All's Relatively Fair In Love & Debate

[sebbysteiny]

At the time, people went for AC ultimately because it was superior (more economical), not because of disdain for Edison's methods in regard to fairness. (I note neither man attempted to kill the other.)

 

So again, all is relatively fair in love and debate. It depends entirely on the circumstances.

 

I can't see how Thomas Edison's unfair debating tactics in a debate which he subsequently lost helps establish that such tactics are fair or useful.

 

Even if it is relevant, your assertion that the merits of the argument won the day cannot, both theoretically and in practice, be supported. How can one possbly know that people did not look at Edison's tactics with disdain and conclude that if he had to stoop to those lengths, his arguments must be faulty?

[Turtle]

I can't see how Thomas Edison's unfair debating tactics in a debate which he subsequently lost helps establish that such tactics are fair or useful.

 

Even if it is relevant, your assertion that the merits of the argument won the day cannot, both theoretically and in practice, be supported. How can one possbly know that people did not look at Edison's tactics with disdain and conclude that if he had to stoop to those lengths, his arguments must be faulty?

 

On the boldened: By examining the historical record. As my quote shows, the papers at least found the prisoner's electrocution 'awful', wheras I don't get the impression the electrocution of the animals was so decried. Therfore, the public electrocution of animals, which today would engender outrage, was relatively innocuous at the time. Again, it is relative.

 

The key modifier in my claim is 'relatively' in regards to fair. The judgement of fairness is entirely relative to the circumstances in which occurs. There is always the ideal, and the real. :thumbs_do

[sebbysteiny]

How can one possbly know that people did not look at Edison's tactics with disdain and conclude that if he had to stoop to those lengths, his arguments must be faulty?

 

By examining the historical record. As my quote shows, the papers at least found the prisoner's electrocution 'awful'

 

I know when I read a newspaper, my mind often thinks in a completely different way to what I read. At no point is my mind directed like a zombie to the whole argument. I skim for useful stuff and ignore the rubbish. And if I find myself having to swallow too much garbage to agree with some of the main thrusts of the argument, it switches me to the other side altogether.

 

I think everybody else does the same thing.

 

So you can show that, immediately after the event, newspapers printed opinions about the barbarity of electricution. But that does not mean people did not look at those opinions and go 'well if people need to swallow that crappy debating slight of hand to support DC, I will support AC'.

[Turtle]

I know when I read a newspaper, my mind often thinks in a completely different way to what I read. At no point is my mind directed like a zombie to the whole argument. I skim for useful stuff and ignore the rubbish. And if I find myself having to swallow too much garbage to agree with some of the main thrusts of the argument, it switches me to the other side altogether.

 

I think everybody else does the same thing.

 

So you can show that, immediately after the event, newspapers printed opinions about the barbarity of electricution. But that does not mean people did not look at those opinions and go 'well if people need to swallow that crappy debating slight of hand to support DC, I will support AC'.

 

I think we have drifted a bit, but it's only fair that I respond. It may also be the case that people of Tesla's time read papers differently than we, both in a cultural sense as well as the physical layout, word count, etc..

 

My anecdotal introduction of the story came from a biography of Tesla,

Tesla: Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/044039077X/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-0410651-9518848#reader-link. As I no longer have that volume, I searched out the link I posted.

So, to show all you say I think is a matter of a deep and rigorous investigation which focuses on rooting out just what people thought. Newspapers, letters, diaries, drawings, photgraphs, bills of lading, etc., all read with an eye to finding evidence of what people thought about Edison electrocuting domestic animals in public to scare them and ruin Tesla's business.

The article is interesting too in that I don't recall reading before that Edison stole the AC generators. But his misdeeds don't matter to us one whit because he's the great guy that gave us the lightbulb, the phonograph, & the movie. Ideally, he would have played fair; really he did not. :naughty:

[IDMclean]

I would like proof that Edison is solely responsible for those things.

 

It matters to me that he was a a shrewd business man and little else.

 

I remember the people for what they did. Edison did not invent the things that he sold. The light bulb was not his idea. What he did was made the light bulb economicly fesible.

 

Tesla on the other hand did invent much of what he is credited for, and perhaps some that he not credited for. In a comparision, Tesla clearly beats Edison out in the personal respect. Tesla was not only a far superior inventor, and engineer, but he was also far more resourceful than Edison.

