Rules for Rational Discussion

mudbunny:

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.

It's not precisely that. I do care about positions, opinions, and viewpoints. I just try not to let my biases affect my reasoning. I can further point out instances where misunderstandings or misperceptions of my alleged position led posters to think that I was saying things that I was not, or lend alternative meanings to what were purely literal statements. More simply, I don't post purely for intellectual curiosity, and (separate point) I have emotional attachments to some positions, but I try not to let it affect discussion.

Going beyond me (let's please, I'm not really that interesting of a person), it is common for debaters to completely talk past each other or to mistakenly assign arguments to one another by virtue of a mistaken position, motive, or emotion (Strawman Fallacies occur here).

The same factor is at work here. The factor which leads people to mistakenly believe that I think that the Theory of Evolution is scientifically invalid (even though I said no such thing) is the same factor which leads them to mistakenly assume that, for instance, CheezePavilion has made certain arguments, simply because he is advancing some points in common with certain other posters.

Logical argumentation would proceed faster, clearer, and with less hostility without this complicating factor - emotional attachment to one's position.

Stengah:

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.

My apologies for the delay in reply. I reviewed the lengthy Watchman thread for data.

I believe the word in question was "brainwashed." I did not mean that insultingly, and redacted it fully and immediately when it became obvious that it was being interpreted with hostile intent. I was not insulting anyone - I merely had an unfortunate choice of words, quickly corrected.

I repeatedly emphasize in that thread that everyone was fully entitled to their own opinions. Frankly, it got tiring for me to read given how often I had to repeat that statement.

Moreover, I am NOT setting myself up as anything whatsoever. You are engaging in Ad Hominem - attacking me through previous perceived behavior and questioning my integrity instead of questioning the logic of my position - which is that emotional attachment involves accepting the weaknesses I laid out for DanB earlier.

I would like to present this as Exhibit 2, in the interest of supporting my position. Your emotional attachment to your position and seeing my position as the same as me is clouding the logical process.

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.

My experience here and elsewhere on the net shows otherwise. People have a tendency of assigning various motivations to me and attacking me personally thereby, often in error. I have been accused of being a Republican, a Democrat, a liberal, and a conservative, and personally attacked on those grounds or in related matter as a form of refutation. If I were any of those things, I may have been incited to anger instead of merely chuckling at my keyboard.

Malor repeatedly attacks conservative politics based on their "motivation" of wanting to punish sluts. Thus far, I have not seen this understanding to yield anything resembling respect.

I agree with most of your point here, as I clarify earlier. It is true that the world is complex, and not easily categorized. It's one of the reasons why I prefer not to commit to any one position on a permanent basis, except by specific choice. I disagree from personal experience that trying to divine motivations yields respect on the whole, or that it's necessary for a proper logical or factual refutation. A clear statement of the argument and the refutation is all that is necessary for that.

Could you give me an example where understanding a personal motivation can yield respect or clarifies an already sufficiently clear logical argument?

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.

I believe he was banned for being an agitator rather than because he could appreciate the validity of multiple, occasionally opposing points of view. Note that he didn't say that he could see other POVs: the implication was that he was only of one point of view, but that he was willing to engage in other POVs for the sake of agitating the community.

Malor:

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.

It may be that we simply do not frequent the same threads. I have been championing Muramasa and DA2 indefatigably and positively. I'm sure Certis has a TRO against any of my statements on Muramasa already.

In the Watchman thread, I was advancing the argument that the nudity in the Watchmen movie was poorly done, and is symbolically ambiguous. I have other participations of the sort.

To be fair, I do point out flaws in your logic often, because you tend to display them the most often, but it's not personal. Other people's logic are frequently cleaner, so I have less occasion to point out flaws. Pointing out terminology and logical errors is not picking nits. It's about clear communication and clear logic. A logical argument is not made up of "the main thrust" and "nits." Every detail is essential and important. If there are superfluous details, then the argument is not elegant enough and requires editing. If there are incorrect essential details, then the entire argument is undermined.

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 is important to me to remember that I am a little bit wrong about everything. Perhaps you don't remember my concessions of error because I tend to do so completely and quickly. In this very thread, I concede to DanB that his definition of "rationalism" is superior and redact my own completely.

I do not contain everything. If I did, I would not seek out new logic, new knowledge, or new ways of speaking. Stengah concedes that I have made great strides in not mortally insulting every single poster on the forums. This is not easy and it was bought with great effort. I conceded that I was wrong and continually seek new ways to better myself. Callout to Certis here is deserved. He's helped me a great deal with that, but others have contributed also.

