Arguing with Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, that's why I avoid political debate lately. I will sometimes do policy debate, or local politics, which is slightly different - between moderates this can be non-ideological (example, legalizing marijuana). But my favourite debates are historical.

I could never understand people who argue just for the sake of arguing. Someone will write something and someone else will immediately come along and refute them without exploring any of the facts at all. Sometimes I think arguments, like protests, are futile. An athiest, for instance, could never present his no god beliefs to a believer - and vice-versa. They won't change each other's minds. Pro-life and pro-choice folks have no common ground. For these reasons I'm not a persuasive arguer because people are steadfastly set in their ways. I just go with the flow, agree for the sake of peace, then go on along my merry way.

I couldn't agree more. Then again, I don't really consider myself a "persuasive writer". I'll state my opinions and how I arrive at certain conclusions as clearly as possible, but I have no interest in trying to manipulate people to seeing things my way through clever use of language. I think as long as someone is clear, facts and logic should stand on their own. If I choose to use emotive rhetoric it's not some scheme to hoodwink people into agreeing with me without thinking or questioning. It's just me letting off steam and telling people how I really feel, take it or leave it. I'd rather people reading what I have to say think for themselves. If I present a biased factual picture it's probably unintentional as I don't consider myself a deliberate liar.

This is so true in my opinion. I have debated points in the past, but I was not inluenced and neither was the other. So like I believe you are saying, why bother?

Arguing isn't necessarily heated or mean or obnoxious. There are plenty of people who are real gentlemen/ladies, and are quite chivalrous when engaging others in the art of verbal combat. Even with people who aren't, there can be quite a bit of logical thinking that goes into it, and that by itself is fun.

Some people don't like it, and that's fine. I myself utterly despise licorice and black olives, yet some people actually buy and eat these things on purpose. Different strokes for different folks.

you... don't... like... black licorice?

and i agree with you. debate was how my family communicated when i was growing up. it wasn't negative or emotional.

You can have all of mine.

YAY! do you like red licorice? i can trade you.

If it's at all like twizzlers or red vines, then yes.

I too hate black licorice.

Maybe that's how you argue politics, but not everyone falls into the same patterns. I know I try to evolve my positions based on new information, different perspectives I encounter, personal growth, etc, though clearly that's not how most people approach the subject. The other thing I try to do is to recognize that while it's impossible to build a personal philosophy completely bereft of personal subjective moral judgments and emotional reactions, that it is possible to minimize the number of them and distill things down to use as few of them as possible. I don't claim to use no emotions or personal morals, just much less of them than most people. Perhaps it's an artifact from my interest in mechanical engineering; the most elegant designs use the fewest moving parts that will still get the job done, and I approach political philosophy the same way.

If I want elegance and emotional detachment I have to stick to arguing math and science. Politics is inherently messy and too many opinions come down to moral attitudes. Even people who claim to base their arguments on emotionally detached principles just come off as lacking appreciation for what I would consider justice and fairness. I'm far to cynical to take debates traveling in that direction seriously.

Fencing and arguing are two different things. Debating is more like fencing, arguing more like fist fights with words. When people argue, they do it to change the other person's mind. When they debate, they do it to present facts to support a conclusion and then decide which person does a better job.

I never argue. Ever. If someone tries to get me into an argument or if I accidentally fall into one I get out as quickly as I can. Mostly because I either don't have the time/strength or the endurance to actually argue, but also because when people argue most of the time they speak louder or "angrier" in a way and that makes me feel inadequate.

I would say that many wrong opinions come down to moral attitudes, if you can't support an idea without resorting to emotional or moral appeals than perhaps that support should be examined.

To rehash an old argument, I know I can support things like social safety nets without once using the word "fair" or guilt tripping anyone by arguing that the cost to taxpayers is less than the cost of the crime and social problems caused by desperate people, so that fiscally it's the right thing to do. I might privately think it's also the morally right thing to do, but from an argumentative perspective that's a much weaker approach because morality is neither objective nor universal. Certain religious conservatives might argue against the moral version, that giving people money offends their morals and teaches dependance, but they have a much harder time refuting the purely fiscal argument, especially if they're claiming to be fiscally conservative. The principal holds in other areas as well, argue for redistribution because it's "fair" and any number of people will jump all over you about who defines fair and such, but frame it as using higher personal taxes combined with incentives to invest in businesses to spur job creation and you've gotten off the "fair" wagon and onto the "stimulating the economy" wagon, a much more easily defended position. People will still argue against the later position, but it's no longer about who's definition of fair is correct, an unending and rancorous debate, but an economics disagreement with well established principles.

Look at it this way, if you argue from morals, you can only really connect with people who share them and likely already agree with you, but if you argue from logic, you can connect with anyone capable of following it.