Metaargumentative Aside: Ethics of Arguing

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Here's something pretty nasty and in my view hard for most people to see.

Person A and B get into a debate. As they continue the debate, A begins debating more aggressively, throwing down inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., such-and-such is nonsense, crap, stupid, dumb, "man you're full of it," etc.) while the content of his argument is still worth debating. Person B has two choices: he can continue to debate and thereby give up a bit of his dignity by responding to person A's superfluous jabs, or he can stop debating as a matter of dignity and/or appeals to argumentative ethics.

Problems happen in both cases: in the first case (where B continues debating with the ever-growing inflammatory A) B sacrifices a bit of his dignity and even reputation by continuing; he even can throw stuff back at A, in which case the debate becomes more and more pointless given that people are less likely to consider viewpoints seriously when they perceive themselves as attacked.

In the second case, where B says he won't continue debating as a matter of dignity and/or ethics, it's extremely easy for A, who usually doesn't have even an awaerness of the unethical argumentative nature of his rhetorical jabs, to think he's won -- or at least that others viewing the debate to think A won -- simply because B quit.

So we're left with the options of reinforcing negative behavior by people like A when we debate with them, or giving the impression that we have no response.

Thoughts?
 

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Thoughts?

Man you're full of it!

But seriously, you're full of it. :) I disagree with the premise that there's anything particularly nasty about what you describe. Some ideas are nonsense, some things are crap, some things are stupid, etc. I don't think there's any loss of dignity to call someone's ideas wrong. What would amount to a loss of dignity is to treat them like a child and play with nice words in effect giving them a blue ribbon for showing up.

As for me, I want my ideas attacked as strongly as possible, because attacking is a way of testing, and I want my ideas strength-tested just like I'd want the factory to strength-test my car tires, or something like that.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Man you're full of it!

But seriously, you're full of it. :) I disagree with the premise that there's anything particularly nasty about what you describe. Some ideas are nonsense, some things are crap, some things are stupid, etc. I don't think there's any loss of dignity to call someone's ideas wrong. What would amount to a loss of dignity is to treat them like a child and play with nice words in effect giving them a blue ribbon for showing up.

As for me, I want my ideas attacked as strongly as possible, because attacking is a way of testing, and I want my ideas strength-tested just like I'd want the factory to strength-test my car tires, or something like that.

Another thing I should've said: adding labels (crap, full of it, whatever -- and I totally get you're jesting when you're saying the latter) is completely superfluous, given that the points you're making in the argument either reveal an argument to be wrong or not, and so there's no point in using labels. So I want my ideas attacked as much as possible; I just want the attacks, and not the baggage that really is begging the question if the label is left without support (e.g., saying something is "nonsense" without justifying it is begging the question by assuming the conclusion is true in the very label used), and also is much more likely to reflect para-argumentative monkey brain superfluity.

So I somewhat agree that there's nothing wrong with calling someone's argument wrong, because 1) calling it wrong is superfluous given that the content of your response implicitly reveals the points of your interlocutor to be wrong or not, 2) calling it wrong without justification is begging the question by assuming the conclusion with the label you're using. Also (most importantly), I don't make the leap from someone calling my arguments "wrong" to saying this is the same thing as them saying "you're full of it," my argument is "crap", etc.

Also, I see people who seriously use labels like I've mentioned as being much more likely to have limbic motivations in making their points (labels have emotive punches), and are therefore much less likely to be swayed by arguments.
 
Upvote 0

Cearbhall

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2013
15,118
5,741
United States
✟122,284.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
So we're left with the options of reinforcing negative behavior by people like A when we debate with them, or giving the impression that we have no response.

Thoughts?
You're exactly right. You can't beat a pigeon at chess.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure why continuing to debate is a loss of dignity, or why it reinforces the 'negative behavior'.

I'm also not sure saying stuff like that is unethical.

And maybe this reflects differing conceptions of what constitutes dignity, and that's totally part of my point. This also goes hand-in-hand with determining what constitutes negative behavior.

So if I'm debating with someone who says my arguments are stupid, retarded, I'm full of it, or whatever, that violates ethics in the basic Kantian/golden rule sense of treating others in ways you wouldn't want to be treated. It's interesting that what spawned this thread was a debate on Youtube where someone opened with pretty much the labels I've referred to, and after me doing my shrink thing and challenging her thinking, she finally said, basically, "I have had people call me bad things all the time," implying that this justified her using similar negative language in her argument -- which actually is the idea of do unto others as has been done unto you rather than the other way around.

