How to deal with Name Calling

[mjdsharks]

Thank you in advance for any help I receive. My question to you all is "How do I deal with continued name-calling and emotional responses from friends when discussing philosophy?" I adhere to the NAP and expect everyone to do the same. I am tactful in helping people understand this objective principle and never resort to emotional responses, ad hominem, etc. I have recently been called names from long time friends. I continually get called "robotic", "your delivery makes me barf", "arrogant", "cocky", etc. Even my wife has said I am hard to talk to and come off as cocky. Is there a way that I can deliver a message of truth in a manner that helps people open up to discussing philosophy? I know that I am hard to talk to because I bring arguments to any topic, while others generally resort to how topics make them feel, or what emotional response they have. However, that, in my opinion, is not my job to be "easier" to talk to by lowering my standards as to get a point across. Any help is appreciated. Thank you

[Freedomain]

I don't. If somebody calls me names, they certainly aren't a friend. I don't throw pearls before swine and debate with people who are hostile and abusive.

[Pepin]

I am unsure of how to respond as I am unsure if the problem is with you or with others. The framing of your post is very strange.

 

There are a number of possibilities as to the possible states.

 

A: You do not have good friends, and they will lambast your ideas no matter how well you convey them

B: Your friends are correct in the assessment of your argumentative ability, but do not wish to provide decent criticism

C. Your friends are not intelligent enough to understand your argument, and misinterpret confidence as arrogance

D. You convey your arguments badly, yet with confidence, which create a feel of unfounded confidence, aka cockiness

E: Some combination of the above

 

I am leaning more on the side of not having good friends with the "your delivery makes me want to barf" comment.

[mjdsharks]

I'm sorry for the confusing manner in which I conveyed my issue. If I bring up issues politically, socially, etc and say what I believe and justify what  believe by explaining the NAP, people see that as arrogant, because I offer no room for exceptions. I try to explain that this is a universal principle and not open to what I or they want to believe. They see this lack of "wiggle room" as arrogant but I see it as something that needs to be practiced universally. I have also been accused of being arrogant because I am not interested in using emotions when debating. I was just looking for some advice on how to deal with emotional attacks. Again, sorry for the strange wording of my post. I am at work and have a broken hand so typing eloquent and well thought out posts are a bit difficult until my cast comes off

[Tyler Durden]

Can you provide an example of a conversation where this occured? With specifics as to who initiated the conversation and who said what before it escalated to name calling.

[dsayers]

Is there a way that I can deliver a message of truth in a manner that helps people open up to discussing philosophy?

 

This is contradictory. Are you looking to deliver a message or discussing philosophy? I see the former as a soliloquy and the latter as a conversation. So my answer would be to try and understand where the person you're talking to is coming from. If you haven't already, I'd check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You won't change minds if you don't understand how minds are made up in the first place. For example, if you're talking truth to somebody more interested in comfort, there is no way to deliver the message.

 

explaining the NAP, people see that as arrogant, because I offer no room for exceptions. I try to explain that this is a universal principle and not open to what I or they want to believe. They see this lack of "wiggle room" as arrogant

 

"2+2=4" "What, like all the time, everywhere? That's arrogant!"

 

Could you make the case for "the NAP" to me? Maybe I can help refine your approach.

[mjdsharks]

I got into a discussion with a long time friend regarding abortion. I don't shy away from difficult topics that people get emotional about. The conversation is paraphrased below.

 

Me: I don't see a fundamental difference between murder and killing an unborn baby.

 

Friend: I don't care how righteous you are, you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

 

Me: The baby is not a part of the woman's body in the same way a spleen or appendix is. When does the baby become detached from the woman? After he leaves the vaginal canal? When the umbilical cord is cut? The baby has every right to not have force initiated on him.

 

Friend: Babies are not babies until they are babies.

 

Me: You can't honestly define a baby by saying he is a baby. Life is defined as "the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms or inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the environment". On a cellular level, you are ending the human life without his or her consent, so by definition, that is murder.

 

Friend: I think we are both smart enough to tell the difference between a fetus and 8 months into the pregnancy.

Me: A fetus at 8 months is still a fetus. I don't follow.

 

Friend: Well it doesn't matter how passionate you are about this, it isn't your choice. We both have valid points but ultimately, we don't have a right to make any choices for someone else.

