Honey or Vinegar, which is appropriate when arguing
Some people complain about how I argue and that I show anger and disgust. They believe I should take the advice of the saying “you will attract more flies with honey than vinegar.” So when discussing Obama or Environmentalists I should say they are misguided. I should patiently lay out the facts and not say that Obama is a thief, liar, and he is pushing ideas that killed over 200 million people last century. And when discussing environmentalism I not point out that Rachel Carson lied about DDT, that she is responsible for the deaths of over 100 million people, that they want to put people like me in jail for telling the truth that global warming prophets have lied repeatedly about the temperature data. Or that I should not say Obama lied when he said you could keep your doctor, that there are in fact death panels and a good friend of ours is being denied a cancer medication because of Obamacare. I should not point out that the communists such as Obama want to steal everyone’s retirement account or I shouldn’t call them thieves and I should not complain about their desire to tax people’s wealth. I should stay quite when they call me racist and say all our problems are the result of white European males. Or I should not point out that environmentalists want to kill 5.5 billion people and I should not call them evil for this.
It seems to me that they can have several motivations for wanting me not to point these out or not get angry about them. One is the belief that by talking nicely to people like Obama, Rachel Carson and their supporters you can convince them of the error of their ways. While pointing out that they are evil and despicable will turn them off. The fallacy in this approach is that these people are reasonable or have any interest in reason. The Jews could not have talked Hitler out of the gas chambers and ovens. Perhaps one Jew might have been able to save himself, but they could not have stopped Hitler by sweet talking him. The same is true of Stalin and Mao. Now they might argue that Obama is not Stalin, but they would be wrong. The US is a police state and while this has happened over time Obama has accelerated it, and if he had the power he would be happy to round up all the white European males and put them in concentration camps. He had been clear that he agrees that people who do not swear allegiance to the Global Warming gods should be thrown in jail. He has shown that he believes it is just fine to use the tax system to destroy political opponents. He is evil and you cannot use logic, reason, or sweet talk to change him or his associates.
Two is the belief that if you have reason, logic and evidence on your side there is no reason to get emotional about people who want to kill off 95% of the world’s population, or want to destroy the world’s economy with fake science. I call this the Spock fallacy after Spock on Star Trek. It is irrational to not show emotion if you are faced by unspeakable evil. It would be one thing if this was being advanced by a crazy street person, but to see it advanced by people high up in government and academic positions is particularly horrifying and the only logical reaction is anger and disgust.
Three is the belief that other people are watching my conversations and therefore I need to appear to be the nicer person in the debate. For instance, I am having a debate with a global warming advocate and they suggest the data has never been manipulated or they suggest I should be put in jail for not believing. I am supposed to calmly disagree and say their intentions are worthy, they are just wrong. A third person watching this exchange is most likely to side with the person who is morally disgusted, not the one trying to play nice.
The problem with the world is not that I point out the irrational evil movements that are being propagated, or that I show anger and disgust at these movements and their proponents, it’s that not enough people are mad about these issues.
It seems to me that they can have several motivations for wanting me not to point these out or not get angry about them. One is the belief that by talking nicely to people like Obama, Rachel Carson and their supporters you can convince them of the error of their ways. While pointing out that they are evil and despicable will turn them off. The fallacy in this approach is that these people are reasonable or have any interest in reason. The Jews could not have talked Hitler out of the gas chambers and ovens. Perhaps one Jew might have been able to save himself, but they could not have stopped Hitler by sweet talking him. The same is true of Stalin and Mao. Now they might argue that Obama is not Stalin, but they would be wrong. The US is a police state and while this has happened over time Obama has accelerated it, and if he had the power he would be happy to round up all the white European males and put them in concentration camps. He had been clear that he agrees that people who do not swear allegiance to the Global Warming gods should be thrown in jail. He has shown that he believes it is just fine to use the tax system to destroy political opponents. He is evil and you cannot use logic, reason, or sweet talk to change him or his associates.
