Good rap. I shall avoid the temptation to reply in terms
one particular argument-beast, and instead try to expand
upon the story I told earlier about the interactions of
Albert Einstein and my grandfather, Winthrop Wright. It
seems to me that those were good *conversations*, and
that almost no one in the universe could ever accuse
them of being arguments. It's the WHY of this I'd like
to examine.
>From my point of view, for a conversation to devolve into
an argument, at least one of the parties involved has to
have a fairly sizable ego, or self. That ego has to be
convinced that the way it sees things is, at the very
least, "right" or "correct" or "truth."
Now, again from my point of view, there is nothing wrong
with believing anything as silly as this (both that they
are an ego-principle with existence in and of themselves,
and that this ego-principle actually "knows" stuff, and
can consider it "right" or "truth"), as long as they don't
feel the need to get all in your face about it. In other
words, religious fanatics and such ilk are fine *unless
and until* they start trying to *make* other people
believe the same sillinesses they believe in.
This was not the case in the Wright-Einstein conversations.
Based on many stories of both of them, they were above all
humble men who didn't believe for an instant that they
"knew" anything even remotely approaching "truth." They
were also scientists, who understood that "truth" is always
a moving target, and *at best* is an attempted description
of phenomena one can only see a miniscule portion of. So
they could really have *conversations* in equations drawn
on a blackboard, seeking to come as close to a good descrip-
tion of the mysteries they pondered as possible. There was
never any crowing ("Aha! See...I've proved you WRONG and
my self RIGHT!" and never any denunciations or game-playing
("Aha! You're trying to LIE about what I believe about this
particular way that atoms line up...thus YOU are 'bad' and
I am 'good'"). Their conversations were genial, and fun for
both parties; that's why they kept having them, for years.
Even on the Internet, and even in cesspools like FFL, you
can find such conversations from time to time. Interactions
between two or more people who have the humility to under-
stand that their egos don't know shit about nothing, but
who are willing to rap about it anyway, just for fun, and
to see if there is anything interesting that can be determ-
ined from such rapping.
Then you've got Fairfield Life, which has been shaped over
a number of years by a few people (and one in particular)
whose egos are so completely fuckin' out of control that
they have to turn pretty much *everything* into an argument.
The desire to argue RUNS their lives; they clearly aren't
having any fun if they're not in one. And so their egos
and those egos' constant need to dominate and assert its
silly "truths" on others fuck up the whole conversation
thang for other people. I think it's sad, and saddest for
the compulsive arguers themselves. What, after all, is
the epitaph they are writing for themselves by living their
lives this way? Are they going to be *happy* with the words
"She/he won every argument she/he started on the Internet"
on their tombstones? What a pathetic waste of life.
The larger question would seem to me to be how does one
*avoid* such compulsive arguers when one realizes one has
encountered them? Is there anything one can do to escape
the Argumentation Tar Babies of the world, and avoid getting
sucked into the event horizon of their black (very black)
holes?
I've experimented over the years with Douglas Adams' theory
of how to deal with nasty critters. One of the reasons every
traveler in "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" was told
to have a towel on them at all times was as a defense against
the Ravenous Bugbladder Beast Of Traal. It had a terrible
disposition, and if you encountered it, it would (as a result
of its own nature and its own compulsive needs) attempt to
rip you to pieces and eat you, just (presumably) to show
other RBBT's in the area that it could.
So according to Adams, what one should do if one encounters
a RBBT is to whip out one's towel and put it over one's own
head. The reason is that the RBBT believes that if you can't
see it, it can't see you. So the frood standing there in
front of it wearing a towel over his or her head becomes
effectively invisible.
My experience has shown me that this tactic works for *some*
compulsive arguers on the Internet. If you just ignore them,
and refuse to get sucked into their arguments, sooner or
later they move on to other suckers, and try to lure them
into the arguments they need so badly. I would guesstimate
that this defense works on about 90% of Internet RBBTs.
Unfortunately, there's that other 10%. They take the Adams
Defense as the ultimate insult, go into vendetta mode, and
persist in stalking the potential victim, often for decades.
So far -- based on my own experience and that of others who
share my view of compulsive arguers on the Internet and what
to do about them -- the only solution for dealing with this
malignant 10% is just to continue ignoring them and wait
for them to die. This defense, although it has its drawbacks,
is considered better than actually interacting with the
compulsive arguers, because although they may bark and howl
and try everything they can to lure you into one of their
arguments, if you Just Don't Go There the worst that can
happen is that you'll get splashed by a little Ravenous
Bugbladder Beast Of Traal drool.
Anartaxius opines, and asks for other opinions:
>
> It is kind of a habit from reading scientific papers. Because scientists are
> uncertain, they always use language that waffles, using words like 'may', or
> 'perhaps', or 'if'. You may notice I do that rather frequently. When I listen
> to politicians, I generally assume something is going to be lying, for
> example Obama's recent 'red line' backtracking. When it comes to politicians
> in the U.S., Democrats and Republicans alike are pretty much equal
> opportunity liars. Maureen Murphy, an American politician said the reason
> there were so few femaile politicians was it was too much trouble to put
> makeup on two faces.
>
> Frankly, just as you seem to find my comments disingenuous, I find the way
> you generally respond to people also disingenuous, mostly combative.
> Presumably you are interested in spirituality. Who or what is being
> 'insulted'? It is just that inbred pest called the ego. The ego always has an
> axe to grind and swing. The ego thinks it is a 'person', that it has rights,
> this is our biggest problem in spirituality. It is more of a process than a
> thing, it is not an entity. If a person's identity is pure consciousness,
> there is no one to be insulted. I am not saying I cannot take offense or be
> annoyed etc., but those who repeated take offense at what the world throws at
> them are spiritual cretins, and I hope you are not one of those, but to me
> you do not speak like a person who is interested in the spiritual nature of
> life, and yet, you are apparently reading about it a lot, and in various
> kinds of discussions, but I simply do not see much spiritual depth in what
> you say (but it is a relief that you are not constantly saying what a great
> life you are leading and how many famous people have crossed your path).
>
> Your method of argumentation does not build, it takes down, much in the same
> way Barry's comments in reference to you are a take down. You two are a
> strange marriage made in heaven. I say heaven because if heaven makes people
> such snipers, it is certainly not such a great place to be.
>
> From my perspective, you basically engage in the same tactics as those you
> oppose. You shift context under the pretense of maintaining context; you snip
> relevant parts of arguments declaring them to be irrelevant. That is how it
> appears to me. Maybe you do not experience that you are doing these things at
> all. When I shift context, it is more inadvertent, because I really do not
> care that much about narrowly defined context. You might try spreading you
> wings and go off on tangents once in a while to see what comes up. I find it
> interesting to watch moths in flight - they never go in a straight line, in a
> world of predators, they deviate from directness. So it is on this thing we
> call the Internet, where trolls lie in wait.
>
> I am here being critical of you, whatever that 'you' is for you. If you would
> only apply your skills in a more uplifting way, and not be so critical of
> people's ineptness, minor mistakes, their opacity, and have if you had a more
> relaxed agenda, you would be a brilliant poster here, but for now, I think
> you use your skills in a rather dark way, so that brilliance has a tarnish to
> it. Your argument style has a strong polemical element, which is better
> suited to the political arena, where lairs lie, than in forums discussing
> knowledge. It is only when you are kissing up to someone like Robin that you
> go a bit squishy. A certain softness is required when dealing with people
> except in extreme circumstances.
>
> Perhaps both are perspectives are distorted. What do others think of this
> exchange? We are not always the best judge of our own behaviour.