Well, some people are down with this type of inflammatory rhetoric and are okay with having people throw it their way. That makes it ethical for them to use these terms, but not ethical for me to continue to debate with them. But I seriously doubt they really don't mind people using these superfluous inflammatory comments. And we have to consider the Kantian universality ideal: if everyone were to debate in ways that involved inflammatory rhetoric (which as I argued above in my response to Chesterton is fallacious by itself, regardless of ethical considerations), what would this world look like? To me it would look like a world where people are responding from their limbic brains, which would invite defensiveness in other people, making the goal of argumentation (helping people see the truth) more pointless.

On a deeper level, I think a person who uses these superfluous inflammatory bits of rhetoric in their argument (full of it, stupid, etc.) have characters that aren't as refined or advanced as people who don't, and that's what I mean when I say I'm reinforcing negative behavior by continuing to debate with them when they're throwing down this rhetoric. By continuing to debate with them, I'm in a sense giving them the impression (if not downright condoning) their use of inflammatory rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Here's something pretty nasty and in my view hard for most people to see.

Person A and B get into a debate. As they continue the debate, A begins debating more aggressively, throwing down inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., such-and-such is nonsense, crap, stupid, dumb, "man you're full of it," etc.) while the content of his argument is still worth debating. Person B has two choices: he can continue to debate and thereby give up a bit of his dignity by responding to person A's superfluous jabs, or he can stop debating as a matter of dignity and/or appeals to argumentative ethics.

Problems happen in both cases: in the first case (where B continues debating with the ever-growing inflammatory A) B sacrifices a bit of his dignity and even reputation by continuing; he even can throw stuff back at A, in which case the debate becomes more and more pointless given that people are less likely to consider viewpoints seriously when they perceive themselves as attacked.

In the second case, where B says he won't continue debating as a matter of dignity and/or ethics, it's extremely easy for A, who usually doesn't have even an awaerness of the unethical argumentative nature of his rhetorical jabs, to think he's won -- or at least that others viewing the debate to think A won -- simply because B quit.

So we're left with the options of reinforcing negative behavior by people like A when we debate with them, or giving the impression that we have no response.

Thoughts?
IMO, someone with person A's characteristics, is going to declare victory no matter what your rsponse. Whether it be citing facts, or walking away.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,749
20,197
Flatland
✟860,379.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Another thing I should've said: adding labels (crap, full of it, whatever -- and I totally get you're jesting when you're saying the latter) is completely superfluous, given that the points you're making in the argument either reveal an argument to be wrong or not, and so there's no point in using labels. So I want my ideas attacked as much as possible; I just want the attacks, and not the baggage that really is begging the question if the label is left without support (e.g., saying something is "nonsense" without justifying it is begging the question by assuming the conclusion is true in the very label used), and also is much more likely to reflect para-argumentative monkey brain superfluity.

So I somewhat agree that there's nothing wrong with calling someone's argument wrong, because 1) calling it wrong is superfluous given that the content of your response implicitly reveals the points of your interlocutor to be wrong or not, 2) calling it wrong without justification is begging the question by assuming the conclusion with the label you're using.

Labels are not superfluous; they are legitimate language usage. And if the points in an argument show the labels to be true, then what's unethical about using the labels?
Also (most importantly), I don't make the leap from someone calling my arguments "wrong" to saying this is the same thing as them saying "you're full of it," my argument is "crap", etc.

Well I'm bald. You can try and say it more nicely, like I'm "follically challenged", but it's the same thing. I prefer "bald" for simplicity.
Also, I see people who seriously use labels like I've mentioned as being much more likely to have limbic motivations in making their points (labels have emotive punches), and are therefore much less likely to be swayed by arguments.

That's a possible non sequitur. Anyway, I don't see why we should worry about this when there are probably a dozen other unethical tendencies in arguing which are much, much worse. Love means telling someone they're wrong.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Person A and B get into a debate. As they continue the debate, A begins debating more aggressively, throwing down inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., such-and-such is nonsense, crap, stupid, dumb, "man you're full of it," etc.) while the content of his argument is still worth debating. Person B has two choices: he can continue to debate and thereby give up a bit of his dignity by responding to person A's superfluous jabs, or he can stop debating as a matter of dignity and/or appeals to argumentative ethics.
It seems to me that there´s a third option: B can address A´s points and arguments while ignoring anything that is irrelevant to the topic.


