Further Light and Knowledge

Are substantive, evidentiated, detailed arguments possible in an online forum? What should our expectations be of each other when we discuss politically charged issues in the Countercultural Hall? What level of evidence do we expect from each other?

I often post from my expertise (sexuality and family), and I rarely include a bibliography to accompany my assertions. I don't think scholarly level evidentiation is necessary or even desirable in an online forum.

But I also think it's perfectly acceptable to ask fellow FLAKers to support their claims with evidence and/or to address the problems in their arguments.

What think ye?

Your post pretty well represents my feelings. I enjoy a link to a source, but I think that demanding evidence for most topics is counter to the purpose of the board. I would say that arguments should be logical and consistant.

Oh. And I would also say that if you decide to argue politics on the CCH (or anywhere else for that matter) you should expect to be pissed off. It's gonna happen.

_________________
As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take which course he will, he will be sure to repent.
-- Socrates

I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask fellow FLAKers to support their claims with evidence. However, I think it's unreasonable to expect someone to be convinced by evidence--either yourself or the other person. When someone provides evidence, frequently there are disagreements as to (a) the quality of that evidence, and (b) the interpretation of that evidence. While I try to provide solid, quality arguments, I recognize that the likelihood is vanishingly small that anyone will read my arguments and be thoroughly convinced. That's simply human nature.

What I don't think is acceptable is to attack those who fail to provide evidence (or fail to provide what you think is "good" evidence), with statements like, "that's idiotic" or "that's a morally bankrupt position". That benefits no one, starts a shouting match, and typically derails the productive portion of the conversation. We've experienced this many times in the CC Hall, and always with similar results.

So, while it's reasonable to ask for and expect good arguments, when they are not (in one's estimation) received, the best thing to do is nod, say "perhaps we simply disagree," and move on.

_________________
"You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen."
—Razumihin, Crime and Punishment

I'd be more inclined to shrug than to nod, and if the arguments aren't good ones, to roll my eyes. I would refrain from using emoticons for any of these responses.

I have observed that when the argument is obviously going nowhere, sometimes neither of the participants seems to be willing to let it drop, for fear that the other person will think they've "won." So another good "rule" is that somebody is always going to get the last word, and it doesn't have to be me.

I'm also likely to just drop out when the argument is outside my area of expertise and I don't want to spend hours doing the kind of research that would pass muster - only to have it dismissed. Not all of us live our lives in a consistent search for evidence and reason. I am a very emotionally driven person - I FEEL things. When all I've got to support my argument is my gut or my heart, I'm much more likely to just drop the argument. Persistent efforts to persuade me of the wrongness of my position will just piss me off.

_________________
Ma'am, we don't care what you do with your tractor after you purchase it.

QFFT



You make an excellent point, Nanna.

Personally I feel that this sort of interaction is valuable too. I would much rather hear what you have to say--even if it's emotionally driven, even if it's outside your area of expertise, even if you don't have anything to logically back it up, even if I completely and thoroughly disagree with you, and even if you shrug off all the mountains of evidence and citations I come up with to "prove you wrong".

Is FLAK a place where we don't want that kind of participation? Is that sort of participant simply too frustrating for too many people?

If it is, can it even be enforced? Is it simply a community thing, where people who participate in that way are ignored or laughed at or shunned? (We can't, I think, allow them to be driven away via personal attacks, however.) Or is there some objective way for moderators to enforce such a standard?

I realize that I may like this particular brand of participation while at the same time it frustrates and annoys others. Is there a good balance to be had?

_________________
"You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen."
—Razumihin, Crime and Punishment

I'll chime in for a bit here:

I also think one thing that is important to remember is that you cannot always tell what a persons verbal intention is whey they say something. For example, I tend to have a pretty dry sense of humor. It's sometimes hard enough to interpret vocally, in those cases it would be damned near impossible to do with just the words.