Regardless of all my personal concerns, all my statements are meant to stand alone; there is no need to discuss my person in any way. If you wish to refute my arguments, you may do so with pure logic, and it will be immediately obvious whether the refutation is valid or not.

LarryC wrote:

Moreover, I am NOT setting myself up as anything whatsoever. You are engaging in Ad Hominem - attacking me through previous perceived behavior and questioning my integrity instead of questioning the logic of my position - which is that emotional attachment involves accepting the weaknesses I laid out for DanB earlier.

I would like to present this as Exhibit 2, in the interest of supporting my position. Your emotional attachment to your position and seeing my position as the same as me is clouding the logical process.

Ad Hominems aren't always fallacious though. All I'm doing is enjoying the hypocrisy of you calling other people's arguments illogical or irrational, when you yourself have presented irrational and illogical arguments. I'm not saying anything about the validity of your current arguments.

Could you give me an example where understanding a personal motivation can yield respect or clarifies an already sufficiently clear logical argument?

I have respect for Nomad despite disagreeing with a lot of his positions because of his explanations of why he holds them.

I believe he was banned for being an agitator rather than because he could appreciate the validity of multiple, occasionally opposing points of view. Note that he didn't say that he could see other POVs: the implication was that he was only of one point of view, but that he was willing to engage in other POVs for the sake of agitating the community.

You'd need to ask Certis for a more thorough explanation of why he was banned from P&C, but my reading of it was that it's not appreciated when you defend a position you don't hold just for the sake of arguing.

Stengah:

Ad Hominems aren't always fallacious though. All I'm doing is enjoying the hypocrisy of you calling other people's arguments illogical or irrational, when you yourself have presented irrational and illogical arguments. I'm not saying anything about the validity of your current arguments.

That's like saying Begging the Question isn't always fallacious. These are classed as basic and fundamental logical fallacies because they have been examined to be fallacious logically, meaning that within the context of rationalism, they are always fallacious. They are different from empirical observations and theories in being absolute provided that the basic rules of logic are assumed to be valid.

I don't see the hypocrisy in criticizing other people's logical fallacies while making similar mistakes myself. If I thought myself perfect, I would not reply to any criticism whatsoever, nor even present them for examination. The point of logical discourse is to expose such weaknesses, presumably because our confirmation biases blinds us from seeing our own logical errors.

In that way, it's similar to a writer allowing an editor to critique and modify his work, I imagine.

Of course, please always feel free to enjoy yourself. Or is that a sarcastic or ironic idiom of some sort?

I have respect for Nomad despite disagreeing with a lot of his positions because of his explanations of why he holds them.

That's an example of a personal relationship, not of a rational discussion. Could you mention a specific instance? It took some effort for me to track down and reread the Watchman thread. I'll examine any example you mention with the same zeal.

You'd need to ask Certis for a more thorough explanation of why he was banned from P&C, but my reading of it was that it's not appreciated when you defend a position you don't hold just for the sake of arguing.

I sense you're using a different idiom or different meaning of "arguing" here than "engaging in rational discussion."

EDIT:

I'd like to clarify that the topic at hand here is "Rules of Rational Discussion," not "LarryC's a Weird Obnoxious Guy." I'm sure the latter thread would be popular and everything, but I really don't see myself as being all that interesting, despite all the attention. I'd appreciate it if we could talk about the topic (and my arguments about the topic) instead of me.

The position that is more reasonable and has more supporting evidence should be accepted as true.

I don't quite agree with this. Two ideas can be argued, both being crazy, but the one that is slightly less crazy and has more evidence (not to say that the other crazy idea has no evidence, just less) is now the truth? What happens if two sides are being dicussed, and one doesn't have as much evidence, but in reality that side is right and the evidence hasn't been discovered yet (say string theory vs loop quantum gravity, I don't know much about either but I know there is controversy over which is right)?

kazar:

It's a problem arising from conflating rationalism and empiricism. In rationalism, the way to acquire knowledge is absolute, so conclusions that have the most authoritative and rigorous logic cannot be held to be anything other than the truth, provided that the assumptions are true. This is why basic mathematical theorems could be said to be absolutely true within their assumptions, and quite conceivably will remain that way for the duration of human existence.

Empiricism is radically different in just the manner you describe. A theory could be more valid in the future if we uncover evidence that supports it, or less valid if we discover contradicting evidence, hence all theories are provisional - they never become facts or "true."