 

Edison needed teams of engineers for what Tesla did by himself. Not to say Tesla was a one man wonder army, but that Tesla was the greater scientific, and engineering mind.

 

Edison is a leech for people like Tesla. Taking credit where credit is not due.

 

Tesla, inventor of the 20th century. Edison, that SOB that made a better lightbulb.

[Turtle]

I would like proof that Edison is solely responsible for those things.

 

I have only evidence. If you want proof, then you must gather more evidence as I just described. Ooooo....I just got an idea! :naughty: :phones: :eek: This is what you can put on your sandwich board as justification for bumming;

 

Researching Edison's Cruelty To Animals

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif

[hallenrm]

Edison is not the only example, It is claimed that even the reverred Einstein and Newton used unfair means.

 

See for example the following links:

 

http://www.11picsoftime.com/press_release_new_book_release.htm

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~wwwgrnsl/abstracts/arecc951020.html

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2003/09/18/stories/2003091800260100.htm :naughty:

[sebbysteiny]

What is the similarity between a line that travells perpendicular to the circumference of a circle, and the debate in the last few posts?

 

Answer: They are both perfect tangents.

 

The reputation of Edison is irrelivent to this debate about the fairness or utility of unfair debating tactics.

 

Even if the innitial premise, ie Edison once used an unfair debating tactic with great effect, is true, it does not prove that such tactics are moral, or even in general effective. The logical fallacy of 'Hasty generalisiation' comes to mind.

 

I will accept that there are unfair debating tactics that have been used with success at some points in history and even in modern politics. But I say that there are equally numerous examples of such tactics backfiring. Thus such tactics can be a liability as easily as they can be an asset.

 

The relevance of this point is that if you cannot establish that unfair debating tactics work, then one cannot justify their use at all.

 

But if you can justify their use, you still have that little question about whether they are morally acceptable.

 

It is that latter question that I will deal with now.

 

I am going to steal Kriminal99's methodology at attacking your thesis. Simply because Kriminal99 was not able to provide the fatal blow does not mean that his methodology could not amount to fatal blow.

 

1) establish the purpose of debate.

2) Show unfair debating tactics are inconsistant with the purpose of debate.

 

1) Kriminal99 has done all the work. QP for him. I'm going to widen the definition of the purpose of debate to a general description that applies to all debate, political and non-political.

 

a) To replace violence as a means for distributiong power.

:) To reach an understanding between different groups and people for the benefit of a common cause.

 

At first, I thought that unfair debating tactics would not affect a) as violence is still not used. However, as with most good ideas, I came up with a counter whilst I was doing a poo.

 

If the side that uses the unfair debating tactics (the cheating side) misrepresents the cheated sides viewpoint, and it becomes clear to the cheated side that they have not been given a fair hearing, they might lose confidence that debate can help them. This may encourage them into passioned protests which may become violent.

 

So depriving a community of a fair hearing could lead to violent confrontations thus undermining the purpose of the debate.

 

But this probably only applies to a few unfair debating tactics and the rest may not be a problem including all those tactics that are effective in the cheated side. Nevertheless, a clear limit about what is 'relatively fair in Love & Debate' has been found.

 

I think this suggests your thesis that 'ALL is fair' is wrong. An ammendment to 'MOST is fair' may be required for your thesis to be sustainable in my view.

 

So using purpose a) has given your thesis a flesh wound. Can B) give your thesis a knock out blow?

 

The questions here are, does unfair debating tactics prevent an understanding being reached? And would the unfairness of any understanding reached (assuming the tactics are effective) be morally reprehensable? Any yes that can be applied to all unfair debating tactics would amount to a critical blow to your thesis in my view.

 

I'll deal with these last two issues in another post.

[Turtle]

What is the similarity between a line that travells perpendicular to the circumference of a circle, and the debate in the last few posts?

 

Answer: They are both perfect tangents.

I love perfection. :evil:

 

I will accept that there are unfair debating tactics that have been used with success at some points in history and even in modern politics. But I say that there are equally numerous examples of such tactics backfiring. Thus such tactics can be a liability as easily as they can be an asset.