So we're left with the options of reinforcing negative behavior
I don´t think a debate is about teaching other people manners.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟28,188.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
And maybe this reflects differing conceptions of what constitutes dignity, and that's totally part of my point. This also goes hand-in-hand with determining what constitutes negative behavior.

I'm not sure negative behaviour is necessarily immoral behaviour.

So if I'm debating with someone who says my arguments are stupid, retarded, I'm full of it, or whatever, that violates ethics in the basic Kantian/golden rule sense of treating others in ways you wouldn't want to be treated. It's interesting that what spawned this thread was a debate on Youtube where someone opened with pretty much the labels I've referred to, and after me doing my shrink thing and challenging her thinking, she finally said, basically, "I have had people call me bad things all the time," implying that this justified her using similar negative language in her argument -- which actually is the idea of do unto others as has been done unto you rather than the other way around.

I'm not sure I live by the golden rule. If in a lawless society a had a chance to kill a sadistic rapist torturer, I'm not sure I'd do what I'd want in that situation, spare me/them.

I think having strong words for someone you disagree with is okay, and I understand why people would use such words against me. I believe in free expression over always being polite.

Well, some people are down with this type of inflammatory rhetoric and are okay with having people throw it their way. That makes it ethical for them to use these terms, but not ethical for me to continue to debate with them. But I seriously doubt they really don't mind people using these superfluous inflammatory comments. And we have to consider the Kantian universality ideal: if everyone were to debate in ways that involved inflammatory rhetoric (which as I argued above in my response to Chesterton is fallacious by itself, regardless of ethical considerations), what would this world look like? To me it would look like a world where people are responding from their limbic brains, which would invite defensiveness in other people, making the goal of argumentation (helping people see the truth) more pointless.

For me, there's a time and a place. Sometimes just be academic, but sometimes expressing one's emotions is okay too.

I've generally thought Kantian morals to be kind of stupid, in the sense of vague and sometimes evil.

Everyone shouldn't lie all the time, but t's okay to lie to save a life.

On a deeper level, I think a person who uses these superfluous inflammatory bits of rhetoric in their argument (full of it, stupid, etc.) have characters that aren't as refined or advanced as people who don't, and that's what I mean when I say I'm reinforcing negative behavior by continuing to debate with them when they're throwing down this rhetoric. By continuing to debate with them, I'm in a sense giving them the impression (if not downright condoning) their use of inflammatory rhetoric.

I don't think replying nicely condones it. If anything I'd being nice might make their insults look unfair.

But I don't think calling someone stupid means you have a unrefined character. I don't think swearing is backwards for example.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It seems to me that there´s a third option: B can address A´s points and arguments while ignoring anything that is irrelevant to the topic.

That's definitely an option, but only to a degree. But there are sneaky insecure folks out there who start with very subtle irrelevant inflammatory rhetoric and then gradually amp things up as they presumably realize they're losing the debate (or they're just buttheads). My sense is that people who use inflammatory/superfluous rhetoric from the beginning are much more likely to amp up their game.

I don´t think a debate is about teaching other people manners.

Right, because "teaching" presupposes a level of superiority. What I'm talking about is whether you like it or not your behavior reinforces or punishes other people's behavior on a conscious or unconscious level. Therefore, are we going to reinforce, extinguish, or punish a person's negative behavior?
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Labels are not superfluous; they are legitimate language usage. And if the points in an argument show the labels to be true, then what's unethical about using the labels?

Because the argument speaks for itself, meaning any label which functions as a judgment about the argument is superfluous; and because labeling in inflammatory ways begs the question because it assumes the conclusion is true by the label being used.

Well I'm bald. You can try and say it more nicely, like I'm "follically challenged", but it's the same thing. I prefer "bald" for simplicity.

Finasteride, but I'm worried about the tiny fraction of folks who have 5a-reductase problems, causing DHT to be all messy. Oh wait, wrong forum. :)

I'm not being clear: when I speak about making the leap from "wrong" to inflammatory rhetoric, I'm pointing out how you seemed to equate calling an argument "wrong" (which I can totally deal with given the lack of inflammatory rhetoric, even though it begs the question) with it being "stupid", "retarded", etc.

