I agree that some part of the negative response to brazil is his reliance on Dark Arts persuasion techniques.
But I think the bigger part of the negative response is his refusal to lay out and defend what he actually thinks. It has become quite aggravating.
In law, it is always possible to create a coherent counter-argument by changing the method of analysis. Appealing to the purpose of a rule can easily lead to a more favorable result. If not, then the literal text may be more favorable. Etc. But law is seldom concerned with your true rejection because it is generally quite obvious (i.e. “I don’t want to comply with that regulation” or “I don’t want to go to prison”).
But we genuinely want to reach better understanding, so generating coherent counter-arguments to our points gets really annoying when the speaker doesn’t actually believe the counter-argument. If brazil had a theory and presented it coherently, he would not give the impression that he was trying to yank our chains.
I agree that some part of the negative response to brazil is his reliance on Dark Arts persuasion techniques.
But I think the bigger part of the negative response is his refusal to lay out and defend what he actually thinks. It has become quite aggravating.
I agree that it’s aggravating, and I called him out on it earlier myself, but I think it’s also a rhetorical technique. By not saying what he thinks straight out, and continually asking more questions, brazil can wait for his interlocutor to produce an answer he can hold up as damning and use that as an excuse to dismiss their whole case. It’s a good way to convince a jury to discount someone’s testimony, but very bad for resolving questions of evidence.
I agree that some part of the negative response to brazil is his reliance on Dark Arts persuasion techniques.
But I think the bigger part of the negative response is his refusal to lay out and defend what he actually thinks. It has become quite aggravating.
In law, it is always possible to create a coherent counter-argument by changing the method of analysis. Appealing to the purpose of a rule can easily lead to a more favorable result. If not, then the literal text may be more favorable. Etc. But law is seldom concerned with your true rejection because it is generally quite obvious (i.e. “I don’t want to comply with that regulation” or “I don’t want to go to prison”).
But we genuinely want to reach better understanding, so generating coherent counter-arguments to our points gets really annoying when the speaker doesn’t actually believe the counter-argument. If brazil had a theory and presented it coherently, he would not give the impression that he was trying to yank our chains.
I agree that it’s aggravating, and I called him out on it earlier myself, but I think it’s also a rhetorical technique. By not saying what he thinks straight out, and continually asking more questions, brazil can wait for his interlocutor to produce an answer he can hold up as damning and use that as an excuse to dismiss their whole case. It’s a good way to convince a jury to discount someone’s testimony, but very bad for resolving questions of evidence.