 

Me: Then can I rape someone because you can't tell me what to do wit my body?

 

Friend: Wow...really Matt?

 

Me: Yes, by that logic, I could make that argument. I don't think you have a valid point there.

 

Friend: Well, I guess this is a win for you! Yay!

 

Me: Why are you using sarcasm instead of discussing the topic? You haven't addressed the biological definition of life I provided, didn't address specifically when it is okay to end the life, didn't discuss where a woman's body begins and where the baby's body begins. You just became sarcastic

 

Friend: You are being an arrogant prick.

 

He then "defriended" me on Facebook and I am assuming wouldn't answer a text. This is just one example of how I talk with people.

 

Friend:

Me:

Dsayers, thank you for pointing that out. I need to be more specific in what I am trying to state. What I should have said is "how can I get people to be more open to the non aggression principle? I will check out the Bomb in the Brian series and see if that helps.

[Alan C.]

I have recently been called names from long time friends. I continually get called "robotic", "your delivery makes me barf", "arrogant", "cocky", etc.

 

Those are not responses from deep thinkers. You might reconsider your associations.

 

 

...my wife has said I am hard to talk to and come off as cocky.

 

Have you asked her to explain what she means and provide an example? It could simply be her means of shutting down a conversation that makes her uncomfortable.

[Tyler Durden]

Thanks for the example, I definitely see the problem now. Let me try to explain it:

 

There were 3 mistakes, the first one is the least important, the third one is the most important:

 

1. You're having a discussion about something that's not relevant and probably will never be relevant to either of you.

 

2. Because this topic concerns a body (or potential body) inside another body it's actually the hardest question with regards to self-ownership and the NAP which means that it's the worst starting point for a philosophical conversation.

 

3. He doesn't express himself with the same exactness as you but he expects you to know what he means because he knows that you're smart. You however don't respond to what he means but only respond to his exact words. To him this comes across as if you do know what he means but you're trying to catch him. This pisses him off, which he communicates also, but you don't respond to that either.It starts when he says "babies are not babies until they are babies" by which he means "there's a difference between a lump of cells 1 week into the pregnancy and an 8 month old fetus".

 

He expects you to at least acknowledge that difference. But you don't do that, instead you tell him that his "definition" is wrong, you throw a dictionary at him, and you tell him that you're right and he's wrong and that's a fact. Thereby effectively killing the discussion because you won't even address his perspective.

 

He tries again nonetheless when he says "I think we are both smart enough to tell the difference between a fetus and 8 months into the pregnancy". But once again he doesn't express himself with the same exactness as you. He means "there's a difference between a fetus shortly after conception and a fetus ready to be born".

 

You say that you don't understand what he means and he interprets that as "although it's clear to me what you mean, I'm only going to respond if you say it exactly right". He doesn't see any way of expressing himself in a way that you will understand and tries to end the discussion on good terms. He doesn't say I am right and you are wrong but he says "we both have valid points" which means that he understands you even though he doesn't agree with you. And then he says that whatever both of you think about it, ultimately the only people who can actually influence what happens in the real world are pregnant women, which is true.

 

Then after he has tried unsuccesfully to get his position acknowledged by you 2 times and has tried to end the discussion on good terms, you don't even allow him that. Instead you only further demonstrate that you don't understand his point of view at all and you basically insult him by insinuating that he approves of rape.

 

He responds by clearly showing that he is shocked by what you're insinuating, but he doesn't say anything else leaving room for you to retract your question and respond empathetically. But you don't, you stick with the insulting question.

 

Then he sees that you don't care about his emotions at all and just want to drive your point home, so he responds with sarcasm.

 

At that point, you manage to really really really piss him off because you immediately notice and mention the sarcasm. By acknowledging the sarcasm you show him that you do know how to pick up on his emotions, you just chose to ignore them for the entire conversation. Then you continue by telling him that he is wrong for not addressing your points, even though you are the one who hasn't even acknowledged his point of view. You haven't even acknowledged his desire to end the discussion before you started asking him if he approved of rape. And then you lecture him.