Per this topic, I would broadly agree with your problem on this rule. "Valid," or "stronger" would probably be a better word.

LarryC wrote:

kazar:

It's a problem arising from conflating rationalism and empiricism. In rationalism, the way to acquire knowledge is absolute, so conclusions that have the most authoritative and rigorous logic cannot be held to be anything other than the truth, provided that the assumptions are true. This is why basic mathematical theorems could be said to be absolutely true within their assumptions, and quite conceivably will remain that way for the duration of human existence.

Empiricism is radically different in just the manner you describe. A theory could be more valid in the future if we uncover evidence that supports it, or less valid if we discover contradicting evidence, hence all theories are provisional - they never become facts or "true."

Per this topic, I would broadly agree with your problem on this rule. "Valid," or "stronger" would probably be a better word.

As I see this come up a lot and it's a part of the conversation here, I hope this sidetrack is okay.

I think you misunderstand the relationship between rationalism and empiricism. The way you're talking here, I'd say that you misunderstand rationalism as something that stands alongside empiricism. It's not. Rationalism (at least the way you're using the term here) is the process by which we determine whether evidence supports a theory or contradicts it. You're using that word "valid" that has a very particular meaning in this context when it comes to 'truth' that I'm not sure you're aware of. When evidence supports a theory, that theory is not just said to be valid. What makes a theory valid is that provided the assumptions are true, the logic is not flawed. You describe this in that first paragraph.

If the logic involved in a theory is not flawed (it's 'valid') and there's enough evidence to support it, it's said to be sound. From what I can tell, you're mistaking people conflating rationalism and empiricism because you're not asking yourself "how do I determine if a piece of evidence supports of contradicts a theory?" The way one does that is with (at least the way you're using the term here) rationalism.

edit: to try and put that into one sentence, with the way you are using those words here, rationalism is how we figure out what evidence would make a theory valid; empiricism is how we figure out if the evidence exists.

Stengah wrote:
LarryC wrote:

I believe he was banned for being an agitator rather than because he could appreciate the validity of multiple, occasionally opposing points of view. Note that he didn't say that he could see other POVs: the implication was that he was only of one point of view, but that he was willing to engage in other POVs for the sake of agitating the community.

You'd need to ask Certis for a more thorough explanation of why he was banned from P&C, but my reading of it was that it's not appreciated when you defend a position you don't hold just for the sake of arguing.

What's funny is I read that Stengah, and my impression is that there's no possible way you're arguing in good faith and that you'll say anything to win this argument. It's impossible for me to understand how you keep dismissing the "I have zero interest in trying to moderate discussions laced with agitators" part.

...and then I think to myself that just because it looks clear as day to me doesn't mean it looks the same way to you.

Maybe things might be a little smoother if we recognized that when we get frustrated with someone, before we let that affect the conversation, if we'd consider whether we can be equally frustrating ourselves and give each other some slack.

LarryC wrote:

I do not understand the point of trying to understand how a world view comes to inhabit me. I have difficulty even understanding what the idiom means. I am not important. Who says things is not important. What's important is what's being said, right?

I take it you didn't take many anthro/sociology classes? It's not about understanding how your particular world view came to be, but rather how one's world view can help them reach conclusions that they find to be true or false. I guess the best analogy I could make would be police trying to find a motive behind a crime. Yes, it's not about WHO said what, but rather WHY they would say such things.

LarryC wrote:

So you might say that I believe in all positions I advance, as much as you can say as I believe in none of them.

Lao Tzu would be proud.

LarryC wrote:

That's like saying Begging the Question isn't always fallacious. These are classed as basic and fundamental logical fallacies because they have been examined to be fallacious logically, meaning that within the context of rationalism, they are always fallacious. They are different from empirical observations and theories in being absolute provided that the basic rules of logic are assumed to be valid.

Sorry, but not all ad hominems are fallacious. The full term is argumentum ad hominem and occurs when one person tries to dismiss another person's argument with an unrelated personal attack. There was no argument to counter, and all I was doing was saying that I don't give you the benefit of the doubt anymore due to your past actions. That doesn't mean that I instantly view every argument you make as invalid, because that would be an ad hominem.

That's an example of a personal relationship, not of a rational discussion. Could you mention a specific instance? It took some effort for me to track down and reread the Watchman thread. I'll examine any example you mention with the same zeal.

A specific instance? I don't think I can point you to a specific thread. I'd suggest starting with one of the many threads that deal with religion or abortion.

