that. Or more accurately, all of it takes a back seat to style, flair, cohesiveness, and believability. Colbert has a word for it, btw.

New facts and rhetoric I get from newsfeeds. I come here with an expectation of intrigueing and convincing commentary and for new insights on how those things fit together. And because like every other person who posts, I think I have something to add.

Your point of view certainly explains some of the claims you've made, though.

Seth wrote:

It's likely my experience, but:

I would like to qualify again that my primary purpose in participation is to find new logic, new material, new rhetoric, new facts, and to present the same where I think it has not yet been presented.

I dont really care about that. Or more accurately, all of it takes a back seat to style, flair, cohesiveness, and believability. Colbert has a word for it, btw.

New facts and rhetoric I get from newsfeeds. I come here with an expectation of intrigueing and convincing commentary and for new insights on how those things fit together. And because like every other person who posts, I think I have something to add.

Your point of view certainly explains some of the claims you've made, though.

Personally I mostly care about the opinions that actual people actually have (on a subject). It's interesting to know other people's minds and discover the other perspectives people have. Along the way I'm open to having my mind changed.

I'm not interested in enumerating the superset of all possible positions on some given topic.

LarryC wrote:
DanB wrote:

First thing; Rational discussion isn't about being solely logical, people's emotions are an important component of many of their beliefs. And you can have rational discussions that fully embrace people's emotionally based opinions. After all many of people's beliefs, are at base, axiomic to some degree. For instance, I think killing people is wrong and I have a whole load of post hoc reasons for thinking so (bad for society, I wouldn't like it, etc...). But I know, even putting aside those logical arguments that I additionally just feel that it's wrong. That form of emotional basis for an opinion is not only perfectly valid but there is no reason that it should be excluded from a rational discussion on the topic. Perhaps it would be valid to exclude it from a strictly logical treatment of the validity of killing people.

I refer you to the chart on "Rules of Rational Discussion" on the first page. The very first requirement is that you should be willing to "change your mind," by which I mean that you should be willing to consider the possibility that the converse position is tenable or preferable. Of course, since I consider most positions tenable to a greater or lesser extent, for my part, new material only alters the balance.

It is true that people tend to let their emotions get away with them. It's understandable, and you can have rational discussions with certain items held as axiomatic - but you probably should not engage in discussions that question your axiomatic beliefs. You assert that there is no reason for that. I give you three.

Why shouldn't we engage in discussions that question your axiomatic beliefs? I pretty much hold "killing people is wrong" to be axiomatic and at base I have nothing other than the fact the sentiment feels right to justify that position. But I am open to someone presenting me with a strong enough rational argument that would override that position.

1. It is more likely for an emotionally involved person to commit a variety of logical fallacies.
ASSORTED STUFF

2. It is more likely for emotionally involved people to commit vital cognitive errors.
ASSORTED STUFF

3. It is unlikely for an emotionally charged person to both abandon his emotionally defended place and ally himself with a position he so recently declared abhorrent.
ASSORTED STUFF

Really all that makes me think is, so what? Of course all those things are indeed possible, in fact when dealing with human beings they are pretty close to inevitable. But that just makes them things that we should be mindful of during debate and correct them when we spot them. But that is no reason to exclude emotion or opinions that follow from emotions from debate.

LarryC wrote:
Principally to ensure that there is a degree of transparency in one's motivation for bringing an argument to the table. And there are plenty of motivations for doing so almost none of which are "emotional weakness".

Exhibit 1.

Questioning the motive underlying a person's presentation of argument is a form of Ad Hominem fallacy.There is no reason to forestall the application of the fallacy unless you are certain that the other person will attack your person because you are presenting an emotionally abhorrent position (probably because you are, yourself, emotionally involved). Moreover, it is more effective, more elegant, and more logical to simply point out the logical error, rather than to try to forestall it.

If we are going all logical on this; elucidating or understanding someone's motivation and factoring that in to understand their position in a debate isn't by definition an ad homeinem fallacy.

LarryC wrote:

Arguments are either valid or invalid. It is immaterial to its validity what motivation the person had in bringing them to the table for discussion. An instinctive attack on the motivation rather than on the logic of the argument is a weakness.

But not all arguments carry equal weight, in real world situations. Do you think it immaterial when US politicians who receive money from Medical insurers argue against Obamacare?

LarryC wrote:

If rationalism isn't the philosophy of using rigorous logic to arrive at conclusions, then all it is is a rhetorical beatstick to tell everyone who disagrees with you that "I'm right and y'all are wrong because y'all are dumb."

Strictly, rationalism isn't the philosophy of using logic to arrive at conclusions. Rationalism is the subset of epistemology that holds that truth is not sensory but deductive (in contrast to empiricism). That we can arrive at the truth through deductive reasoning/argumentation through alone.

DanB:

Why shouldn't we engage in discussions that question your axiomatic beliefs? I pretty much hold "killing people is wrong" to be axiomatic and at base I have nothing other than the fact the sentiment feels right to justify that position. But I am open to someone presenting me with a strong enough rational argument that would override that position.

That is not logical. The reason you believe in your position is not logical, so there is no way that logic will alter it. The only way you will change your belief is if someone undermines your emotional attachment with an appeal to emotion that will override your emotional attachment to "Killing people is wrong." That's also a logical fallacy, by the way.

It's not the rationalism of the argument that will get you to change your position here. It's not a rational argument, except superficially.

You're free to engage in emotional discussions about your axiomatic beliefs, but let's not pretend that they're based on logic.

Really all that makes me think is, so what? Of course all those things are indeed possible, in fact when dealing with human beings they are pretty close to inevitable. But that just makes them things that we should be mindful of during debate and correct them when we spot them. But that is no reason to exclude emotion or opinions that follow from emotions from debate.

