I was sarcastic, but you were sarcastic first. At least my comment had ideas within it, yours was a contradiction that didn’t supply any helpful information to anyone. It was just mean.
I think you’re overreacting to common_law’s choice of language. OP will speak for themself if they felt offended or domineered, I’m sure.
The reason to avoid arguing with hostile arguers is not that it is impossible to learn anything from such people (although the expected information value is likely to be low). It is because doing so is dangerous or costly on a psychological, physical or economic level.
I disagree with you about expected information value. Intelligent people are often irrational, I’d even say the majority of intelligent people are irrational. There are plenty of dumb irrational people as well, but it’d be quite uncharitable to assume that arguments with them are what’s being defended.
I also disagree that arguments with irrational people are dangerous, psychologically or physically costly, or economically expensive. Why do you think that this is true?
I think that even arguments had in person don’t typically end in violence, and that arguments online practically never do.
I don’t see how arguments generally cost anyone money either, except in the same opportunity cost sense that anything does—but people aren’t optimal utilitarians, so this is a pretty lame criticism.
I agree that arguing with irrational people can be psychologically unhealthy, but don’t see any reason to think that’s the case in the majority of situations.
There are imaginable arguments with irrational people that would end in violence, loss of money, or loss of sanity, sure. But obviously those aren’t common consequences.
Of course if you enjoy arguing with hostile people or think it is potentially useful practice then go ahead. In much the same way if you think getting into physical fights will teach you self defence skills then go ahead and insult drunk guys at the bar till they take a swing at you.
Nobody here is advocating intentionally getting embroiled in all imaginable possible arguments, that would indeed be a terrible idea. It’s assumed that discrimination is still applied when deciding whether or not to enter a conversation. Your analogy is very biased because it overlooks this. Your above arguments have the same flaw. You’ve evaluating common_law’s idea by pretending the idea would be implemented by someone without any judgement whatsoever, which is unfair.
I was not sarcastic. I was entirely straightforward and sincere.
I am afraid your conversation practices make me unable to engage with you further (unless, obviously, I perceive others to be negatively impacted by your words.)
I was not sarcastic. I was entirely straightforward and sincere.
You were straightforward in the most mocking and least helpful way possible, maybe.
Earlier, you claimed your intention was to lend moral support to the OP against common_law’s rudeness. But now, you are claiming sincerity and straightforwardness in your reply to common law that simply contradicted what he said. Those things don’t fit together. People who are being straightforward don’t make sincere comments to one person for the purpose of communicating something else to another. Nor do they make assertions without providing explanations for their reasoning process. Being vague and ambiguous about your ideas is the opposite of being straightforward, actually. A straightforward approach would have been to say that you thought his choice of language was inappropriate, or for you to advance right away the arguments against his view that you ended up making later on. Snarkiness is not sincerity, equivocation is not straightforwardness.
I am afraid your conversation practices make me unable to engage with you further
You were willing to engage with me after I said something “inexcusably obnoxious” and sarcastic, but you draw the line at a well reasoned collection of counterarguments? Pull the other one.
You were willing to engage with me after I said something “inexcusably obnoxious” and sarcastic, but you draw the line at a well reasoned collection of counterarguments? Pull the other one.
For those curious, I stopped engaging after the secondoffense—the words you wrote after what I quoted may be reasonable but I did not and will not read them. This is has been my consistent policy for the last year and my life has been better for it. I recommend it for all those who, like myself, find the temptation to engage in toxic internet argument hard to resist.
It works even better in forums that do not lack the block feature. I was unable to avoid peripheral exposure to the parent comment when I was drawn to the thread to thank Markus.
I was sarcastic, but you were sarcastic first. At least my comment had ideas within it, yours was a contradiction that didn’t supply any helpful information to anyone. It was just mean.
I think you’re overreacting to common_law’s choice of language. OP will speak for themself if they felt offended or domineered, I’m sure.
I disagree with you about expected information value. Intelligent people are often irrational, I’d even say the majority of intelligent people are irrational. There are plenty of dumb irrational people as well, but it’d be quite uncharitable to assume that arguments with them are what’s being defended.
I also disagree that arguments with irrational people are dangerous, psychologically or physically costly, or economically expensive. Why do you think that this is true?
I think that even arguments had in person don’t typically end in violence, and that arguments online practically never do.
I don’t see how arguments generally cost anyone money either, except in the same opportunity cost sense that anything does—but people aren’t optimal utilitarians, so this is a pretty lame criticism.
I agree that arguing with irrational people can be psychologically unhealthy, but don’t see any reason to think that’s the case in the majority of situations.
There are imaginable arguments with irrational people that would end in violence, loss of money, or loss of sanity, sure. But obviously those aren’t common consequences.
Nobody here is advocating intentionally getting embroiled in all imaginable possible arguments, that would indeed be a terrible idea. It’s assumed that discrimination is still applied when deciding whether or not to enter a conversation. Your analogy is very biased because it overlooks this. Your above arguments have the same flaw. You’ve evaluating common_law’s idea by pretending the idea would be implemented by someone without any judgement whatsoever, which is unfair.
I was not sarcastic. I was entirely straightforward and sincere.
I am afraid your conversation practices make me unable to engage with you further (unless, obviously, I perceive others to be negatively impacted by your words.)
You were straightforward in the most mocking and least helpful way possible, maybe.
Earlier, you claimed your intention was to lend moral support to the OP against common_law’s rudeness. But now, you are claiming sincerity and straightforwardness in your reply to common law that simply contradicted what he said. Those things don’t fit together. People who are being straightforward don’t make sincere comments to one person for the purpose of communicating something else to another. Nor do they make assertions without providing explanations for their reasoning process. Being vague and ambiguous about your ideas is the opposite of being straightforward, actually. A straightforward approach would have been to say that you thought his choice of language was inappropriate, or for you to advance right away the arguments against his view that you ended up making later on. Snarkiness is not sincerity, equivocation is not straightforwardness.
You were willing to engage with me after I said something “inexcusably obnoxious” and sarcastic, but you draw the line at a well reasoned collection of counterarguments? Pull the other one.
For those curious, I stopped engaging after the second offense—the words you wrote after what I quoted may be reasonable but I did not and will not read them. This is has been my consistent policy for the last year and my life has been better for it. I recommend it for all those who, like myself, find the temptation to engage in toxic internet argument hard to resist.
It works even better in forums that do not lack the block feature. I was unable to avoid peripheral exposure to the parent comment when I was drawn to the thread to thank Markus.