How to be reasonable

[Hygro]

.. on the forum.

• Interpolate less, be literal more.
• Make sure to read and understand the lines as they are written before trying to read between the lines.
• aka Actually read what the other person wrote.
• Ask more questions, make fewer assumptions.
• It takes more work to comprehend the pieces and the whole than synthesizing an approximation, but the ladder is frequently polluted by misunderstanding and bias.
• When you don't know for sure but go out on a limb, leave your emotional attachment behind.
• Actually read what the other person wrote.
• When going out on a limb, provide citation.
• Something being emotionally correct my feel logically correct, but that doesn't mean it is.
• Liberally defer to others
• When you feel your argument is insufficiently persuasive,
• Let facts and figures do the talking.
• Don't quote war
• Actually read what the other person wrote.

Lets add to the list! These are just the ones I felt like writing down right now.

 

[metatron]

.. on the forum.

• Interpolate less, be literal more.
• Make sure to read and understand the lines as they are written before trying to read between the lines.
• aka Actually read what the other person wrote.
• Ask more questions, make fewer assumptions.
• It takes more work to comprehend the pieces and the whole than synthesizing an approximation, but the ladder is frequently polluted by misunderstanding and bias.
• When you don't know for sure but go out on a limb, leave your emotional attachment behind.
• Actually read what the other person wrote.
• When going out on a limb, provide citation.
• Something being emotionally correct my feel logically correct, but that doesn't mean it is.
• Liberally defer to others
• When you feel your argument is insufficiently persuasive,
• Let facts and figures do the talking.
• Don't quote war
• Actually read what the other person wrote.

Lets add to the list! These are just the ones I felt like writing down right now.

This is basically a photo negative of the conduct of a CFCot "SJW".
So the list can be neatly summarised that way:

• Don't be a male white 21 year old "expert" getting a rise for his ego out of faux SJ advocacy dressed up with bullpucky pseudo-marxist theorising machismo nonsense uber-to-death-boredom.

End of list.
Everybody don't do that.
-> Better ot.
-> Profit.

Oh, and maybe -this is just an idea - don't defend those people with threads about "how trolling is good when people i agree with do it".

 

[jackelgull]

Don't try to find fault in other people's post. Unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, run with the most charitable interpretation of their post.

If unsure, ask for clarification.

If insulted, don't get defensive or resort to mud slinging, though some verbal sparring may be justified.

Remember, walking away is an option

even if this is on an issue you are fully convinced you are right on, listen to other people's criticism's and try to justify your position to yourself, then type out that justification as your argument. Research may be needed.

Be prepared to change your mind at a wholly convincing argument.


is this a good addition to the list?

 

[JollyRoger]

This is basically a photo negative of the conduct of a CFCot "SJWMRA".

A helpful edit for your consideration.

 

[metatron]

A helpful edit for your consideration.

Kansas called. They are really upset about you and all that straw.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you click your heels perhaps you can arrive on the scene to do something about it.

 

[metatron]

If you click your heels perhaps you can arrive on the scene to do something about it.

Whow! I'm stunned!

Any golf analogies to add or are we done here?

 

[jackelgull]

and we're already heading into unreasonable territory here;though, I doubted this thread would have gone on very long without some form of bickering, I am surprised it is heading there so early.

 

[Phrossack]

-Don't approach others' posts with a predatory mindset; that is, don't read it so you can find weaknesses and feel good about yourself by pulling the post apart.

This is the most important one I can think of, on CFC and in life in general:

-Always think, "What would it take to convince me to adopt this viewpoint or abandon that one?" Always. Otherwise you'll find yourself defending the indefensible because your pride won't let you back down and concede the other person's points were more valid than yours.

-Through force of example, try to create a world in which people recognize that arguments cannot be "won" or "lost." The purpose of arguments should be to determine truths and to persuade, not to get a testosterone boost by humiliating an opponent in public. Which is the apparent purpose of arguments now.

-Don't be sarcastic in a hostile way. It doesn't make you look smart; it'll just make you look hostile, make your opponent more embittered against you, and will cause them to dig in their heels and refuse to budge.

I am quite bad at following these precepts, aside from the sarcasm. I need practice.

 

[Zack]

• Do not equate your opponent to Hitler.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Don't actually act like a Nazi/Hitler.

 

[metatron]

• Do not equate your opponent to Hitler.

How about:

• Do not equate your opponent's position with racism (if it's not about race).

No? Not always true? If it's close enough one can?

