What Do We Think So Far?

[Cirrus]

"Know thy enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated....

Again, if this is the starting position you are never going to debate/exchange ideas with someone as your mind is already closed, you don't want to be defeated. If the other party have the same mindset it's back to two bigots arguing.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Again, if this is the starting position you are never going to debate/exchange ideas with someone as your mind is already closed, you don't want to be defeated. If the other party have the same mindset it's back to two bigots arguing.

I think you're getting too hung-up on the literal meaning here.
Maybe 'Know thy person with whom thou art debating and thou might persuade them more often than not around to validity of thy point of view if that be your intention....'
And it's exactly why you would NOT end-up with 2 bigots arguing because one should be trying to drill-down to understand the others fundamental beliefs and dissecting them one at a time.

 

[Ian H]

I agree with this and would only add (in the real life and not just debating sense) "and possibly be prepared to modify your own"

Isn't that a complete subversion of what the internet is all about?

 

[Cirrus]

why you would NOT end-up with 2 bigots arguing because one should be trying to drill-down to understand the others fundamental beliefs and dissecting them one at a time.

Only one drilling down to understand? Doesn’t seem particularly balanced.

Dissecting them? Again, I’d be happy with discussing but dissecting smacks of intellectual bigotry.

 

[mudsticks]

Only one drilling down to understand? Doesn’t seem particularly balanced.

Dissecting them? Again, I’d be happy with discussing but dissecting smacks of intellectual bigotry.

Maybe we're verging into semantic linguists here..

But in my neck of the woods 'dissecting an argument' means analysing the various aspects of a proposition , and carefully holding them up to scrutiny.

If that's 'intellectual' bigotry then we would seem to be on a dangerous path to a place that devalues careful thought, or even fears challenge to 'received wisdom'.

Ergo we're on a path to reactionary populism..

Is that what you want??

 

[Rusty Nails]

Maybe we're verging into semantic linguists here..

But in my neck of the woods 'dissecting an argument' means analysing the various aspects of a proposition , and carefully holding them up to scrutiny.

If that's 'intellectual' bigotry then we would seem to be on a dangerous path to a place that devalues careful thought, or even fears challenge to 'received wisdom'.

Ergo we're on a path to reactionary populism..

Is that what you want??

This is the internet, and dissecting an argument almost invariably is another tactic to prove I am right and you are wrong.
There are exceptions but, but by no means the norm.

 

[Cirrus]

But in my neck of the woods 'dissecting an argument' means analysing the various aspects of a proposition , and carefully holding them up to scrutiny.

Well, in biology class I remember we dissected frogs, I doubt the frogs appreciated the learning experience nor the received wisdom.

If that's 'intellectual' bigotry

My opinion of intellectual bigotry is lecturing another, dissecting their position where the lecturer has little or no intention of considering their own position, they are convinced they know best and have no ambition to try to understand and therefore little capacity to change, hence my comments re “know thy enemy “ etc.

This forum is choked full of bigots, you, I, and pretty much everyone else here in some shape or form.

Ergo we're on a path to reactionary populism

Politics is populism, you need to please the peeps to get voted in and to get yourself another term. Reactionary, don’t know about that, people may hark back to the past, be it Blue tinged or with a Red hue but I don’t know many that actually want to go back in time.

 

[mudsticks]

Well, in biology class I remember we dissected frogs, I doubt the frogs appreciated the learning experience nor the received wisdom.



My opinion of intellectual bigotry is lecturing another, dissecting their position where the lecturer has little or no intention of considering their own position, they are convinced they know best and have no ambition to try to understand and therefore little capacity to change, hence my comments re “know thy enemy “ etc.

This forum is choked full of bigots, you, I, and pretty much everyone else here in some shape or form.


Politics is populism, you need to please the peeps to get voted in and to get yourself another term. Reactionary, don’t know about that, people may hark back to the past, be it Blue tinged or with a Red hue but I don’t know many that actually want to go back in time.

How do you know whether or not someone is considering their position or not, as they dissect an argument ??

Having to look carefully at what we think, why, and how we express those thoughts, as we put our own point of view in response, can lead to further insight..

Or at least that's what I find.

Someone once (or several times) said.
"I write to discover what I think".

For me that resonates .

Not all politics is 'populism' not even if you define 'populism' as trying to be popular.

Which isn't the definition of populism as most understand it..

To a certain extent 'party' politics may be about 'being popular'

But not all politics is even party based.

 

[Fab Foodie]

This is the internet, and dissecting an argument almost invariably is another tactic to prove I am right and you are wrong.
There are exceptions but, but by no means the norm.

Dissecting argument is a normal part of debate, it's a way of determining truths, of trying to separate opinion from reality, of determining motive.
Most debate is about whether one set of views are more 'right' or apropriate, acceptable, meaningful than anothers. 2 people agreeing is not really debate...

 

[Rusty Nails]

Dissecting argument is a normal part of debate, it's a way of determining truths, of trying to separate opinion from reality, of determining motive.
Most debate is about whether one set of views are more 'right' or apropriate, acceptable, meaningful than anothers. 2 people agreeing is not really debate...

It is not, but two people agreeing could be the outcome of a debate.

 

[Fab Foodie]

It is not, but two people agreeing could be the outcome of a debate.

Hurrah!

 

[matticus]

This is the internet, and dissecting an argument almost invariably is another tactic to prove I am right and you are wrong.

It's generally just a synonym for "pulling apart".

 

[matticus]

one should be trying to drill-down to understand the others fundamental beliefs and dissecting them one at a time.

If you'd stuck to the bold text, I'd be more impressed by this statement.

 

[winjim]

Again, if this is the starting position you are never going to debate/exchange ideas with someone as your mind is already closed, you don't want to be defeated. If the other party have the same mindset it's back to two bigots arguing.

I don't want to debate or exchange ideas with people I consider my enemies. I want to debate and exchange ideas with people I consider my friends, on the subject of how best to collectively defeat our enemies. Sometimes this may be mischaracterised as 'only talking to people I agree with'. It's not.

Some people you might have fundamental disagreements with but might want to chat to and understand their point of view and have them understand yours. Some you might just want to talk bollocks and banter with. Some you might agree with in a broad sense but disagree with on specifics. But honestly some people are just daffodils.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I don't want to debate or exchange ideas with people I consider my enemies. I want to debate and exchange ideas with people I consider my friends, on the subject of how best to collectively defeat our enemies. Sometimes this may be mischaracterised as 'only talking to people I agree with'. It's not.

Some people you might have fundamental disagreements with but might want to chat to and understand their point of view and have them understand yours. Some you might just want to talk bollocks and banter with. Some you might agree with in a broad sense but disagree with on specifics. But honestly some people are just daffodils.

So how do you decide who are enemies and who are friends when you don't know any of them (on here for example)?

I know how I feel and think about certain things and no matter how many times someone on the Internet tries to tell me I'm wrong I won't change my view, I'm talking opinion here rather than hard facts obviously.

People who spout on about using discussion to re assess how they see things themselves are talking boll0x.

You've said exactly what I said ages ago yet it's OK for you to live in your 'little bubble ' or your 'little world' because it's probably the same one as most others on here live in.