CheezePavilion wrote:

What's funny is I read that Stengah, and my impression is that there's no possible way you're arguing in good faith and that you'll say anything to win this argument. It's impossible for me to understand how you keep dismissing the "I have zero interest in trying to moderate discussions laced with agitators" part.

I'm not dismissing it at all. I just don't see how you can call someone who will debate a side they don't personally hold (without letting everyone know that's what they're doing) anything but an agitator. If they inform people of what they're doing beforehand, I agree that not being an agitator, and have no problem with it. Why do you think I'm not arguing in good faith? I've pointed to an actual instance where it has gotten someone banned from P&C. Do you really think I'll say anything to win this argument? "Anything" includes a lot of terrible things.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

What's funny is I read that Stengah, and my impression is that there's no possible way you're arguing in good faith and that you'll say anything to win this argument. It's impossible for me to understand how you keep dismissing the "I have zero interest in trying to moderate discussions laced with agitators" part.

...and then I think to myself that just because it looks clear as day to me doesn't mean it looks the same way to you.

Maybe things might be a little smoother if we recognized that when we get frustrated with someone, before we let that affect the conversation, if we'd consider whether we can be equally frustrating ourselves and give each other some slack.

I'm not dismissing it at all. I just don't see how you can call someone who will debate a side they don't personally hold (without letting everyone know that's what they're doing) anything but an agitator.

Yes Stengah: that's why I wrote "...and then I think to myself that just because it looks clear as day to me doesn't mean it looks the same way to you."

If they inform people of what they're doing beforehand, I agree that not being an agitator, and have no problem with it. Why do you think I'm not arguing in good faith? I've pointed to an actual instance where it has gotten someone banned from P&C. Do you really think I'll say anything to win this argument? "Anything" includes a lot of terrible things.

No, I don't think that Stengah, but that's because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. It looks like you're pretending a whole bunch of evidence from that thread does not exist--doing so would be arguing in bad faith.

Like I said though: looks can be deceiving. It's impossible for me to wrap my brain around you thinking that's what was meant by "agitator" but just because *I* can't wrap my brain around it, that doesn't mean *you* can't.

I think we'd all be well-served if more often, when we get the feeling someone is not just incorrect but is also doing something wrong, if we wouldn't take a step back and realize how often people get that same impression from us.

CheezePavilion wrote:

It looks like you're pretending a whole bunch of evidence from that thread does not exist

Buh? What evidence am I pretending doesn't exist?

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

It looks like you're pretending a whole bunch of evidence from that thread does not exist

Buh? What evidence am I pretending doesn't exist?

All the parts where that poster who got banned didn't just admit to debating a side they don't personally hold (without letting everyone know that's what they're doing), but they made it clear they were doing so to 'stir up the pot' and that they play the role of a conservative because people here skew liberal. To me, the differences between that poster and LarryC are clear as day and yet here you are asking me "what evidence" which could easily be taken as you trolling the f*ck out of me.

However, I don't think you are. I think you honestly aren't seeing what is jumping off the page to me and doing a pee-pee dance it's so obvious in my mind. I think sometimes when we get frustrated with other posters, we should keep in mind how frustrating *we* can be, and how we'd like to be treated in that kind of situation.

Am I the only one who doesn't even understand what the argument is, anymore?

CheezePavilion wrote:

All the parts where that poster who got banned didn't just admit to debating a side they don't personally hold (without letting everyone know that's what they're doing), but they made it clear they were doing so to 'stir up the pot' and that they play the role of a conservative because people here skew liberal. To me, the differences between that poster and LarryC are clear as day and yet here you are asking me "what evidence" which could easily be taken as you trolling the f*ck out of me.

However, I don't think you are. I think you honestly aren't seeing what is jumping off the page to me and doing a pee-pee dance it's so obvious in my mind. I think sometimes when we get frustrated with other posters, we should keep in mind how frustrating *we* can be, and how we'd like to be treated in that kind of situation.

I don't think you've been reading what I've been writing.

I wrote:

You'd need to ask Certis for a more thorough explanation of why he was banned from P&C, but my reading of it was that it's not appreciated when you defend a position you don't hold just for the sake of arguing.

I fail to see how I'm ignoring the part where he was arguing to stir up the pot. I'm pretty sure the "just for the sake of arguing" covers that.

Malor wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't even understand what the argument is, anymore?

That before we go any further pondering aloud and caucusing about how much other people suck, we should consider that we're not so perfect either? Like the multiplayer in shooters, where we easily forget how terrible our K/D ratio is while questioning not only the legitimacy but the exclusive humanity of the lineage of our under-performing teammates?

