All's Relatively Fair In Love & Debate

[Kriminal99]

He is 100% justified in retaliating against the use of arbitrary force to overcome his potentially superior beliefs with a greater use of arbitrary force. This does not make him a psycho. If this is traded back and forth, violence is where it end because violence is the ultimate use of force.

 

Also, to call it "being swindled out of an argument" seems to imply that we are not talking about the same thing. If someone just disagrees with you, it doesn't matter. Only when they exert force overy you in accordance with the beliefs that you do not agree with does it matter. If someone steals your countries oil and gives you food for less than the oil is worth, or if someone steals a girl you like by telling her you have genital herpies when you do not, or something like that you are not going to just forget about it so easily because it is something that you have lost.

 

By the way, last time you threw a tantrum when I implied that a single person's lack of understanding of the usefulness of philosophy was not particular signifigant to philosophy's actual usefulness in the real world. When I argue, I do so with an underlying assumption of humility. I don't have to state it constantly, but if I acted as you do then it would be in contradiction with this. You talk about what I must established as if you knew that I handn't already done so. You talk about how well I have communicated as if you knew that it wasn't you who was bad as understanding other people's point of view (something I was arguing philosophy helps a person do better ironically) It has been my experience that you and others like you can read over the same argument 10 times, and only the tenth time recognize it's signifigance because that time you just happened to think about it instead of concentrating on what you could dispute out of its context.

 

I don't have a problem with your frequent suggestion of models of how to prove a claim, in fact I think that sometimes they are useful. But other times I do not, and you do not treat them as a suggestion or a proposal but rather fact.

[sebbysteiny]

It has been my experience that you and others like you can read over the same argument 10 times, and only the tenth time recognize it's signifigance because that time you just happened to think about it instead of concentrating on what you could dispute out of its context.

 

You are quite right of course and my reaction was based on what was an uncharacteristically bad post from you. Take it as a compliment that your usual standards are much higher.

 

My criticims were meant to be constructive. They were directed at the way you made your post, not it's content. When I get round to making 'post 3', of my 'Art of Pursuasion 2' thread, you will see why making sloppy claims is bad pursuasion when, with a bit of though, a much more solid claim can be used instead.

 

I notice there are 'others like me'. Whist I agree with your protests, and, in a perfect world, all but irrelivent sloppy conclusions SHOULD not affect the way the argument is percieved. But it really does. It's human nature.

 

The difference in IQ necessary to do the above is almost zero. The difference in pursasive power is an order of magnitude.

 

You talk about what I must established as if you knew that I handn't already done so.

I'm not assuming you have not done so. I'm trying to listen to your argument and repeat it so that, if I have misunderstood it, you can correct me. And it goes without saying that if you propose a link between, say, unfair debating tactics and 'anger', you must establish that link.

 

He is 100% justified in retaliating against the use of arbitrary force to overcome his potentially superior beliefs with a greater use of arbitrary force. This does not make him a psycho. If this is traded back and forth, violence is where it end because violence is the ultimate use of force.

 

This is where I feared you were heading. You have used your definition of 'arbitrary force' as an equivocation logical fallacy. Violence and pursuasion have a clear and absolutely uncrossable distinction. You cannot simply define yourself out of that distinction. Forceful pursasion and very forceful pursuasion can be linked, but an extreme of forceful pursasion is not violence.

[sebbysteiny]

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.

 

I agree with A, B, and C. But I disagree with the way you labelled them.

 

The use of force is A. The use of desception is could be A or B depending on who you have decieved (the majority or the people arguing).

 

Debate can also be A and B. Debate over constructing materials is B. Debate in the houses of Parliament is A. I very rarely see the democrats agree and support Republican policy in the senate despite the debate. The debate gets the majority and the party with the majority can then force itself on the minority. It is almost identical to war except with words instead of violence and with votes instead of armies.

[InfiniteNow]

This series of posts is not a discussion at all... I suggest you two continue your psuedo battle through PM and allow others to contribute and discuss the original thread intent here in the forums.

[sebbysteiny]

Allright turtle. No more first aid ammendments of your thesis. I'm going for the juggular. By the end of this post, I hope to see your thesis completely buried and dead.

 

The story so far

 

To disprove Turtle's thesis that 'all is relatively fair in love and debate', I need to show

 

1) the purpose of debate.

2) That all unfair debating tactics are incompatible with that purpose.

 

One purpose of debate is to reach an understanding.

 

To be incompatible with that purpose, a tactic needs to either a) prevent an understanding being reached, or B) result in an understanding that may be so unfair it is morally repugnant.

