I’ve seen this happen quite often on these forums. I think that more of us need to put more effort into avoiding personal insults during debates. I think that we should give an image of professionality. Only by these means will we actually persuade people with our arguments, I think. Otherwise, what’s the point of even posting?
If someone says something stupid, I see no problem in pointing out not only the stupidity of the claim, but of the lack of intellectual acumen it took to post the stupidity.
That being said: you need to have substance, too.
Totally agree. I think those who understand Austrian Economics and are passionate enough to care about spreading the word should use the best possible methods. Which means never insulting anyone, because they will just hit the remote and change channels.
If someone said to us “2+2=4, you retard,” what would we think of the person who said it, about the forum he posts on, and would it increase or decrease our love of math?
If I have to say 2+2=4 more than three times while my opponent continually asserts that I have yet to address the sum of 2 and 2, I have a divine, objective, natural, and moral right, to call him a retard.
See “Austrian and Keynesian Theories vs Mathematical Facts” or whatever that train wreck is called.
lol
If I have to say 2+2=4 more than three times while my opponent continually asserts that I have yet to address the sum of 2 and 2, I have a divine, objective, natural, and moral right, to call him a retard.
All very true, but there is a q to consider. Will that be slamming the door on ever educating him? Perhaps if he insist on his folly, polite silence may keep the doors open.
There is another point to consider as well. No matter how right a person is, people instinctively shy away from an insulter, no matter how much the insultee deserved it. In other words AE may be winning the battle of clever repartee, but losing the war by making people dislike the general atmosphere of the site.
Now I am not saying I have consistently followed my own excellent advice. Some people can really get under ones skin. But I think it’s the right poilicy, the goal to strive for.
Or maybe it will help keep the riff-raff out by showing that we have 0 tolerance for such nonsense.
I completely agree Jonathan. For example, I’ve always admired your complete politeness and equanimity. That said, I see no problem with penetratingly insightful “burns”.
I think we would do well to emulate our heroes like Bohm-Bawerk and Mises, who, while they were splendidly scathing with their intellectual “burns” of such charlatans as Marx and Keynes, never would have stooped to schoolyard insults, even in informal correspondence.
KOB, let me point out that Richard Dawkins generally uses the former approach, and his moving (and often scathing) eloquence has convinced a lot more people than, say, Tony Lawrence, the founder of BAAWA, has. In fact, I’d be surprised to hear that the “Bad-Ass-Atheists-with-an-Attitude” approach has changed the mind of anybody. I would venture that this is just as true with libertarianism as it is with atheism.
Yet their rivals are still more well known, maybe they would have gone further if they had a little more “oomph.” I’m sure Bawerk would be better remembered if his critique of Marx had the words “Hurensohn” and “Scheißekopf” cleverly placed. Especially after Marx’s lame reply.
Nah, this represents more of an internet badass
I’LL SHOW THAT NOOB!! >
I guess I believe in acting like an adult.
That assumes he is open to education.
The litmus test is intellectual honesty. You can usually tell pretty quickly if someone has it, and is open minded or not.
Assuming no one here grew up as an anarchist, every single one of has has previously held the illogical view that government is necessary. Every single one of us has at one point been just as stupid, if not more so, than current statists.
Now, how many of you were converted by someone accurately calling you a moron, and how many of you were converted by persuasive arguments presented in a mature fashion?
Rather, it’s just not assuming that he’s not.
Excellent point.
Except that isn’t what was being referred to.
When someone is intellectually dishonest and is not open to persuasion, then that person is a generally lost cause. They cannot be reasoned with, at that point in time. That doesn’t mean call them names or anything, which is a pointless endeavor. But it is useful to give no leniency to the troll, for lurkers and other readers can still be persuaded. As such the provocateur / troll can be used as a sounding board.
QFT (Again)
There is a clear distinction between petty condescension toward those who merely understand less than you at the present time and attacking those who are dangerous with a stubborn or negligent personality. It is entirely appropriate to insult the latter.
I don’t find Dawkins charming or clever.
Good point, and easy to forget. This forum is rather professional most of the time, and I think that’s very healthy and sends a good image.
I will actually go as far as to say that zings and burns (even accurate and non-insulting) are a turn-off when arguing on an individual basis for most people. However, since this is a public forum read by many, there is perhaps some room for that. Just realize it’s not very effective on the person you’re arguing against.
One thing is certain, most people hate to be told or even suggested that they’re wrong. Get the person’s ego involved and it’s a lost cause (for them, but maybe not for the gallery). They stop searching for truth and just get dogmatic and look for anything to prove you’re wrong or vindicate themselves, causing immense thread bloating - the evidence is strewn all over the forum here, every single day.