And if that is so, what overlap would be good enough for Hitler?
Sure i get it: What is commonly meant is that assertions like "You like animals? Yeah, so did Hitler!" are fairly stupid.
I suppose we can asume that Hitler is primarily associated with his war-criminal-ness.
So what is that exactly?
Well, starting a war of aggression, violating the rules for conduct in war, mistreatment of POW's and attemting genocide are usually deemed the big four as far as war crimes are concerned.
There's an awful lot of people who still get booked for cable news talk shows who get a 3 out of 4, in this count of quintessential Hitler-ness.
But comparing them to Hitler is still bad?

But if i roll my eyes at Kirsten Gillibrand for her unending streams of sexist remarks (women can't drive men can't compromise), i am basically "like a racist"...
Because there are but two sides in life: Kirsten Gillibrand or overt racism.
Amanda Marcotte or overt racism.
Megan not-so-sure-about-evolution McArdle or overt racism.

Ok...

Oh wait, i got one for the list:

• Slovenia

 

[Mise]

Posted this before but it's always worth reading...

http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/resources/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/

A Code of Conduct for Effective Rational Discussion

The Fallibility Principle
When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one’s own initial position is a false or indefensible one.

The Truth-Seeking Principle
Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue.

The Clarity Principle
The formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.

The Burden of Proof Principle
The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.

The Principle of Charity
If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.

The Relevance Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.

The Acceptability Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.

The Sufficiency Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion

The Rebuttal Principle
One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.

The Resolution Principle
An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and acceptable premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the successful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.

The Suspension of Judgement Principle
If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.

The Reconsideration Principle
If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.

From: “Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments” by T. Edward Damer

I'd say this happens maybe 0.01% of the time.

 

[Hygro]

Don't try to find fault in other people's post. Unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, run with the most charitable interpretation of their post.

If unsure, ask for clarification.

If insulted, don't get defensive or resort to mud slinging, though some verbal sparring may be justified.

Remember, walking away is an option

even if this is on an issue you are fully convinced you are right on, listen to other people's criticism's and try to justify your position to yourself, then type out that justification as your argument. Research may be needed.

Be prepared to change your mind at a wholly convincing argument.


is this a good addition to the list?

Definitely. Solid.

-Don't approach others' posts with a predatory mindset; that is, don't read it so you can find weaknesses and feel good about yourself by pulling the post apart.

This is the most important one I can think of, on CFC and in life in general:

-Always think, "What would it take to convince me to adopt this viewpoint or abandon that one?" Always. Otherwise you'll find yourself defending the indefensible because your pride won't let you back down and concede the other person's points were more valid than yours.

-Through force of example, try to create a world in which people recognize that arguments cannot be "won" or "lost." The purpose of arguments should be to determine truths and to persuade, not to get a testosterone boost by humiliating an opponent in public. Which is the apparent purpose of arguments now.

-Don't be sarcastic in a hostile way. It doesn't make you look smart; it'll just make you look hostile, make your opponent more embittered against you, and will cause them to dig in their heels and refuse to budge.

I am quite bad at following these precepts, aside from the sarcasm. I need practice.

These are real good.



Here's two closely related:
Don't think someone's strong feelings against your argument are strong feelings against you and your ability to think.
Interpolating tone into intent can lead to serious miscommunication.

 

[metatron]

Don't think someone's strong feelings against your argument are strong feelings against you and your ability to think.
Interpolating tone into intent can lead to serious miscommunication.

[placeholder]
Insert various red lantern posts made by SJWs on this board in the last few months to the effect of "you don't agree with me - you must be stupid and like Hitler racists."
[/palceholder]

We are not misreading their posts.

Also:
Your post strikes me as a tad victim-blame-y...

 

[Hygro]

That would be assuming a victim in the first place?

 

[metatron]

That would be assuming a victim in the first place?

Do i have to quote loads of posts with red text in them?
Really?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Don't let you bias - political, ideological, social - cloud your judgement more than necessary.
Don't enter discussions predetermined to further your agenda of choice at the expense of the topic at hand.
Try to be consequent in thought - don't tailor suit the meaning of words because you really think it would be neat if it meant that.
Try not to be overly literal. It's pretty common when the argument is lost but you think you can tire the opponent with your smartness. It works fine.

 

[Borachio]

Would it be helpful to ask questions in preference to making statements? And ask for clarification of another's position rather than taking the opportunity to further one's one agenda?

 

[Hygro]

Loppan, I especially like your third line.

Do i have to quote loads of posts with red text in them?
Really?

Yes, because telling me it's victim blamey to say not to take something impersonal as impersonal doesn't follow to me. So please, quote loads of posts with red text in them, maybe I'll understand.