 

I don't think dishonest debating tactics prevent an understanding any more than being a conman prevents a sale. But, later, when the person has realised he has been conned, the contract can be voided.

 

In this way, if the unfair debating tactic consists of fraud rather than unfair pursasion, then, one discovered, the understanding would need to be re-debated. This could create bad blood, which in turn creates friction and mistrust which could serve as a barrier to any future understanding. Further, if the debate was about a project that was already partially complete, it could result in large economic losses.

So has the tactic hindered an understanding? Based on the above, it appears so.

But this only applies to fraudulent tactics rather than simply unfair ones (eg lying). This amounts to another flesh wound, but is enough for a juggular?

 

Hmm, this depends on what other types of debating tactics there are, but I don't know that. We have never actually defined what amounts to an unfair debating tactic and what does not.

 

Without knowing that, I'm not sure I can progress down avenue b either.

 

Turtle, you are saved yet again.

 

But you will have to explain what you think some people might say is not 'relatively fair'. I propose a list of all the unfair debating tactics that might be covered in your thesis.

 

We have lying / fraud.

What else is there?

[Kriminal99]

This is where I feared you were heading. You have used your definition of 'arbitrary force' as an equivocation logical fallacy. Violence and pursuasion have a clear and absolutely uncrossable distinction. You cannot simply define yourself out of that distinction. Forceful pursasion and very forceful pursuasion can be linked, but an extreme of forceful pursasion is not violence.

 

I have not equivocated violence and persuasion at all. Rather it is you that has attempted to equivocate dishonest debate tactics with persuasion. It is not persuasion at all, but rather deception which is a type of force that is used to make people give you things against their will.

 

And as for "forceful persuasion" I do not know what you speak of. If someone puts a gun to your head and makes you do something, you have not been convinced rather you have been forced. Of course some people (such as gangsters) refer to this as persuasion in an attempt to be humourus but this is not what is meant by convincing someone it is beneficial to them.

 

Persuasion occurs when both parties recognize the potentially infinite power of their opponents. If one side is allowed to exert power over another then everything collapses. If I can just take what I want from others I have no reason to be moral. All social arguments depend on the belief that people will not let you take advantage of them in such a manner.

 

Anotherwords forceful persuasion just results in power struggle which just results in violence. You might rob me of my money but then when you turn around I might stab you in the back...

[sebbysteiny]

Fair point Kriminal99. We have cross wired here.

 

By persuasion, I mean unfair pursasion tactics. These include lying or anything else that might be persceived as unfair. But this is only with words. Forceful pursasion would be, say, going on strike.

 

If someone puts a gun to your head, that is violence. If you feel in any way in physical danger, that is violence. That is the major dividing line between the two fundamentally different strategies of coersion.

[Turtle]

Im not sure I understand what you are saying turtle... Genghis Kahn was a scumbag.

 

This is a topic for debate all on its own; a subjective observation that is to say.

 

Allright turtle. No more first aid ammendments of your thesis. I'm going for the juggular. By the end of this post, I hope to see your thesis completely buried and dead.

 

The story so far

 

To disprove Turtle's thesis that 'all is relatively fair in love and debate', I need to show

 

1) the purpose of debate.

2) That all unfair debating tactics are incompatible with that purpose.

.

.

.

But this only applies to fraudulent tactics rather than simply unfair ones (eg lying). This amounts to another flesh wound, but is enough for a juggular?

 

Hmm, this depends on what other types of debating tactics there are, but I don't know that. We have never actually defined what amounts to an unfair debating tactic and what does not.

 

Without knowing that, I'm not sure I can progress down avenue b either.

 

Turtle, you are saved yet again.

 

But you will have to explain what you think some people might say is not 'relatively fair'. I propose a list of all the unfair debating tactics that might be covered in your thesis.

 

We have lying / fraud.

What else is there?

All there is now is a series of individual debates, each as to the merits of admittance of a particular tactic into the category of either fair or un-fair.

 

In the spirit of friendly competition, and the language of battle, I withdraw from the field. A draw by one other term is a tie, and I am the runner. B)

[sebbysteiny]

My question was simple. What is and is not considered an 'unfair debating tactic'. I can't think of any more than simply lying. If that's the case, then as we have already shown that fraudulent debating tactics are incompatible with the purpose of debate, your thesis is actually slain.

 

 

Thanks for graciously conceding defeat Turtle. It was big of you. :).