Malor wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't even understand what the argument is, anymore?

It's the CheezePavilion effect.

Jayhawker wrote:
Malor wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't even understand what the argument is, anymore?

It's the CheezePavilion effect.

I think it's now known as the Dimmerswitch Phenomenon ; D

Stengah:

Sorry, but not all ad hominems are fallacious. The full term is argumentum ad hominem and occurs when one person tries to dismiss another person's argument with an unrelated personal attack. There was no argument to counter, and all I was doing was saying that I don't give you the benefit of the doubt anymore due to your past actions. That doesn't mean that I instantly view every argument you make as invalid, because that would be an ad hominem.

My bad. Clearly, if the discussion centers around the logical basis of a person's integrity, then attacking that position is perfectly acceptable. I took it for granted that "unrelated" would be implied, since nearly all such refutations are unrelated to the actual logical argument.

I don't see what's to apologize for, though. Was that meant to be hostile or flippant or some such?

All that said, why are we still talking about me? My argument was that emotional involvement muddles rational discussion. If you're not refuting that and just talking about me without purpose, shouldn't you be posting that in a separate thread that's just about me?

A specific instance? I don't think I can point you to a specific thread. I'd suggest starting with one of the many threads that deal with religion or abortion.

I've been following those. Which one would you like me to review first, and which instance? Here you are advancing the argument that understanding motivation fosters respect, over and above a clear argument. If you can't point to a self-example, any example, anywhere of anyone will do.

I'm just looking for one as a case study.

Of course, I can point you to any number of instances where a misassigned motive led to a lot of crap, since I was personally involved in a number of them (and I can direct you to specific posts in specific threads).

LarryC wrote:

I don't see what's to apologize for, though. Was that meant to be hostile or flippant or some such?

The "sorry" was meant as shorthand for "I hate to break it to you, but you're mistaken."

I've been following those. Which one would you like me to review first, and which instance? Here you are advancing the argument that understanding motivation fosters respect, over and above a clear argument. If you can't point to a self-example, any example, anywhere of anyone will do.

I'm just looking for one as a case study.

I'll need a bit of time if you want a link to each and every post Nomad has made that I respect despite disagreeing with it. I would have thought that I've given enough directions to go off of by pointing you towards the religion and abortion threads. A more recent example would be Dimmerswitch's position in the non-violent resistance thread that Cheeze just linked to (which started in the Prop 8/gay marriage catch all). I already have tremendous respect for Dimmerswitch though, so I'm not sure if that's a good example of what you're asking for.

Stengah:

The "sorry" was meant as shorthand for "I hate to break it to you, but you're mistaken."

Ah. Well, no need to apologize to me for something of that nature. As I said, I consider myself always a little wrong. Getting new insights and logic is part of why I read and participate. It would be more appropriate to apologize to me for withholding content rather than otherwise.

If your dislike of sharing new information is due to concern for my ego, you needn't be so concerned. If it's because you're "proving yourself right," and thereby glorifying yourself, well, you needn't be concerned about that either. I don't care about those things.

Er... ...is this one of those idioms again? Like, "you hate," but really, you don't?

I'll need a bit of time if you want a link to each and every post Nomad has made that I respect despite disagreeing with it. I would have thought that I've given enough directions to go off of by pointing you towards the religion and abortion threads. A more recent example would be Dimmerswitch's position in the non-violent resistance thread that Cheeze just linked to (which started in the Prop 8/gay marriage catch all). I already have tremendous respect for Dimmerswitch though, so I'm not sure if that's a good example of what you're asking for.

I'm not asking for an exhaustive list. Just one example, as I said, for case study; and hopefully for discussion here as a component of rational discussion. Since it's your argument that doing so fosters rational discussion, I would have thought you'd welcome the opportunity to demonstrate how it goes "in the wild," so to speak.

I believe the thread is "Nonviolent Dissent," correct? Could you indicate an instance where discussion of the motive increased your respect for Dimmerswitch, and how such respect fostered better logic?

nel e nel:

I've been reading and rereading what you said and I'm finding it hard to make sense of it. This is why there is a delay in response.

So far as I can figure, you're implying that understanding motive could help better communication by revealing unmentioned assumptions that the source of the logical argument may have overlooked because it is inherent in his world view.

Is that right?

Lao Tzu would be proud.

No, he wouldn't, unfortunately. What I said is just true about myself. The things Lao Tsu goes on about are far more profound. But thanks for the comparison, as ridiculously undeserved as it is.