 

By then you have shown him that the only way to have a discussion with you is if he just says yes to everything you say, and that anything else will only get him lectures and insulting questions. He shows you his frustration one last time, now in a way that cannot possibly be ignored, and acknowledges that the friendship is over.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You may have philosophy down but you have a lot to learn in terms of communication and I would strongly suggest you focus on that. Pick up some books on relationships, negotiation, and books like Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people". Read them, highlight important lessons, and practise the shit out of them. Forget about being understood for a while and become someone who understands other people.

 

Turn yourself into someone who other people come to for advice because "you understand them so well". Don't settle for anything less.

[dsayers]

The exchange you offered lacked curiosity and had conclusions without methodology. I think this might be where the accusation of arrogance is coming from. Not saying that it's the right way for them to react in the moment or productive. As stated above, the evolution from fetus to baby to child to moral actor is one of the hardest areas to be morally consistent with, making it not the best place to start in determining one's philosophical chops.

[Carl Green]

I got into a discussion with a long time friend regarding abortion. I don't shy away from difficult topics that people get emotional about. The conversation is paraphrased below.

 

Me: I don't see a fundamental difference between murder and killing an unborn baby.

 

Friend: I don't care how righteous you are, you have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

 

 

It appears to be a bit too late as he has "unfriended", but, in my opinion, this would have been a good point to switch topics and get curious about why they think you're righteous. What do they think about "rights".

 

The sample correspondence seemed more like a verbal duel than a conversation and duels always produce a loser, which no one likes to be. 

 

If the other person doesn't get the feeling that you understand their point of view than they won't likely be open to your criticisms of their views.

[mjdsharks]

Tyler, I will definetly read that book. Thank you. I understand what you are saying. I think it would be wiser to help people be more precise in their language during a conversation as to make sure I understand their point of view, instead of just addressing what they have said. Looking back, I understand that he didn't mean what he said and you seemed to be able to translate his actual words into precise meanings which I need to draw out of people so we can discuss that. Thanks for all the insight everyone. Take care.

[mjdsharks]

To add something quick, the friend who I was discussing this with has openly stated I should be arrested if I disobey the law, even if the law is unjust. He has stated if I don't pay taxes or use marijuana he would advocate I be arrested. Would it have been better to not engage in discussion with someone like that knowing that I won't converse at my highest potential? I agree that I wrote his arguments off due to their lack of precision and past history of him advocating violence on me. Knowing this, I am guessing I should have recognized my inability to fairly try to hear his point of view, and withdrew before engaging...

[Brentb]

I used to talk to people almost like a code compiler; "Error. Does not compile. Reform your statement so that it's logical." That was not an effective method of communication.

 

Most of the people are not talking to you because they want a better understanding of the world or some concept. They're typically talking to you because they want to connect with you. Maybe at some point they want to really understand something and want your help with it, but it's usually just to connect with you.

 

To connect with people, you have to engage them in the conversation and get them involved.

 

That means:

 

1) Listen  

2) Ask questions

3) Answer questions

4) Don't respond to a statement with a statement

 

This requires that you be curious as to what the person that you're talking to really thinks and how they think, and all that. If you're not curious about them, but are just trying to force your point of view, then they will avoid your arguments. Force doesn't work in communication either. 

Edited May 21, 2014 by Brentb

[dsayers]

Would it have been better to not engage in discussion with someone like that knowing that I won't converse at my highest potential?

 

More accurately, it would be better to not give of yourself to somebody who would initiate the use of force against you. By stating that you oppose the initiation of force, to find somebody willing to do that to you, and then give of yourself to them, you're condoning their position.

 

Statism is not a rational conclusion. It is the momentum of the past. This momentum only flourishes because of the amount of people that applaud others for this initiation of the use of force by proxy. If we instead make it uncomfortable to maintain such a position, it would disappear. This will do more to change the world than debating somebody who lacks integrity.

[MysterionMuffles]

In that paraphrased exchange I can already figure that this is a person who is incapable of reason. Not sure if you should try any further since all you get is ad-hominems and personal attacks instead of real arguments. He has a FEW arguments but they're mired by more personal attacks than anything. "I don't care how passionate you are" as if that's a philosophical argument. Totally mind racking.

[PatrickC]

Seriously whilst I have some sympathy for you in this regard you just end up enabling these people further by continuing to engage with them. I'm with Mike on this issue. Born out of my own experience.