That's a possible non sequitur. Anyway, I don't see why we should worry about this when there are probably a dozen other unethical tendencies in arguing which are much, much worse. Love means telling someone they're wrong.

Let the argument tell the person they're wrong, because pointing out that something is "wrong" begs the question. However, most importantly, saying someone is "wrong" is far from engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, which this thread is all about. There's nothing unethical about saying someone is "wrong", only something fallacious.
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure negative behaviour is necessarily immoral behaviour.

Yes, and I don't think immoral behavior is the same thing as ethical behavior (nor is ethical behavior the same thing as ethical character). Negative behavior, being negative, means it fails to meet a criterion for behavior, and I designate this in the area of virtue ethics, in that failing to meet the criterion for behavior reflects an unrefined character, meaning a character that isn't as rooted in excellence as it could be.

I'm not sure I live by the golden rule. If in a lawless society a had a chance to kill a sadistic rapist torturer, I'm not sure I'd do what I'd want in that situation, spare me/them.

I think having strong words for someone you disagree with is okay, and I understand why people would use such words against me. I believe in free expression over always being polite.

I'm definitely critical of the golden rule, but I think it applies when we're talking about, basically, fairness. Fairness is pretty relative; it simply looks at something like equality or something close to it, without considering the deeper rootedness of what's considered to be unfair (or not) in terms of its goodness (or maturity, or "endness") or lack thereof. But I think the golden rule has a good setting with what we're talking about: would you prefer someone to engage with you as you're engaging with me? If the person answers "yes" and the behavior is in my view negative, I have all the material I need to move on and stop debating with this person. The question as to whether this set of behaviors (inflammatory rhetoric, etc.) is better is another question, and would probably bog down an argument way too much if it were brought up. Therefore we stick with the idea of fairness and the golden rule.

As far as your second paragraph, this means you'd be okay debating with someone I'd consider (to use your language) impolite. That's your preference, not mine. For reasons mentioned above, I don't think it's usually fruitful to debate people who tend to be impolite by throwing down inflammatory rhetoric, given that they're much more likely than not not open to truth compared to the person whose character is such that politeness in debates is part of their rules. FWIW, I can't think of a single time you've ever been impolite, so I would say don't waste your time with people who are if your goal is to get your point out and have it heard and potentially change a viewpoint.

Now, I will admit that (thanks to my "shrink by nature" personality) I do like playing the countertroll on the Interwebs every so often, where I throw down trolling rhetoric and strategies against the trolls to the point that they're basically arguing with their own shadows. I do this for two reasons: 1) it's fun, provides a really unique dopamine kick, and 2) it hopefully helps the trolls realize what their own strategies are like when turned on them, as opposed to just being the non-troll and responding accordingly, which is exactly what trolls expect.

For me, there's a time and a place. Sometimes just be academic, but sometimes expressing one's emotions is okay too.

I've generally thought Kantian morals to be kind of stupid, in the sense of vague and sometimes evil.

Me too, but I don't think the golden rule is stupid, and sort of think it's already implicit in our criteria for acting ethically, but it definitely has its limitations. And yeah, holding to absolute duties can result in terrible outcomes, like when you hold "lying is always wrong" and through holding to this principle absolutely you end up letting in the Stasi to put your neighbors in jail for twenty years.

I don't think replying nicely condones it. If anything I'd being nice might make their insults look unfair.

But I don't think calling someone stupid means you have a unrefined character. I don't think swearing is backwards for example.

Well, I think the type of person who typically (with exceptions) engages in behavior that involves calling people stupid (and other superfluous inflammatory rhetoric) has a less refined character than someone who doesn't. Then again, there are people, as Nietzsche said, who believe themselves to be good because they have no claws.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Like so often when we talk, I am not sure I understand what the exact problem is. :)

Let me first give you my understanding of a "debate" (as opposed to a "discussion"):
While a discussion is a cooperative game ("let´s share ideas, and reason together in order to enhance our understanding"), a debate is solely about winning (and "winning" means persuading an actual or imaginary audience of you being right). It is not about who has the better character, it is not about being fair, it is not about insight - it´s all about winning, at all costs. There aren´t many rules, and even using fallacies and rhethorics (including ad hominems and such) isn´t against the rules (for some, employing these devices is even what makes you a great debater).