I completely and utterly (and positively) agree. Again, I can not emphasize enough the importance of the word 'relative' in my premise that "all is relative in love and debate."

 

I think this suggests your thesis that 'ALL is fair' is wrong. An ammendment to 'MOST is fair' may be required for your thesis to be sustainable in my view.

See above; relative encompases 'most'.

 

The questions here are, does unfair debating tactics prevent an understanding being reached?

No; they may even improve understanding.

 

And would the unfairness of any understanding reached (assuming the tactics are effective) be morally reprehensable?

This is determined relative to specific cases, which is why I employed Edison so perfectly.

Any yes that can be applied to all unfair debating tactics would amount to a critical blow to your thesis in my view.

Yes's may apply only to some unfair tactics, again because the fairness is relative per my premise. Physician (metaphysician?) heal thyself. :eek:

[sebbysteiny]

I can not emphasize enough the importance of the word 'relative' in my premise that "all is relative in love and debate."

 

I was going to wait until tomorrow, but I'll quickly deal with this cos I'm THAT nice.

 

Your attempting verble gynastics here. In the legal world, what you have put is a general disclaimer. However general disclaimers are never general enough to disclaim everything.

 

So what have you written?

 

All is RELATIVELY fair in love and debate.

 

What have you not written?

 

'Relatively all is fair in love and debate', nor have you writen 'relatively all is relatively fair in relative love and relative debate'. etc.

 

So your 'relative' applies only to the fairness (ie the evenness of the playing field) regarding dishonest tactics. It does not apply to the word, 'all'. Thus the existance of any unfair debating tactics at all that is not 'relatively fair' will require you to change your thesis.

 

You got a flesh wound. Be a big man and admit it. You can change the thesis to 'relatively all is relatively fair ....' or 'most is relatively fair', but I'm beginning to think that the original wording 'all is relatively fair' is untenable.

 

By all means, though, you are welcome to try :evil:.

[Turtle]

You got a flesh wound. Be a big man and admit it. You can change the thesis to 'relatively all is relatively fair ....' or 'most is relatively fair', but I'm beginning to think that the original wording 'all is relatively fair' is untenable.

 

By all means, though, you are welcome to try :).

 

Fortunately I have a med kit as part of my disaster preparedness kit. :hihi: I'm doing a closer self-check for wounds, but a cursory inspection reveals no arterial bleeding. Nothing that a thourough scrubbing, some antibiotic, and a gauze compress won't fix. :D At least I have you thinking about the original wording, which is, after all, my intention. Follow your heart, but lead with your gut. :cup:

[Kriminal99]

No it is not 'rather' (a 'relative' term) obvious. Not in general and cetrtainly not specifically in relation to this thread as evidenced by those who support the connection in their posts.

 

[ It is a disturbing contradiction that you contest the connection between debate and battle and yet consistanly introduce violent imagery. Not all debates arise to prevent violence, e.g. debating the best materials for a construction project.

 

An unsupported gross generalisation.

 

Your summary is nothing more than an opinion; moreover, lying is only one of many subversive debate tactics.

 

War consists of nations attempting to destroy each other, debate of people discussing an issue. That they are two different things is obvious...

 

Rather the burden of proof that any connection can be made between these two physically different occurences lies on anyone claiming that there is one.

 

The potential for violence does not arise from the subject of the debate, but rather from the fact that there is a disagreement. If we are debating the construction materials to be used for the housing of some relatives for mine, and you believe the risk is minimal in using lower cost materials and I do not what can result? Either one side must convince the other side of their viewpoint (or at least that time is limited and a decision must be made), or one side uses force to put their own ideas into action ignoring the opponent.

 

It doesn't matter whether that force is violence or deception or anything else, they are all the same in the respect that they are a form of force. If we are coworkers and you lie to the boss about something to make him choose your materials, then two negative things have happened.

 

1) The boss did not have the correct information with which to make an informed decision and people may suffer as a result. He may/should resent this when it is discovered.

 

2) I have been angered, such that I may inflict this anger in others such that violence may ultimately be caused. (I go home and yell at my wife, my son grows up with hatred in his heart and becomes a criminal)

 

Simply put all use of force to overcome opposing beliefs ultimately culminates in violence. Any time someone uses "any tactic necessary to win" the end result is violence because violence is the ultimate "any tactic".