Two is the belief that if you have reason, logic and evidence on your side there is no reason to get emotional about people who want to kill off 95% of the world’s population, or want to destroy the world’s economy with fake science. I call this the Spock fallacy after Spock on Star Trek. It is irrational to not show emotion if you are faced by unspeakable evil. It would be one thing if this was being advanced by a crazy street person, but to see it advanced by people high up in government and academic positions is particularly horrifying and the only logical reaction is anger and disgust.
Three is the belief that other people are watching my conversations and therefore I need to appear to be the nicer person in the debate. For instance, I am having a debate with a global warming advocate and they suggest the data has never been manipulated or they suggest I should be put in jail for not believing. I am supposed to calmly disagree and say their intentions are worthy, they are just wrong. A third person watching this exchange is most likely to side with the person who is morally disgusted, not the one trying to play nice.
The problem with the world is not that I point out the irrational evil movements that are being propagated, or that I show anger and disgust at these movements and their proponents, it’s that not enough people are mad about these issues.
Evil unchallenged is evil sanctioned. Destroying evil is really a celebration of the value of life, made real by destroying by those who exist to deny others their life. *
When they ask if we want to "save the dolphins" I say I want to save the children -- the hundreds of thousands of children who go blind and die each year because of Greenpeace's objection to golden rice. And not even because they think there's anything wrong with the rice, just because it encourages GMO's.
I tell they that they are promoting this death. A couple of them have said, "No we don't oppose it anymore" and I show them the Greenpeace web site on my phone which still opposes it.
You are right, we simply talk nice to people whose idiotic campaigns are causing genocide. Maybe we need to be blunter.
But I went to Catholic school. Can I get a "Good Angel" stamp instead of a gold star?
True, but I don't think it is productive to try to "change" Obama. The aim should be to encourage more voters to see through his political facade.
BTW, a good retort to the "flies with vinegar" critic is
from Seldon Cooper... "you can catch even more with manure, so what?"
Seems the most effective is to combine honey and vinegar in the proper portions.
In your intro, above, you continually confute the 'saying of the truth' with the emotionality of presenting the message vehemently. These are two separate issues. I Do think that you should speak the truth as you see it; I Do Not think that applying negative labels or using heated arguments is going to do anything but distance people. And by 'people' I mean not only the individual you are addressing but the observers who might be undecided as to what their stance should be on an issue. The 'third person' is more likely to be turned against your opinions by your anger than he is likely to be swayed by it.
The anger card should be played very rarely, if at all, in a charismatic presentation. What you consider the 'Spock fallacy' I consider the 'Spock advantage': Speak rationally, with conviction, and do not engage in petty word games.
Jan, known to speak convincingly on occasion
My experience is that unless you state your position forcefully, those in the middle will ignore you. They are swayed by consensus and shocked that anyone actually disagrees with AGW for example. If you say why you disagree softly and politely, then they will not examine their premises.
Perhaps I am swayed by the observation that most of the people around me will be more likely to modify their views if I speak calmly and rationally. If I argue with them, they will go to the wire for their views. (Since I am the same way, I can understand this.)
Jan
"talking with them" because it co-aligns with my
view of trying to "think with" or "make love with"
someone -- to complement their life and become
a part of it. . convincingly.
and you might want to substitute "conflate" for
"confute" above. . I keep a file of "new words"
and had to go after confute.
Thank You For Your Calm, Reasoned Thoughts!!! -- j
Thank you for your correction and your comments. I like neat words too.
Jan
the old one. . invalidate or disprove is listed as the
current meaning. . interesting!
where exactly did he hide his ruby yacht, after all?
it would be worth a zillion, today!!! -- j
Great start to a morning!
When I first read the Rubaiyat, I had thought that "confute" meant "reconcile" not "disprove". I think a bit of that definition is still circling around in the depths of my subconscious.
Jan
seriously, I didn't watch them either -- too leftist.
did you get "timely anachronism"? -- j
.
Yes, I got it. You have a real talent for consistent oxymorons.
Jan
erudite soliloquy. . or prugliness? . maybe eagerniscience? -- j
.
.
It is not our responsibility to convince others of our correct viewpoints. It is the responsibility of others to come to the same correct conclusions that we already have.