So, if you are concerned about the effects of your behaviour, the first question, for me, would be: Do I want to play this game, at all?
For me, the answer is no. If, however, you agree with playing that game, don´t complain if it runs you into predictable issues. ;)

Second: The topics discussed here do not lend themselves to debate, imo. This is about deeply held beliefs that people hold for a reason. These beliefs aren´t simply disposable. Engaging in competitive post-hoc rationalizations therefore means: You might not only lose an argument, you might lose the ground you stand on. So a debate isn´t the enjoyable competitive game that it pretends to be. To exaggerate a little: it can be life-threatening. So people will use teeth and claws, and their killer instincts will come out as a means of defense.

That's definitely an option, but only to a degree. But there are sneaky insecure folks out there who start with very subtle irrelevant inflammatory rhetoric and then gradually amp things up as they presumably realize they're losing the debate (or they're just buttheads). My sense is that people who use inflammatory/superfluous rhetoric from the beginning are much more likely to amp up their game.
I agree with this observation and analysis.
I do understand that this may be perceived as problematic in various ways - I just don´t understand what exactly the problem is you want to point out.
I mean, if I notice upfront that the other person plays in a way I don´t like (and which suggests to me that it will get even worse) - why even start playing?



Right, because "teaching" presupposes a level of superiority. What I'm talking about is whether you like it or not your behavior reinforces or punishes other people's behavior on a conscious or unconscious level.
Well, that our behaviours leave traces with others all the time surely isn´t a new insight for a shrink, is it? ;)
If a person threatens me with a knife and demands me to hand over my wallet, I guess my main concern isn´t how to influence their behaviour or character for the future. I suspect that my first concern is how to save my skin, next how to save my wallet, and if there´s any space left for further concerns, I might try to go about these tasks in a way that doesn´t compromise my integrity and values. What the other person takes home from this encounter for the future would be the least of my concerns.
Therefore, are we going to reinforce, extinguish, or punish a person's negative behavior?
Now, these terms certainly indicate the feeling that I am 1. superiour, 2. the objective judge, and 3. that it should be my task to better the other person.
I´m not sure I want to go there, in the first place. These aren´t my children, or something.

And since we are talking "debate" here, I fail to see how these concerns have a place here, anyway (see above).

Look, when I am on the badminton court I have agreed that it´s about winning. It´s not about who´s the better player. If I notice weaknesses of my opponent (maybe injuries even) I will exploit them. That´s the very point of a competitive game. This includes clenching my fist in order to show my determination and intimidate him, this includes debating a point even though I know the umpire´s decision against me was correct. It includes wasting time when I need to recollect. It´s about winning, and if necessary this means winning "ugly".

Anyway, if you want to bring character into the play - I think all I can do is watch my own character (and typically, that´s hard enough. :D ).
I have a couple of options (I can point out the irrelevancy of the "superfluous" rethorics, I can simply ignore those parts, and I also have the option of saying "Thanks for the game so far, but, sorry, I don´t like the way you play it." and go away.)
I don´t think it should be my concern what the other person takes home from my response (this is unpredictable, anyways - I am not even sure that leaving always means "reinforcement"; just as likely it can cause the other person frustration.). I like to think that watching my own integrity and values is all and the best I can do.
(And again: from a "meta-argumentative" ethics pov, I personally feel that only insane idiots are willing to engage in a debate, in the first place. :D )
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Received
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟28,188.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Yes, and I don't think immoral behavior is the same thing as ethical behavior (nor is ethical behavior the same thing as ethical character). Negative behavior, being negative, means it fails to meet a criterion for behavior, and I designate this in the area of virtue ethics, in that failing to meet the criterion for behavior reflects an unrefined character, meaning a character that isn't as rooted in excellence as it could be.

Personally, I don't believe in virtue ethic.

I'm definitely critical of the golden rule, but I think it applies when we're talking about, basically, fairness. Fairness is pretty relative; it simply looks at something like equality or something close to it, without considering the deeper rootedness of what's considered to be unfair (or not) in terms of its goodness (or maturity, or "endness") or lack thereof. But I think the golden rule has a good setting with what we're talking about: would you prefer someone to engage with you as you're engaging with me? If the person answers "yes" and the behavior is in my view negative, I have all the material I need to move on and stop debating with this person. The question as to whether this set of behaviors (inflammatory rhetoric, etc.) is better is another question, and would probably bog down an argument way too much if it were brought up. Therefore we stick with the idea of fairness and the golden rule.