 

The only way to avoid violence is to be completely open minded to your opponents beliefs and avoid all tactics which prevent honest agreement from being reached.

 

It is not a contradiction at all but rather the means by which the two should be differentiated. Debate should be free of violence AND deception, whereas battle contains much of both.

[Turtle]

War consists of nations attempting to destroy each other, debate of people discussing an issue. That they are two different things is obvious...

.

.

.

It is not a contradiction at all but rather the means by which the two should be differentiated. Debate should be free of violence AND deception, whereas battle contains much of both.

 

The evidence I offer in counter to this is SunTzu's Art of War, as well as an example of battle tactics not deceptive nor coming to violence.

 

To the latter, Ghengis Kahn relied on his ruthless reputation to precede him and beating drums from afar as he approached a town he meant to take, he sent an onvoy ahead to give them the opportunity to submit without battle. Some accepted, others not, and for those that accepted it was because if they wanted to live it was the right logical choice.

 

Now a bit to Sun Tzu. For him, the ultimate victory is out-maneuvering the opponent without destroying either property or lives.

Sonshi.com's Original Sun Tzu The Art of War Translation

 

I am reminded of my father saying 'a person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.' :hihi:

[sebbysteiny]

Kriminal99, you might like to check out my thread 'the Art of Pursuasion 2', mainly Post 2, which I shall make tomorrow.

 

Much of the claims you make are bold beyond belief and do not follow logically or emotionally from any acceptable premise. A reader would be so overwhelmed with points to argue that your main thesis may be missed entirely.

 

The only way to avoid violence is to be completely open minded to your opponents beliefs

 

Common Kriminal, how are we supposed to accept that as a solid premise? There are 101 different ways of neither being completely open nor resorting to violence.

 

If we are coworkers and you lie to the boss about something to make him choose your materials, then two negative things have happened.

 

1) The boss did not have the correct information with which to make an informed decision and people may suffer as a result. He may/should resent this when it is discovered.

 

2) I have been angered, such that I may inflict this anger in others such that violence may ultimately be caused. (I go home and yell at my wife, my son grows up with hatred in his heart and becomes a criminal)

 

So according to you, lieing to the boss once will cause a son to grow up with hatred and become a criminal.

 

It's crazy.

 

I'm sure you have some point in there but it is too riddled with sloppy and unnecessarily bold claims to find. And believe me, I tried.

 

It is not a contradiction at all but rather the means by which the two should be differentiated. Debate should be free of violence AND deception, whereas battle contains much of both.

 

And isn't this your entire thesis of your post? You can't just tell us to accept it. You must establish it because alone, it sounds very dodgy. Why in the hell should debate be free of deception?

 

Oh, I've reread and I can see that you have used some incredibly dodgy claims to establish this. Unfortunately because very few will accept those claims, most people must swallow the thesis whole from the very beginning to agree with you and there is no easy way of doing so.

 

Perhaps it's late or something because I've seen you make some great posts much stronger than this one hence the number of QPs I've given you.

[Kriminal99]

The evidence I offer in counter to this is SunTzu's Art of War, as well as an example of battle tactics not deceptive nor coming to violence.

 

To the latter, Ghengis Kahn relied on his ruthless reputation to precede him and beating drums from afar as he approached a town he meant to take, he sent an onvoy ahead to give them the opportunity to submit without battle. Some accepted, others not, and for those that accepted it was because if they wanted to live it was the right logical choice.

 

Now a bit to Sun Tzu. For him, the ultimate victory is out-maneuvering the opponent without destroying either property or lives.

Sonshi.com's Original Sun Tzu The Art of War Translation

 

I am reminded of my father saying 'a person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.' :cup:

 

 

Im not sure I understand what you are saying turtle... Genghis Kahn was a scumbag. Any such agreement people came to with him was dependent not on the understanding of mutual threat of damage between 2 parties with potentially infinite power, but rather solely on the threat of destruction at the hands of his armies.

 

Some might agree because they value their lives less than freedom (an abstract concept no doubt, but giving your daughters to genghis' armies is not it) but even for those that did sooner or later oppression will be retailiated against and stopped. The size of genghis armies doesn't really matter, because he could be assassinated or guerilla tactics could be used.