LarryC wrote:

I believe the thread is "Nonviolent Dissent," correct? Could you indicate an instance where discussion of the motive increased your respect for Dimmerswitch, and how such respect fostered better logic?

Here is where it all starts, but like I said, I already have tremendous respect for Dimmerswitch, so it didn't really increase it. Here is a link (from the same thread) to someone saying that Dimmerswitch's explanation of why he was taking his position caused someone to reevaluate their own position on the matter.

Stengah:

Perhaps a little more specific. I didn't see any references to Dimmerswitch's motivational revelations in kaostheory's reply. For that matter, I did not see Dimmerswitch elaborating on his motives, either. I read that exchange already since I follow that thread. It seemed to me to be a case of a clearly typed logical argument being finally taken at face value.

In fact, kaostheory says:

I have to say, Dimmer, you changed my mind on this one. Once I get past that initial positive feeling for an asshole getting his due, I do feel that it was overall a negative decision.

which is clearly an example of an emotional response overriding a logical one temporarily, and then the converse happening once the heat of the moment was gone. If I had to say, that reply argues for my position that emotional involvement clouds logical thinking, rather than your argument that understanding motivations improves rational discussion.

Granted, those positions are not diametrically opposed.

Spending this much time and effort arguing about arguing has to unlock some kind of achievement, somewhere.

Michael wrote:

Spending this much time and effort arguing about arguing has to unlock some kind of achievement, somewhere.

I was kind of hoping your post would have unlocked your "Choose your tag".

*bing*

Yup, there's mine.

Michael wrote:

Spending this much time and effort arguing about arguing has to unlock some kind of achievement, somewhere.

Usually it results in a locked thread, not an unlocked achievement.

Stengah wrote:
Michael wrote:

Spending this much time and effort arguing about arguing has to unlock some kind of achievement, somewhere.

Usually it results in a locked thread, not an unlocked achievement.

Different here, though. This thread is specifically about the rules of engagement. Long past due, IMO. Too much sloppy logic in the world.

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

Perhaps a little more specific. I didn't see any references to Dimmerswitch's motivational revelations in kaostheory's reply. For that matter, I did not see Dimmerswitch elaborating on his motives, either. I read that exchange already since I follow that thread. It seemed to me to be a case of a clearly typed logical argument being finally taken at face value.

In fact, kaostheory says:

I have to say, Dimmer, you changed my mind on this one. Once I get past that initial positive feeling for an asshole getting his due, I do feel that it was overall a negative decision.

which is clearly an example of an emotional response overriding a logical one temporarily, and then the converse happening once the heat of the moment was gone. If I had to say, that reply argues for my position that emotional involvement clouds logical thinking, rather than your argument that understanding motivations improves rational discussion.

Granted, those positions are not diametrically opposed.

If an explanation of one's reasoning in arriving at a conclusion helps someone else (who initially disagrees) see the logic of the conclusion and that their own emotional involvement is why they disagreed, is that not a case of "understanding a personal motivation can ... clarifies an already sufficiently clear logical argument?" It might not have yielded additional respect (or it might have, you'd have to ask Kaostheory).

For the Nomad threads: Try some of these or these.

Stengah:

Not at all. An explanation of reasoning is simply an exposition of the logical argument, not an explanation of any personal motivations. I saw no statement from Dimmerswitch in that entire exchange that elaborates his motivations for pursuing that line of argument. He clarifies and expounds his logic, but not his motivation, and certainly not any motivation that kaostheory references as the deciding factor.

I'll need time to examine the Nomad threads. Any particular highlights you can recommend?

LarryC wrote:

Stengah:

Not at all. An explanation of reasoning is simply an exposition of the logical argument, not an explanation of any personal motivations. I saw no statement from Dimmerswitch in that entire exchange that elaborates his motivations for pursuing that line of argument. He clarifies and expounds his logic, but not his motivation, and certainly not any motivation that kaostheory references as the deciding factor.

We're obviously having a huge disconnect here, because I see that example as an explanation of why he thinks it was wrong to ask the senator to leave. By "personal motivation" are you looking for an example like "I have direct personal experience with that situation which is why I take this side" or something similar?

I'll need time to examine the Nomad threads. Any particular highlights you can recommend?

Not off the top of my head, I'd focus on the longer ones you find, as it's a good indication of how respectful/interesting the conversations were.
Edit - you won't find any direct quotes of "Now that I know where you're coming from I respect you more"