As far as your second paragraph, this means you'd be okay debating with someone I'd consider (to use your language) impolite. That's your preference, not mine. For reasons mentioned above, I don't think it's usually fruitful to debate people who tend to be impolite by throwing down inflammatory rhetoric, given that they're much more likely than not not open to truth compared to the person whose character is such that politeness in debates is part of their rules.

I think it depends on the point of the debate. If it's for the two involved, then it makes sense to be polite. But a debate might be for the viewers, and neither side expects to be swayed. If you're trying to way an audience you might use more colourful impolite language. I see how that might be okay.

FWIW, I can't think of a single time you've ever been impolite, so I would say don't waste your time with people who are if your goal is to get your point out and have it heard and potentially change a viewpoint.

I think I probably have been before... definitely when drunk. :D

Now, I will admit that (thanks to my "shrink by nature" personality) I do like playing the countertroll on the Interwebs every so often, where I throw down trolling rhetoric and strategies against the trolls to the point that they're basically arguing with their own shadows. I do this for two reasons: 1) it's fun, provides a really unique dopamine kick, and 2) it hopefully helps the trolls realize what their own strategies are like when turned on them, as opposed to just being the non-troll and responding accordingly, which is exactly what trolls expect.

Fair enough. Trolls don't normally annoy me.

Me too, but I don't think the golden rule is stupid, and sort of think it's already implicit in our criteria for acting ethically, but it definitely has its limitations. And yeah, holding to absolute duties can result in terrible outcomes, like when you hold "lying is always wrong" and through holding to this principle absolutely you end up letting in the Stasi to put your neighbors in jail for twenty years.

I agree that the golden rule is a good general rule, but it has limits.

Well, I think the type of person who typically (with exceptions) engages in behavior that involves calling people stupid (and other superfluous inflammatory rhetoric) has a less refined character than someone who doesn't.

I think it can depend on the reason why they're saying it.

Then again, there are people, as Nietzsche said, who believe themselves to be good because they have no claws.

Do you mean people think they are good because they don't obviously hurt others, or because they can't obviously hurt others?
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Personally, I don't believe in virtue ethic.

Do you believe in character?

I think it depends on the point of the debate. If it's for the two involved, then it makes sense to be polite. But a debate might be for the viewers, and neither side expects to be swayed. If you're trying to way an audience you might use more colourful impolite language. I see how that might be okay.

I'm going to take @quatona's legitimately meticulous point and change "debate" to "argument". I don't really dig the point of debates in most cases.

I think it can depend on the reason why they're saying it.

Yes, so perhaps we should speak of the person who initiates such behavior without being provoked.

Do you mean people think they are good because they don't obviously hurt others, or because they can't obviously hurt others?

The latter. And he's right on point here, I think: think of how many people who at least implicitly consider themselves to be good but really are incapable of doing bad. To earn the first you have to be capable of the second.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I'm going to take @quatona's legitimately meticulous point and change "debate" to "argument". I don't really dig the point of debates in most cases.
If speaking of arguments in general, it seems to me that these two questions will prevent most disappointments and frustrations:
"What are my purposes in having this argument?"
and
"Do I have good reason to assume that the person opposite has sufficiently similar purposes?"
 
Upvote 0

Received

True love waits in haunted attics
Mar 21, 2002
12,817
774
40
Visit site
✟38,594.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If speaking of arguments in general, it seems to me that these two questions will prevent most disappointments and frustrations:
"What are my purposes in having this argument?"
and
"Do I have good reason to assume that the person opposite has sufficiently similar purposes?"

Yes, this is very good advice. Sadly, though, we can't always prevent who we think is a Jekyll from becoming a Hyde, argumentatively speaking. But hey, nothing's certain in this life. :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Yes, this is very good advice. Sadly, though, we can't always prevent who we think is a Jekyll from becoming a Hyde, argumentatively speaking. But hey, nothing's certain in this life. :)
Morning!
Actually, I think we can do a lot to prevent that. Not necessarily in internet arguments, though.
 
Upvote 0