Freedomain Radio

Mr. C:

Conrad:

Mr. C:

Conrad:

i have said repeatedly that for me the criterion to be justified in psychologizing rather than putting forward arguments is the following:

- you have repeatedly and demonstrably pointed out to a person that his arguments are flawed

- the person doesnt accept this and instead ignores the criticism, tries to steer the conversation in another direction, becomes abusive and so on. and he continues to do this instead of arguing

then you know that there is a deeper most likely psychological issue going on

This was not the case with David's arguments. I have seldom seen somebody who has written such careful argumented posts, responding point-by-point and so on.

Alright, so the taboo is a bit different: you have a taboo against wondering why rational people are arguing something and then openly discussing it. No one may do that ?

that's perfectly okay with me. In fact I have answered this exact same question that was repeatedly posed to me by Greg 3 (three! Drei! trois) times. And I think David has also already answered this question in the thread I am talking about (not completely sure though). When then the opponents continue to psychologize and not put forward or respond to actual factual and logical arguments, then there is something fishy going on and it is obviously not intended as an honest interest in the other's psyche or an honest interest in the debate itself. It is purely meant to ridicule and insult the other and to make him shut up or agree

So, you seem to be saying that, if one participant begins to think the argument isn't valuable, they then become dishonest if they continue talking about something else ?

can you explain that in a bit more detail as your remark itself can be interpreted in different ways? What kinds of situations are you thinking about?

Conrad:

Mr. C:

So, you seem to be saying that, if one participant begins to think the argument isn't valuable, they then become dishonest if they continue talking about something else ?

can you explain that in a bit more detail as your remark itself can be interpreted in different ways? What kinds of situations are you thinking about?

Mr. C:

Conrad:

that's perfectly okay with me. In fact I have answered this exact same question that was repeatedly posed to me by Greg 3 (three! Drei! trois) times. And I think David has also already answered this question in the thread I am talking about (not completely sure though). When then the opponents continue to psychologize and not put forward or respond to actual factual and logical arguments, then there is something fishy going on and it is obviously not intended as an honest interest in the other's psyche or an honest interest in the debate itself. It is purely meant to ridicule and insult the other and to make him shut up or agree

What differences would we see between Stef's behavior and someone legitimately thinking that an argument isn't valuable, but that talking about why someone is arguing it is valuable and then doing that instead of arguing the original point ?

that's an excellent question:

I think one of the major points here is the willingess to actually respond to the other person's arguments, and do so in some detail doing justice to the other's post (so not misrepresent it, pick one small thing and then demolish that while ignoring the rest, and so on. Once these things are done some alarm bells go off in my mind). When you have done that repeatedly and when then the other seems to become evasive etc., then it seems legitimate to think that their argument is not valuable and that something else, something psychological is going on. And then I would say: Let the psychologizing begin!

Conrad:

that's an excellent question:

I think one of the major points here is the willingess to actually respond to the other person's arguments, and do so in some detail doing justice to the other's post (so not misrepresent it, pick one small thing and then demolish that while ignoring the rest, and so on. Once these things are done some alarm bells go off in my mind). When you have done that repeatedly and when then the other seems to become evasive etc., then it seems legitimate to think that their argument is not valuable and that something else, something psychological is going on. And then I would say: Let the psychologizing begin!

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

If you're so concerned with manners, why did you not publicly chastise Andrew for his repeated manipulative and negative responses to my questions and corrections?

Because I dont see how Andrew is unique in this respect (I have criticised Niels in personal conversations about his behaviour though) and it seems more important to go after 'the big guys on the board'.

OK, so it's not a principle or anything, no problem then, it's just an opinion.

Stefan Molyneux:

Conrad:

Stefan Molyneux:

If you're so concerned with manners, why did you not publicly chastise Andrew for his repeated manipulative and negative responses to my questions and corrections?

Because I dont see how Andrew is unique in this respect (I have criticised Niels in personal conversations about his behaviour though) and it seems more important to go after 'the big guys on the board'.

OK, so it's not a principle or anything, no problem then, it's just an opinion.

yes Stef, that follows: I state the principle then say that a lot of people are violating it and that it would seem most important to confront the 'big guys'  rather than a lone voice with it. Yes, from that it completely follows that it is in fact not a principle and just an opinion. Incredible...

Conrad:

yes Stef, that follows: I state the principle then say that a lot of people are violating it and that it would seem most important to confront the 'big guys'  rather than a lone voice with it. Yes, from that it completely follows that it is in fact not a principle and just an opinion. Incredible...

You can't exactly claim it would have been a lot more work, since saying something like "Stef and Andrew, you're both ..." isn't much harder than saying "Stef, you're ...". It's not even as "hard" as a copy and paste between two threads.
 

Andrew Greve:

Andrew Greve:

REPORT: THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE RIGHT NOW

UPDATE: The house may not be on fire. 

Stefan Molyneux:

Did it collapse?

Can someone please explain to me what is funny about this?

So let me get this.  This forum is no longer about collaborating with like minds for their respective interest to challenge our philosophies and dearly held truths in order to come to a more solid objectified paradigm that serves our daily life, but instead to whine about a tiny comment --one in my opinion that was a little snarky and terse, in  order to deliberate about the fact that in life people don't always give you the easiest time in conversations when they have a different opinion? 

Also, what is a lone poster lacking in comparison to one of the "big" guys?  If you concern is to debate truth then any two people can do that. However, if you see it as a competition, then sure, I guess going after the big guys and trying to get some satisfaction of out debating them in that way  but maybe I'm wrong about where you were going with that comment. It's my opinion to become perturbed by a trivial fact that people are not always going to manage to be polite in conversation, even if they try seems like a waste of time to me. It seems like Stef is attacking your argument. Fine with me. The only thing that I would get riled about is if he was attacking you maliciously on a personal level. People attack arguments but make sure you don't confuse someone tearing down an argument of yours with tearing you down as a person.  Which brings me to wonder why it's so very hard to separate strongly held opinions with our sense of self. If those towers did happen just collapse and I am completely wrong...oh well, glad to know I'm right now and know the truth, but am I supposed to regard my own opinions on what happened in that  separate physical event to define myself as a being and feel attacked if you attack the opinion?

Mr Bojangles:

This forum is no longer about collaborating with like minds for their respective interest to challenge our philosophies and dearly held truths in order to come to a more solid objectified paradigm that serves our daily life...

Oh yeah, he also wants to be dishonest (he refuses to follow his own moral expectations for Stef).

Well, at least he still wants a rational discussion...wait....
 

Well, and of course he wants to call me a 'bully', and then when confronted with his own inconsistent application of the principle, claim that it's "just an opinion" (though of course the word 'bully' has an objective moral definition).

No sane person has time for that sort of nonsense!

Stefan Molyneux:

Well, and of course he wants to call me a 'bully', and then when confronted with his own inconsistent application of the principle, claim that it's "just an opinion" (though of course the word 'bully' has an objective moral definition).

I think that you're doing some of the same thing, and what he said as well. When someone accuses you of something, it doesn't show that their accusation is false, or that it doesn't matter, to say that they did the same thing. This is some kind of fallacy (I forget which). Maybe it shows something, but not that.

If anything, that argument only shows that they too have some work to do on their interactions with others. Sure. 

I'll write more about this later, and maybe post that long long post I sent you (unless you're still planning on posting it yourself).