Arguments are always fun to dissect after the fact.
I've learned a few things about how people argue (especially on these comment wars).
The best thing you can do is lay out a really simple version of the opposing view before you start. One of my favorite blogs does this when they're writing something that's sort of controversial. They would write, "and before you start yelling that Santa doesn't exist, I've heard the argument before...but I think" So while the Santa doesn't exist argument might be a strong argument for some....they're now not allowed to bring it up because it's sort of already out there. If you do bring it up, you're met with "I know that, I just said that" It's amazing how well this works. It's almost as though this perfectly valid argument that could be fleshed out in a way that leaves very little room for debate, now doesn't even exist.
The other big one I've seen a lot (especially in politics) is to deflect the issue to ancillary issues. "I think it's silly for the government to pay for our TV" "so we shouldn't pay taxes?" "No, I just don't want them to go to another TV station" "and then not for schools, highways..." "no, I just don't want them to go to TV" "so we should pick and choose where our taxes go to" "no, we elect people to do that, I'm just saying that I wish they wouldn't send our money to TV." "So you think we should punch old ladies who aren't getting health care?" "No, I just think we probably have enough TV right now"
Here's the one that drives me up the wall because it's so silly: "well you're not a woman, so you can't speak to this issue" Really? "until you can have a baby, you shouldn't get a vote in this" This argument can be won by saying, "so if one girl on this planet agrees with me, then the argument is valid? I can probably find one....should I do that, or can we just discuss the issues?
John McEnroe once said that a woman shouldn't comment on men's professional tennis...Do you really think that's true? It's just silly.
"I've also seen the exasperated sigh followed by a quick head turn and storming out the room. It ends the discussion...so I guess there's always that.
There's the ever popular, "that's dumb, you're dumb!" argument. The, "you're just saying that because you heard/saw it on Fox news/NPR/talk radio/The New York Times"
Ultimately the way to win one of these is by crying. How ya gonna beat that one?
PS - do they tell baseball managers that it's more effective to put your nose 1 inch from the ump's nose when they're arguing? You'd think after 50 years or so they'd figure out that that never helps...nor does kicking dirt over the plate. Silly managers...
pretty lame
ReplyDeleteI just laughed out loud at the anonymous comment. At first I thought, what right does this person have to driveby insult, but then I was confused...
ReplyDeleteWhat is pretty lame? Is it pretty lame that this post is so relevant and true? Or is it pretty lame that anonymous doesn't have a blog of his/her own?
Yeah...
awesome
Do my comments come across as terse and argumentative. They aren't intended to. They would be hard to take seriously if I were standing in the room with everyone. Hmm. That is the curse of the 21st century. It's like we all communicate by telegraph.
ReplyDeleteI still see the point in arguing the root of a question. Lets say I pose the question; "Should my taxes go to the multi-million dollar construction of a bridge in Alaska that 100 people will cross in a year?" The obvious answer to most people would be, "No those 100 people should pay for it. Make it a toll bridge." Now this question has been raised by many people but that's just a specific example of a seeming misuse of appropriation of tax money.
For starters, it's too simple of a question. That would be like me asking the thousands of people who read this blog who have no idea who I am if I look good in blue (believe you me I do). Some illogical people would immediately say "No blue is an ugly color!". But the logical response would be I don't know, do you have blue eyes? Are you cut like marine? Is you skin so white that it's transparent? Do you have black hair? Are you available this Saturday? You know that kind of thing.
So the follow up would be. Will more than a hundred people cross this bridge next year? Will this bridge facilitate the poplulation of this particular area of Alaska and bolster the economy of the state and logically the country? Will it be part of a national park? Is this a bridge to an oil field that an oil company was going to have to build anyway so they lobbied congress to have the state representative throw it on the end of a bill called "The Children Are Beautiful Bill" so that they won't have to shell out the millions of dollars it will take to build it for their construction equipment? Those are pertinant questions.
Some people would find out it's a bridge for oil company trucks that should have been built by the oil company (a private, not public company) and say "Yes my tax dollars should go to that because I think it will bring down the price of gas for all Americans and is for the common good." Others will of course say "No they are a private company if we are going to give them tax money then we should have a stake in that company". Still others will say, "I dont pay taxes because the blood of the innocent is on the hands or our government so I don't care about your bridge to nowhere. I don't own a car and I live in a tree! I do miss toilet paper though."
