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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
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
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.
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
"Honesty is the best policy" is not merely a platitude to me, but an insight we might all take advantage of.
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.
I love to envision a rampaging dino smashing the hell out of places like the EPA--oops, guess that's a bit too narcissistic.
Just say no.
Load more comments...