[Kriminal99]

It is odd that I hadn't thought to comment on this until now (since it is in the title), but I believe that dishonest tactics in love are just as immoral.

 

Frequently you see pathetic guys trying to straw man other guys or just outright lie about them in order to make themselves seem superior. This is immoral because it undermines the female's ability to understand their surroundings and decide what is best for them.

 

Turtle earlier expressed lack of understanding as to what this claim of immorality consists of. The idea is that the people who are primarily affected by the "immoral" action should forcibly stop the behavior. This means that the girl should be angry that she has been so decieved and punish the guy, and it means that the guy who was targeted should do something to stop the behavior as well. In practice the guy may not be able to confront such behavior (as it typicall occurs behind his back) so mostly the girl has to be the one to stand up and refuse to be treated in such a manner. Having the confidence to do so (especially against physically larger males) requires knowledge of exactly how it hurts them to be lied to.

 

As for third parties stepping in to stop the behavior, this would manifest itself as such behavior being seen as pathetic and people thinking less of someone who would behave in such a manner. Perhaps in some super society would there actually be laws against lying to assault someone else's character.

 

The number one obstacle that exists in reaching this enlightened society is educatign the weak link, the impressionable female, that enabling such behavior is detrimental to themselves and everyone else even if it seems like the best or easiest thing to do at the moment.

[InfiniteNow]

Morality really isn't relevant in long-term mating, as it's the successful solution that passes on the genes.

[Kriminal99]

Not really sure what you are attempting to claim, however the issue of morality is relevant to the quality of life of people already alive. It sounds like you are talking about unborn children which has nothing to do with morality in love as I was talking about...

 

For example, if I had a beautiful girlfriend whom had been locked in a basement her whole life and told there was nothing on the surface but radiation, and therefore she must remain in the basement with me and I was the only guy around etc that would be limiting her quality of life for my own benefit.

 

This example is meant to make it obvious why lying in affairs of love is immoral, but the same idea applies to any deceptive tactic used. For example if I like a girl and I am mature and experienced such that I could make her happier than another guy, but the other guy lied such as to make me appear less competitive, then she would live a less happy life because of the deception.

[sebbysteiny]

The idea is that the people who are primarily affected by the "immoral" action should forcibly stop the behavior. This means that the girl should be angry that she has been so decieved and punish the guy, and it means that the guy who was targeted should do something to stop the behavior as well.

 

What happens if the girl is happy to be deceived? You never know, she might actually LIKE the guy:eek:

 

This example is meant to make it obvious why lying in affairs of love is immoral

 

Can one not argue that the happiness caused to the 'mistress' might be greater than the sadness caused to the girlfriend? This might be especially true if the girlfriend never finds out :ebomb:. After all, there's only so much of us dashing blokes to go round. :love:

[sebbysteiny]

In the spirit of friendly competition, and the language of battle, I withdraw from the field. A draw by one other term is a tie, and I am the runner.

 

COME BACK YOU COWARD!!!!! :) There is still one more round left :)

[Kriminal99]

What happens if the girl is happy to be deceived? You never know, she might actually LIKE the guy:eek:

 

 

 

Can one not argue that the happiness caused to the 'mistress' might be greater than the sadness caused to the girlfriend? This might be especially true if the girlfriend never finds out :). After all, there's only so much of us dashing blokes to go round. :)

 

You are failing to seperate a guy giving a girl what she actually wants from deception. This seems to imply that a girl cannot be made happy without lying to her. Not only is that not the case, but it can be seen rather easily that the opposite is true. If the guy was lying to the girl to give her what she wanted, then why does he have to lie?

 

I think you misunderstood my post with regards to your second response. Affairs meant issues of love not a love affair. But anyways the whole "what you don't know can't hurt you" both goes against the whole "people are only competent judges of what makes themselves happy and therefore deception is wrong" argument and is furthermore untrue. You may not know that your husband cheated on you, but then wonder why your girlfriends are laughing at you behind your back.

[moo]

This seems to imply that a girl cannot be made happy without lying to her.

Well, the question "Does this make me look fat?" does come to mind...

 

Sorry K9, couldn't resist. :D

 

moo

[Turtle]

COME BACK YOU COWARD!!!!! :mad: There is still one more round left :xx:

 

Tee-hee.

bait - 2. An enticement; a temptation. or, 4. To attack or torment, especially with persistent insults, criticism, or ridicule.

 

In battle I think they call #2 a 'feigned retreat', and in debate they call #4 'namecalling'. We both have played well and fair. :D I'll go have a look-see whut Sun Tzu says about this.