[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /r/ - 28694



File: 1484092978872.png (1.7 MB, 300x169, rowdy-roddy-piper-they-live.png)

No.28694

They're everywhere.

They demand answers, but when you give them some they reject them.

They pretend to be skeptics, but refuse to give up their beliefs.

When backed into a corner they spout the most vile bullsoykaf.

They act like the own the place.

They must be stopped.

  No.28695

Are you describing things that occur on /civ/? That board has caused nothing but trouble and it is my considered opinion that it should be removed before metastasis occurs.

  No.28696

Let me guess, these people are whoever you disagree with?

  No.28697

>>28694
Sounds like you've been lurking politics boards too much.

  No.28698

I have some comments, but it's not anything good.
Almost anyone who has grown up - as in, is no longer a child and no longer thinks its parents know better - has a form of arrogance in which they are certain that they understand the overall picture, and what other people can tell them are just the details. This arrogance is what being grown up means, deciding how the world is for yourself instead of running to mom and dad as soon as things become hard to follow. On the contrary, children are ready to change their own views and do major overhauls if a teacher figure tells them so - hence their need to be protected; while an adult can protect themselves, but only by rejecting any major change that would affect the foundations of their grown-up worldview.

Another thing would be this: I see immensely many arguments where each person makes their own point and provide grounding for it only -by their own standards-. People rarely make the effort to make their point by the standards of the other person. This basically means that they never will exchange even one sentence in the same language; they may use tools of clarification (definitions, referring to sources, or asking the other to "argue in a reasonable manner"), but they only do these steps of clarification as a formality, they only clarify things for themselves by their own standards. The whole point of clarification would be communication with the other party until you can finally agree on some things. Instead, people often just do this formal ritual and when the lack of effort leaves them without a common ground, they just dismiss each others as trolls or idiots.

What would work in such a situation is to show the other party that they are wrong with their own tools and methods. Not your tools, not the scientifically accepted tools, not the reasonable tools, but their tools. Assume they are right, use their arguments, and take their line of reasoning to a point they haven't taken it to, a point where it collapses and breaks down. Unless you can do this, you probably do not understand their point well enough to judge it wrong. If you don't have all your lifetime to do that, simply accept that you chose to be uncertain about their stuff, and that your and their view might be both right or both wrong.

  No.28700

>>28698
>What would work in such a situation is to show the other party that they are wrong with their own tools and methods. Not your tools, not the scientifically accepted tools, not the reasonable tools, but their tools. Assume they are right, use their arguments, and take their line of reasoning to a point they haven't taken it to, a point where it collapses and breaks down.

This won't work. Nobody believes what they do because they arrived at it through rational deliberation, all worldviews are ultimately founded in feeling and rationalized after the fact. Proving someone wrong only makes them angry.

>Unless you can do this, you probably do not understand their point well enough to judge it wrong. If you don't have all your lifetime to do that, simply accept that you chose to be uncertain about their stuff, and that your and their view might be both right or both wrong.


"nobody is really right" is a load of bullsoykaf. Some things aren't opinion, they're false.

  No.28701

>>28695
>That board has caused nothing but trouble and it is my considered opinion that it should be removed before metastasis occurs.

What's wrong with /civ/?

  No.28702

>>28701
It is an entryway for adherents of the /path of light/

  No.28708

>>28700
So you're saying that everything is just rationalized feelings, and in the same post you still say that some people are right enough to be able to asses that some things are wrong.. That's kind of sad. Let me rationalize this sadness. Ah yes, now I know why it's sad.

  No.28709

File: 1484140892405.png (26.57 KB, 200x126, 34fd9857641889e05c9fa9fe1921444e.jpg)

>>28694
(((They're))) everywhere.

(((They))) demand answers, but when you give them some they reject them.

(((They))) pretend to be skeptics, but refuse to give up their beliefs.

(((When))) backed into a corner they spout the most vile bullsoykaf.

(((They))) act like the own the place.

(((They))) must be stopped.

  No.28710

>>28698
You get it. Successful argumentation starts with the conclusions of the opposition, goes through their axioms, then down deeper than that to bring them over to your side. When two people argue over something, they are usually both being rational. But if they disagree, they are arguing from a different set of axiomatic beliefs that they refuse to question to protect themselves. You must question these beliefs in yourself and nudge others towards their own questioning. You can never convince someone else without their volition. Arguing is not a competition. It's cooperative.

  No.28711

>>28708
>and in the same post you still say that some people are right enough to be able to asses that some things are wrong.

Wrong. I said that some things are false, not that everybody can tell so.

>>28710
>When two people argue over something, they are usually both being rational.

I have never seen an impassioned argument that was perfectly rational.

>Arguing is not a competition. It's cooperative.


Completely false.