In the end the root of the question for the sake of discussion on a blog forum really is "what should tax money be used to pay for, who decides that and how do we arrive at the value of something that the government funds and decide how much if any goes to that particular thing."
I assume when you pose funny one-liner questions Sean you are trying to ellicit this kind of dialoque from people and you don't want them to just say "Yes" or "No". Otherwise it would be just like conducting a poll and we know that polls are for weekends, not to mention boring.
Speaking of weekends, I hear you are speaking this weekend. Oh imagine the times we will have in the green room playing cheerios golf.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteI think you're incredibly attractive in blue.
and if you don't bring a cheerios inflatable ball to the plum room, I'm punching you in the throat right before you get on stage.
I'm not speaking...they won't let me near the place...I'm just the guy they stick in skits and say, "Make 'em laugh monkey boy"
soon I'm hoping they make you the monkey boy.
I like your question - and I would argue for an elected official deciding where the taxes go...and hopefully he won't be a fan of paying for tv channels...or bumper stickers (but this one is really good) or a touring sketch comedy show starring A. Whitney Brown, Christopher Guest, Steve Carell and Amy Poehler (although that'd be awesome...I'll support that by buying a ticket)
Ironically I usually punch myself in the throat as kind of a psyche-up before I go out and really tear things up.
ReplyDeleteAh hah! So after three days of discussion we have arrived at an agreement. Yes. I look great in blue!... oh and we agree that we elect officials to make those decisions and we choose where our tax dollars go with our vote and not a one page checklist with our tax forms.
p.s.- Finally, something I'm qualified for; Monkey Boy. Let me whip together my resume. That should take a while so I will stop dominating the discussion on the Sean blog. I'm surprised you don't have any bites on the obvious abortion issue reference? Come on people! What? Do you have jobs or something?
give me an "A"!
ReplyDeletegive me a "B"!
give me an "O"!
give me an "R"!
give me an "oh my god this is going no where good...."
i like tv. i like monkeys. why don't we do a show where monkeys act like boys and do funny things. i bet we could get the government to fund that.
by the way, a large portion of public broadcastind, either tv or radio, is payed for by large corporations and...viewers like you. the government aspect is payed for by grants which are supplied by large corporations and...viewers like you. so it turns out that corporations really do have a bigger piece of my attention than previously thought possible. dang it.
oh well, back to the previously started response.
give me a "T"!
give me a....
Tuberculosis.
ReplyDeleteEver hear of it? It's rampant in Russia. People are dying all over the place. It started in overcrowded prisons but now the average Joe is getting it and dying.
"People" (I don't know who they are, you figure out who they are) have figured out that it would "only" take $200,000,000 to find a cure. Because most people in our country are pretty healthy, people don't usually die of it here. A lot of people here are carriers, though.
We have more resources than most other countries. Should it be our responsibility to foot most of that $200,000,000? Is it our moral responsibility?
"They" think that if TB is not cured soon than it will eventually mutate like many other less threatening diseases have into a more deadly form. So now imagine that poor people in this country start dying. Is it our responsibility then?
I'm trying to relate TB to the government paying for more tv???
ReplyDeletehuh?
I'm with you on that one SMM.
ReplyDeleteI try to avoid red herrings, hocs, slippery slopes, straw men, and appeals to anything.
Since PBS and NPR are no longer the liberal forums they used to be, I agree Murph. Get rid of them. We don't need any more platforms for the conservative point of view. There are already far too many.
ReplyDeleteI vote we fund Phil Donohue, Jon Stewart, Al Franken and Michael Moore (I wish I could still include Ann Richards in this list). These visionaries deserve some equal time in more visible forums! Since conservatives tend to be more vocal in getting their viewpoint funded by corporate america, our tax money should go toward balancing the scales.
Sara,
ReplyDeleteI agree
except for the whole tax money going toward balancing the scales thing. I just don't want our government deciding how much of one party we have to hear about.
Who would want that?
It'd just be silly