I know I'm guilty of reading too much into what is written, since I can't hear the intention in the poster's voice. The easiest way to avoid this is to try NOT to take attacks personally. Even if they are directed as such. Again, I know that I am guilty of this, both as the offender and the offended.

It's also important to remember that offense cannot be given, it's only taken.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison

Sometimes I really enjoy trying to pull a Steve Benson style argument... sugar coated vitriol and anger just for the hell of it and he does such a good job of it. It's like watching a mama bear tear a group of teenagers to shreds only when it's done you're stuck thinking, "huh, did I just see that? I'm not even sure I just witnessed someone's ass handed to them on a platter."

No one knows how to argue a well-thought out argument better than Steve. He is probably the only person online I would bend over backwards to avoid an argument with... SLC cabbie's formidable as well though.

Now... I'm off to a christmas party, but no drinking for me cause I have to go to work at 10pm and help the elderly and I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate an inebriated me trying to wipe their asses or clean various other orifices.

Ya'll have a fun night and weekend.

_________________
I'm not sorry, I like to get laid. --Mercury

I took roughly 1/3 of my available vacation for the year to chase 12- and 13-year old boys through the woods. --Mcarp

Tibber, lol....



Yes, I do this too. The other day DH wanted me to "scientifically prove" something I had discovered worked by trial and error. I had no way to prove it, I just knew what I was doing worked--not why.

I don't know if it works in political discussions, but did anyone find the link I provided in the other thread helpful about non-violent communication? I am very excited to have found this way of communicating since I have gotten more of what I want and need using the principles of NVC (and I'm a beginner so yeah, I make lots of mistakes). I would think it could be tailored for any subject, especially ones we identify with who we are such as religion and political affiliation, but I'm not sure since I haven't tried it in those areas. This link simplifies it some:

http://www.wikihow.com/Practice-Nonviol ... munication

That is 100% untrue.

Language can absolutely be used as a weapon for the purpose of offending other people.

_________________
Ma'am, we don't care what you do with your tractor after you purchase it.

Nanna, Nanna, Nanna. When will you learn that a comedy whore NEVER turns down a trick. This is how this is done.




What a steaming load of horseshit. The only reason you believe it is because you are a mouth-breathing booger-eating moron who let's people piss down his neck and tell him it's raining.



or something like that.


Sorry folks. I realize you were having an intellectual discussion here, but in my world, comedy always trumps intellect.

_________________
As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take which course he will, he will be sure to repent.
-- Socrates

Nom.

It sorta reminded me of BY. That's worse than eating boogers.

sorry JB, bad joke...

You are absolutely right. But just because it can, doesn't mean it has to be.

I can't say "I give you offense" and have you been offended.

However, you can say "I take offense" and suddenly I'm the offender, even if what I said was not intended to offend.

Like I said, offense is taken not given.

I say this because I have seen so many cases (myself included) where someone takes offense where it wasn't intended.

Case in point, the comment that Nom made. I could TAKE offense to what he said and argue back and cause a ruckus, or I can just say:

Yeah, if you say so.

Ironically, it's like that Morg classic painting where Jeebus is knocking on a door with no knob. Just like Jeebus can't force his way in, neither can offense. It must be allowed.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison

jbsexman, this may be technically true but one can certainly try to make someone take offense, or not give a shit if someone is offended, or try hard not to offend. Intent is harder to judge in writing than in person, though, as you mentioned.

One more question for you, jbsexman... Is your IRL name Doyle Carnegie, by chance? I've always heard that Dale Carnegie had an evil twin from whom he was separated at birth.

--KF

All the same, though, KF, the choice to take the offense is every bit as much of a choice as the person that chooses to offer the offense, their efforts be damned.

For example, were I different person, I could easily take offense to the fact that you have altered my name from JBSaxman to JBSexman, even though offense might not have been intended.

I like to think that it was indeed Dale Carnegie that was the evil twin. Of course, I always thought the title "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" was more of a catchy title that "How to Win Friends and Influence People". But that's just my opinion.

_________________
"To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." - Thomas Edison