Lately, I’ve been embroiled in several heated online discussions. I’m not the protagonist or antagonist, just a bystander who observes people ganging up on a poster with an unpopular opinion. I strongly object to name-calling, unfair characterization, and logical fallacies. For example, any mention of Iran gets people in an uproar. The way I see it, for any difference of opinion, there are three options:
-
- “Sea Change” – where one side changes its viewpoint, and now they agree (very rare)
- compromise, both sides recognize validity of the other side’s points (rare)
- agreeing to disagree, where both sides remain steadfast, but respectful (more common)
Note that none of the above includes calling the other person “liberal,” “moonbat,” or “USA hater.” Nor does it include “warmonger,” “whiny victim,” or “elitist.”
However, I am still optimistic where it comes to online discussion – I still believe that people can have a reasonable dialogue. To that end, please please PLEASE stop committing these logical fallacies in your “arguments.”
Straw Man – “based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position”
Ignoratio elenchi – “presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support”
Begging the question – circular reasoning
Package-deal fallacy – “assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way. It is particularly common in political arguments.”
For example, if I pointed out that the U.S. could be accused of exactly the same things that Iran is, namely, “”blowing up innocent people, instigating and funding wars with criminal activities and blood money, oppressing human rights and freedoms, imposing cruelty on minorities,” could you then assume that I’m “against US policies,” implying all of them? You may want to for the sake of making your argument, but it’s an illogical conclusion.
eatbees
December 19, 2006 at 3:25 am
Is “liberal” an insult for you on the same level as “moonbat”?
My parents used to call themselves “liberals” in the days of George McGovern, but never “moonbats”!
I see you’ve moved the discussion to your home turf where you can set the agenda. Smart! But do you think any of those people will come over here and listen to you?
More to the point perhaps, if we all followed the rules, would that help us to find common ground, or would we simply realize faster that we live in incompatible universes?
Maryam in Marrakesh
December 19, 2006 at 8:05 am
Thought provoking – your reframing of the question with the US in the hot seat….
Felix
December 19, 2006 at 11:20 am
EB – Personally, I don’t find “liberal” to be an insult, but I’ve heard it used quite viciously nowadays!
I don’t think that certain people are listening at all, so it doesn’t matter if they see this post or not. (“Tedders” in particular.)
As for following the rules, what’s the point of presenting an argument otherwise? If your statements are riddled with insults and logical flights of fancy, you might as well give up. (And I use “you” in the general sense.) As you said in one of the comments on your site, “Think how lucky we are to live in the age of the internet and be able to communicate with no borders between us, only the limits of language or understanding. We’re just getting started!” I’m not interested in having a discussion with old AJ, though I do admire his verbal acuity. What I AM interested in is having discussions with all kinds of people – rabid pro-US folks included, though I do grit my teeth when they start their flag-waving – and perhaps learning something.
Maryam – Thank you, that’s all it’s intended to do, really.
eatbees
December 19, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Did you know Ahmadinejad has a blog? You really can, hypothetically, go over there and have a conversation with him. (I just had a scary thought, Ahmadinejad and Tom DeLay trading blog posts.) Here’s Hoder’s take on it:
“It proves Ahmadinejad is a populist rather than a fundamentalist…. Also that he wants to communicate with outside world. [...]
“Ahmadinejad’s populism is exactly what we should use to protect some other valuable achivements under Khatami…. This should be the strategy for anyone who want to change something in Iran.”
http://hoder.com/weblog/archives/015454.shtml
Here’s an article that claims Ahmadinejad’s blog is at #387 on Technorati:
http://www.bloggersblog.com/cgi-bin/bloggersblog.pl?bblog=830061
And here is the blog itself! (Works in Firefox, not Safari.) Don’t tell “Tedders”….
http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/