I don't follow. We want to exclude factors that will cloud our thinking with fallacies, correct? Why shouldn't we factor out as much of them as possible? Does an emotional attachment aid logic or the presentation or appreciation of facts in any way?

As far as I can tell, your justifications here are twofold:

"They happen so it's pointless to factor out things which make them more likely," which is fallacious; and
"We can correct them aposteriori, anyway," which is also fallacious.

It seems to me that these weaknesses showing up in your reasoning only demonstrates the point even more.

If we are going all logical on this; elucidating or understanding someone's motivation and factoring that in to understand their position in a debate isn't by definition an ad homeinem fallacy.

It's not a strict correspondence, but "understanding someone's motivation," often takes the form of an ad hominem or a strawman. A logical argument stands beyond motivation. If the argument isn't perfectly clear, then it is necessary to rephrase the argument so that it is. The collection of axioms, logic, and conclusion forms the position. Motivation doesn't factor into that.

But not all arguments carry equal weight, in real world situations. Do you think it immaterial when US politicians receiving money from Medical insurers argue against Obamacare?

Logically, yes. Their objections or presentations stand outside their motivations. If their arguments are illogical or bad, then they can be shown to be so independent of any other factor. It is frequently easier to point out the logical weaknesses of such positions that it is to convince illogical people of the value of logic!

It is possible to discuss the ethical and political implications of conflicts of interest, but those are separate discussions. Conflating one discussion with another only muddles the topics to no profit. If you want to talk about the integrity of those politicians and whether or not they should have the right to have a say on the matter to begin with, then limit the discussion to that.

If it is decided that they do have conflicts of interest, then anything they have to say on the matter is rendered moot - they will not be allowed to speak for reasons of policy.

Strictly, rationalism isn't the philosophy of using logic to arrive at conclusions. Rationalism is the subset of epistemology that holds that truth is not sensory but deductive (in contrast to empiricism). In the western tradition logical argumentation is strongly co-opted to be the means of deduction.

Granted.

What other definition of rationalism isn't simply shouting that you're right and everyone else is wrong because you're smarter? To the point, what about the definitions of rationalism that say that emotional involvement is advantageous because they make logical and cognitive errors more probable?

So, LarryC, my feeling has been that you're here to attack everyone else's arguments, whatever they may be, without really making any of your own. I'm reading your posts here as confirming this opinion. Do you disagree?

I'm fairly sure that I'm advancing the position that emotional involvement only degrades rational discussion. I'm also clarifying that a person can participate in such a discussion dispassionately without succumbing to sophistry, arguendo positions, or trolling.

LarryC wrote:

I'm fairly sure that I'm advancing the position that emotional involvement only degrades rational discussion. I'm also clarifying that a person can participate in such a discussion dispassionately without succumbing to sophistry, arguendo positions, or trolling.

But what people are saying (I think) is that to take part in a discussion solely for intellectual curiosity where everyone else is arguing point(s) due to to their emotional or personal attachment to the topic at hand, without letting them know that you are doing so, results in massive misunderstandings of the point of view that you are holding, and gives the appearance that you are trolling or deliberately misunderstanding the opposing viewpoint.

Larry, I first encountered you in the Watchmen thread, where you were insulting people for disagreeing with your opinion on whether Dr. Manhattan should have been nude, and how the movie subverted the purpose, theme, and characters of the comic (despite having never actually read the comic). Seeing you set yourself up as the arbiter of what is logical, rational, and proper debate etiquette is hilarious to me.

While I agree that past actions don't inherently invalidate future arguments, it would be foolish if me to not take them into account for future discussions with you. Don't get me wrong, you can and have made very good arguments, and have come an extremely long way in terms of not making most of your posts sounds like personal or cultural attacks, but your debate "manners" are very abrasive, to the point of hindering your newly stated goal of exchanging ideas, because people will avoid discussing anything with you, due to what they perceive (incorrectly or not) as you trolling them by arguing in bad faith.

The reason "understanding someone's motivation" is important is that it can allow people to respectfully disagree. Not all things have a binary right/wrong, good/bad, correct/incorrect solution, and understanding why someone holds a position can help you decide which counter-argument to make, or whether to make one at all. Two people can logically and rationally come to different conclusions and be on different sides of an argument.

LarryC wrote:

I'm fairly sure that I'm advancing the position that emotional involvement only degrades rational discussion. I'm also clarifying that a person can participate in such a discussion dispassionately without succumbing to sophistry, arguendo positions, or trolling.

Most of the time, Larry, whether you intend it or not, what I see you do is pick at nits in arguments while ignoring the main thrust. You obsess over irrelevant details, and tell people at great length that they're thinking incorrectly, and how your mode of thought is superior, while rarely taking on any discernible position of your own.

All you seem to care about is process, and we mostly don't care about process unless it actually matters in a major way, instead of just with superficial nonsense.

From what I can see, your mode of thought means that you think you can't be wrong, because you think you contain everything at once, all possibilities simultaneously, and somehow weigh probabilities and miraculously come up with an answer that's not wrong. I think you may be constitutionally incapable of believing that you are in error. Or, rather, that you believe you're a little bit wrong all the time, but that's not important, because you're also a little bit right all the time, on every subject in the world.

It took a little digging, but I found the best reason not to argue a position you don't personally hold on P&C: It'll get you banned from P&C.

LouZiffer wrote:

I don't trust featureless white guys who stand beside giant question marks.

I agree. This chart is obviously racist and so all points therein are deemed invalid.

At some point, you've got to tell the busker he's not getting anymore spare change.