In the grand scheme of things, all intelligent beings have potentially infinite and equal power due to ingenuity.

 

Lack of violence or deception aren't the only issues that make debate different, remember I connected the two by saying that they are 2 forms of arbitrary force that are used to alter other people's behavior. Putting a gun to someone's head but not actually pulling the trigger is just another form of such force.

[Kriminal99]

Kriminal99, you might like to check out my thread 'the Art of Pursuasion 2', mainly Post 2, which I shall make tomorrow.

 

Much of the claims you make are bold beyond belief and do not follow logically or emotionally from any acceptable premise. A reader would be so overwhelmed with points to argue that your main thesis may be missed entirely.

 

Common Kriminal, how are we supposed to accept that as a solid premise? There are 101 different ways of neither being completely open nor resorting to violence.

 

So according to you, lieing to the boss once will cause a son to grow up with hatred and become a criminal.

 

It's crazy.

 

I'm sure you have some point in there but it is too riddled with sloppy and unnecessarily bold claims to find. And believe me, I tried.

 

And isn't this your entire thesis of your post? You can't just tell us to accept it. You must establish it because alone, it sounds very dodgy. Why in the hell should debate be free of deception?

 

Oh, I've reread and I can see that you have used some incredibly dodgy claims to establish this. Unfortunately because very few will accept those claims, most people must swallow the thesis whole from the very beginning to agree with you and there is no easy way of doing so.

 

Perhaps it's late or something because I've seen you make some great posts much stronger than this one hence the number of QPs I've given you.

 

Violence of spirit

 

My claims are not to be taken out of the context of the arguments they inhabit, your typical behavior of isolating anything you think you can dispute and immediately responding rather than gaining an overall understanding of what your opponent is saying serves no purpose.

 

The line about being open minded or causing violence is not referring to immediate violence as was established elsewhere in the post. Rather it refers to the fact that any time you use some form of arbitrary force to overcome opposing beliefs that you cause anger in your opponents that will eventually manifest itself. Even if they don't fight you right away you will have pissed them off.

 

Butterfly effect

 

Rarely will it only be the person (or people) who's beliefs you used force to overcome that suffer from your actions. Of course they are going to act differently towards others because of this anger. If all the dishonest debate tactics and lying were removed from the world, perhaps criminal activity would be drastically reduced.

 

Deception and violence free debate take 100000

 

I have argued for this many times already, but to say it again with the least amount of repeated effort:

 

When someone wants something that others do not want, there are 2 ways to achieve that goal.

 

A) Force the person to give it to you

 

:cup: Convince the person that giving it to you is beneficial to them as well

 

Alternatively you can

 

C) Realize it is a selfish desire and abandon it

 

Debate is about :confused:

 

Violence is about A)

Deception is about A)

 

A is the default that results in suffering on all sides as a constant power struggle ensues, B results in prosperity on all sides.

 

There is no trying B and then failing. If this occurs, one side is not trying or is refusing to do C) when their desire truly is selfish.

[sebbysteiny]

The line about being open minded or causing violence is not referring to immediate violence as was established elsewhere in the post. Rather it refers to the fact that any time you use some form of arbitrary force to overcome opposing beliefs that you cause anger in your opponents that will eventually manifest itself. Even if they don't fight you right away you will have pissed them off.

 

That's already much better. I'm glad you had a good sleep :cup:.

 

So for your argument to work, you must estabish an equivilence of unfair debating tactics and 'arbitrary force' [probably not your greatest hurdle as I'm sure you will do that by defining the latter to include the former]. Then you must show a link between 'arbitrary force' and anger, and then from anger to violence. Both of those are no mean feat.

 

When one get swindled out of an argument, the way I see it, one gets slightly irritated for a few minutes and then one completely forgets about it.

 

One learns for next time and defends against it.

 

And I have been angry with people but I don't hit them. Either I resolve the problem or I stop seeing and communicating with them.

 

If anybody 1) gets angry and 2) becomes violent once angry, then the fault is not with the debating tactic, it's with the psycho who's emotional state can't cope with every day life.

 

I think your argument should drop this concept of an 'arbitrary force' and stick with 'unfair debating tactics'. It's not necessary. It's meaning might be ambiguous leaving your argument wide open to accusations of the equivocation logical fallacy.