I prefer to write books instead of individual arguments, because there I can layout the whole case. In my non-fiction books I am always civil, not a civil as you but civil.
"Honesty is the best policy" is not merely a platitude to me, but an insight we might all take advantage of.
There are a few topics I know a lot about. I say, "I'm an engineer so I know a great deal about very little!" I have raised my voice once or twice over that stuff. However...people rarely change their minds about anything. In the topics I'm thinking of they usually just admit, "Well, I still want to believe what I want to believe." (which isn't invalid)
I recently gave a lecture on economizers, ventilation and related energy cost savings. A week later we had a consultant come into our office and rail about that very topic (and he was way wrong). My colleagues just looked at me for a reaction and I just sat and smiled. Still makes me chuckle to think about it.
As I have frequently mentioned, ideas and beliefs take on lives of their own, utilizing the brain’s sensory and conceptual integration. Ideas can sense opposition and agreement, and trigger an emotional response. Emotions are diagnostic tools, value judgments. A person’s incredibly complex palette of nuances responds in proportion to the effect an agreeable or disagreeable encounter produces. Agreements may feel reassuring, comforting, like confirmation bias or a friendly glow. Disagreements can launch a storm of controversy.
Notwithstanding that rational people don’t live for the approval of others, there is no getting away from the fact that a child learns from the earliest age from feedback from others. Yes, no, don’t, stop, etc., all express approval/disapproval, and that is how the child builds up its whole set of rules for life: emotionally tinged feedback.
Humans are sensitive to the reactions of others to guide their behaviors. When debating ideas where people have opposing views and divergent premises, each in the defense of their own ideas, emotions enter and may take over, producing more heat than light.
A dispassionate onlooker may well compare them to two dogs in a fight, growling and barking and even making threatening moves. The more agitated, the louder the voice becomes, partly to overcome the other by sheer force of personality and partly to intimidate, a throwback to our not-so-distant animal past.
When anger enters the scene, reasoning steps back. Yes, it is tremendously frustrating when one’s best-presented case does not seem to have the desired effect. At some point mutual name-calling and put-downs take over where checking of premises and reciprocal comparisons should obtain. In extreme cases, people will kill the body to kill the mind.
The Socratic method (minus the hemlock) can be useful in digging down to the premise, the assumptions your debater holds even after you have presented the facts. Keep questioning until their argument ties itself into a knot with its own contradictions. Berating them upfront for not knowing the same things you already know just puts them more on the defensive.
Most people place a high value on being right, so they appreciate when a mistake is pointed out without condemnation so it can be corrected. Your passion for reason, scientific truth and philosophical integrity may be too rich a brew for some people; it needs to be dribbled in like vinegar in salad dressing, not drunk by the glassful.
Probably the single most powerful essay I ever read (Ayn Rand aside) was in my second year of high school. It was about Reasoning and Rationalization. Knowing the difference has made all the difference in my thinking. People are incredibly inventive in their rationalizations to protect their faulty ideas. Religious rationalizations are among the most egregious.
There is indeed a limit to how long one can try to push through that density without giving up one’s equanimity. Just consider how much of your time and energy such people are worth.
There’s another fellow who can take only so much from benighted arguers when a line is crossed. Treat yourself to 9 minutes of Tim Minchin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkJEp2Tb...
+2 for the video. If I could. That was great.
I try to use the most clever and memorable words
to counteract the arguments of the proponents of
evil, yet my good sense and verbal innovation only
goes so far. . the pain of having our freedom stolen
so systematically never subsides. . I just have to
cry out in response.
Thank You again!!! -- john
Where do you find any Progressives that will engage in a normal argument? Almost every one of them I've run into has been schooled to shout down any opposing speech, talking over any attempt at response, calm or not. It's an effort not to respond with physical violence, let alone maintain a calm demeanor. On the rare occasion I find a person who can engage in civil discourse, I rely on Aristotelian logic, asking questions about their view, and the evidence behind it, including their unbiased source. Sometimes I at least get a "let's just agree to disagree" response, and rarely, I actually get a concession that I could be right.
Load more comments...