Arguing with Aspies

Page 5 of 7 [ 106 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

11 May 2012, 6:43 pm

marshall wrote:

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 tend to discount most arguments that claim to be based on 'justice and fairness'. Usually, it isn't actual justice or fairness that their ideas are based on, but what they think of as justice and fairness.

If the only thing you're basing your opinions on is emotion, you're likely to come off as whiny and irrational.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Jediscraps
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 522

11 May 2012, 6:53 pm

Arguing costs could go the other way, 'costs too much, don't help'. Then you have to figure out how to argue other than costs and benefits.

Arguing costs is still a value system, it is just money at the higher value, rather than principles or diginity. The particular benefits are also subjective values as well. Priniciples and things such as fairness and morals are value systems too.

About who defines fair, I would argue that rights and diginity are only won by those who want them. They are not given. And so fairness is realized by those who speak out from being treated unfair and maybe things will become more fair. I have used the stated principles that people say they have and taken them further and showed where there is inconsistency. Now, I get the idea that people may not take those principles and values so literally. But I still feel the need to show the inconsistency in stated values and how economic and institutional systems don't correspond with the principles.

Last edited by Jediscraps on 11 May 2012, 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 May 2012, 7:00 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

I too hate black licorice.

Look at it this way: That much more for you.

Rascal77s
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

11 May 2012, 7:03 pm

You guys ever wonder why they made the nasty licorice, that nobody likes, black? It stinks of racism to me.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

11 May 2012, 7:04 pm

Dox47 wrote:

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.

There is a point that things ultimately break down to simply an emotional or moral choice though. You can't support anything from a standpoint of nothing matters, but for something to matter, you have to have a care. Survival of the species at the very least.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

11 May 2012, 7:15 pm

edgewaters wrote:

Absolutely. Logic can get you from a premise to a conclusion, but logic can't give you a premise.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Matt62
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2012
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,230

11 May 2012, 7:21 pm

I only get into debates when I know a huge amount on the topic at hand. So if you want to know exactly how many KNOWN witnesses to Roswell have been found, or what life was like in the Dinosaur World up until that asteroid/comet strike, feel free. Or what party in politics gets the MOST blame in the USA for starting the Great Recession, feel free. If you ask me about religion, or sports, forget it!

Sincerely,
Matthew

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

11 May 2012, 8:54 pm

Dox47 wrote:

marshall wrote:

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.

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.

I'm not sure how closely you follow everything I post but I have in fact made very similar arguments. The problem is I feel somewhat hesitant to use them as I'm not certain they are logically justified. You can look at times like the Gilded Age where government was very small and there was dismal working conditions, a lot of suffering with no social safety net to speak of, and very large wealth disparity, yet the economy grew nonetheless.

On a separate note, I feel the word "redistribution" is a somewhat loaded/biased term. It gives the impression that the goal of progressive taxation is simply to take from one group to give to the other, as a simple blunt leveling device. That is not at all what progressive social programs are for. The intent is to extend opportunities to broader section of the population such that people born into the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum are not at as great of a disadvantage as they would otherwise be due to external factors. It is about creating a level playing field, not equal outcomes. People can criticize the actual efficacy of such programs but that's a whole other can of worms.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

11 May 2012, 9:03 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

marshall wrote:

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'd rather look at what's actually happening on a case-by-case basis before simply dismissing something as whiny and irrational. I think dismissing injustice from a safely detached emotional reference point so as to claim logical superiority is another form of sophistry. I know a lot of people change their opinion very fast when something comes to effect them more personally.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

11 May 2012, 9:14 pm

edgewaters wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

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.

There are scientific studies indicating that some people do not experience certain emotions connected with making moral choices. These people tend to make life unpleasant for others who have the misfortune of crossing paths.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,602
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 May 2012, 9:40 pm

marshall wrote:

edgewaters wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

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.

I think your talking about an ex girlfriend. As far as I know, she's managed to stay out of jail.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

11 May 2012, 10:41 pm

marshall wrote:

I'd rather look at what's actually happening on a case-by-case basis before simply dismissing something as whiny and irrational.

Well, yeah. But you should also look at what's actually going on before dismissing something as lacking appreciation for justice.

Just because something is phrased in emotional terms doesn't mean it's wrong, but just because something isn't expressed in emotional terms doesn't make it wrong either.

Quote:

I think dismissing injustice from a safely detached emotional reference point so as to claim logical superiority is another form of sophistry. I know a lot of people change their opinion very fast when something comes to effect them more personally.

Both sophistry and inconsistency are on a logical level, rather than an emotional one.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

writer_mom
Butterfly

Joined: 10 May 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 12

11 May 2012, 11:35 pm

Is it bad that I routinely look at both sides of the issue and find the logic in their stance and why it was chosen while still citing the negative effects?

example: school playgrounds in my area are locked down so no one can access them from the outside, even when school is out. I can see why they did this. To keep the kids in and safe but also to discourage vandals and teenagers from coming in and breaking the equipment. Negative side would be that all the good kids who want a decent place to play are now being punished for the actions of a few bad individuals.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 May 2012, 1:32 am

Verdandi wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

I too hate black licorice.

Look at it this way: That much more for you.

THANKS NOMMMMMM

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 May 2012, 1:33 am

Rascal77s wrote:

You guys ever wonder why they made the nasty licorice, that nobody likes, black? It stinks of racism to me.

I LOVE BLACK LICORICE!! !!12!! !! !!

_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

12 May 2012, 2:10 am

hyperlexian wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

hyperlexian wrote:

Verdandi wrote:

I too hate black licorice.

Look at it this way: That much more for you.

THANKS NOMMMMMM

When I visited San Francisco, I ate at this Korean restaurant that served this spicy chicken dish. It wasn't spicy in American terms, but it was tasty. One interesting thing about it was that one of the spices was anise, but not so much that the taste was overpowering. I actually enjoyed that, even though it was very similar in flavor to black licorice.

Page 5 of 7 [ 106 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Arguing with Aspies Post Reply New Topic

Arguing with Aspies