diferent directions in a debate - an analytic question

[Fernando Lasman]

i was having a conversation with some guys about the anarchist principles and activism and we came to debate about how could social organization be any different. well, first we were talking about why it should change and what would we want to see. but then we were talking about what we'd like to see based on what is possible or not to happen. we changed the direction from philosophical priciples to practical matters. so i realized that often people don't follow a very straight line when debating (informally), and end up going through a variety of subjects without much objectivity, not even realizing they are doing so for that matter, which is not very productive.

 

anyway, I'm bringing this up because i think analysing debate itself is very illuminating because we can have clear view of where its heading. so we should address it directly. my main point: if we want to have good communication we have to be aware of how it's happening (to say, of course, we must study it).

 

so, while we're at it, let's take the situation above. did you ever have simmilar experiences? do you think this change of subject in a debate is frequent? what makes a good debate and a bad one?

 

P.S.: 1- i think that changing peoples minds relies much more on how we try to do it than the actual content our ideas

 

2- one of the guys said something like other countries wouldn't tolerate a stateless society, people wouldn't let that happen and i wasn't very sure how to respond to that. it's an abstraction of course (and i think it's a very misleading direction to take) but if you could help me out here with some posts/links suggestions so I can study that, i'd appreciate it

[dsayers]

1 - Changing somebody's mind has more to do with them than you. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You can't change people's minds unless you understand how they make up their minds to begin with.

 

2 - Countries cannot rule people. In the US, Obama isn't going door to door telling people to do this and that. Even the enforcer class isn't going door to door. Coercive authority is an illusion. People that see through that aren't going to accept some invader that comes in and says, "Now you must all obey me," since it would be the exact same illusion they're already capable of seeing through. Meanwhile, an invader isn't going to undertake the very inefficient task of going door to door. He would instead choose a geographical location where people will obey without question.

 

As for the topic itself, I think I know what you mean. I myself have noticed that historically, I've been easily distracted. It comes from my father mostly. He is unbelievably manipulative and if I clarify or correct him, he'll shift to something else he can use as ammo rather than revising his last attack and/or acknowledging that it didn't land. It used to be that in those situation, I was experiencing so much anxiety that I felt compelled to answer the new attack instead of focusing on the fact that he skipped over the last failed one. Is that the kind of thing you mean?

 

On a side note, please keep in mind that people you might talk to that ignore the moral consideration for utility's sake are literally saying they're okay with violence as long as the initiator claims it's for some reason they agree with.

[Fernando Lasman]

1 - Changing somebody's mind has more to do with them than you. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You can't change people's minds unless you understand how they make up their minds to begin with.

 

yes i agree, and that just helps to make my point that knowing how to communicate better is more important than the actual ideas. to know how people's minds are structured will help on how to communicate with them.

 

 

 

 

2 - Countries cannot rule people. In the US, Obama isn't going door to door telling people to do this and that. Even the enforcer class isn't going door to door. Coercive authority is an illusion. People that see through that aren't going to accept some invader that comes in and says, "Now you must all obey me," since it would be the exact same illusion they're already capable of seeing through. Meanwhile, an invader isn't going to undertake the very inefficient task of going door to door. He would instead choose a geographical location where people will obey without question.

 

well, he meant, i think ( and that's what's tricky about debates because most of times people just assume they understand what the other people are saying, and don't try to ensure themselves), that a reaction of foreign powers against a libertarian movement would take place, and i think that's true. he wasn't saying that people would accept it. the point was that foreign powers would organize themselves to attack such a movement. and that has historical backing, you know, spanish revolution (1938-39) to cite one moment that happend.

 

 

As for the topic itself, I think I know what you mean. I myself have noticed that historically, I've been easily distracted. It comes from my father mostly. He is unbelievably manipulative and if I clarify or correct him, he'll shift to something else he can use as ammo rather than revising his last attack and/or acknowledging that it didn't land. It used to be that in those situation, I was experiencing so much anxiety that I felt compelled to answer the new attack instead of focusing on the fact that he skipped over the last failed one. Is that the kind of thing you mean?

 

yes that's exactly what i mean. and i think that having a technical point of view of the debate helps you to avoid these impulses, and also help the other person if you can keep showing where the debate is going to them. basicaly that would be a guiding tool for the debaters. 

take your case: it would be much more dificult to your father to shift subjects if you constantly showed him that you were aware of this, thus not being manipulated. and maybe it would put some pressure on him to be coherent, otherwise he would just be embarassing himself in front of you. can you see what i mean?

 

 

On a side note, please keep in mind that people you might talk to that ignore the moral consideration for utility's sake are literally saying they're okay with violence as long as the initiator claims it's for some reason they agree with.

 

i think the point here realy is that people are more practical than moral. they won't be openly imoral but that is merely because it's not practical. this is a generalization of course, but when it comes to decision making in think people account more for practical eficiency than morals. from that point of view most effort made to moralize people is less effective in changing society than practical propositions. 

 

please note now that we have commented about a few different topics that came from my initial proposition of introducing debate analysis whithin debates themselves in order to organize them better. (this is an example)

[dsayers]

take your case: it would be much more dificult to your father to shift subjects if you constantly showed him that you were aware of this, thus not being manipulated. and maybe it would put some pressure on him to be coherent, otherwise he would just be embarassing himself in front of you. can you see what i mean?

 

Absolutely. In fact, since I've demonstrate I'm aware enough to view and refute these, he's much more careful about when and how to be aggressive towards me.

 

i think the point here realy is that people are more practical than moral.

 

You might be right, but I'd like to challenge this theory. First, the obvious, that morality is practical. Initiating the use of force against others causes harm to self in the moment and increases risk of harm in the future. Secondly, if practicality were their aim, they'd take the time to understand and a moral argument would not put them on the defensive. Most importantly though, my explanation would be that they simply don't realize that what's being discussed is immoral.

 

"There are two things that are certain in life: death and taxes." If this is what you grow up in, it doesn't even occur to you to question taxation. "It sucks. The end." You tell somebody who thinks this way that taxation is theft, most people will not even consider the possibility. It's the world they grew up in, everybody else does it and accepts it, it MUST be righteous. Which makes you nutty for suggesting otherwise. This is why I've always adored the phrase, "the gun in the room." I don't think it's that people believe they're being practical. I think it's that they don't see the gun in the room.

[Fernando Lasman]

First, the obvious, that morality is practical.

 

 

 

well, i think practicality is part of morality, because it is a value people hold that seems to be inherent to human life. if you think about it, survival depends on how well we do things, thus practicality emerges as a value from our necessity to survive. so one could say people aren't acting morally if they're not thinking through everything they can, and vice versa. anyway, you're right. i agree with you that people are mostly unaware of, or don't care about going through moral implications when making decisions, which goes against the practicality value.

 

i will try to express my point differently: i think that to change peoples minds we should rather approach them in practical terms than abstract ones, since, to me, people seem to be less attracted to abstraction (morality) than practicality (how to get things done) simply because keeping debates within an objective/practical perspective seems more productive and exciting, on one hand. on the other hand  it's hard for anybody to question their own morals, it is too aggressive and people avoid this subject most of times. also if we intend to change society, which is a practical matter, it seems obvious we should address the problem mostly in practical terms, as we would with any other practical matter, and expend less energy in abstract conversation. but i see the contrary in most debates. there's too much effort put in abstraction (even if it's based on a practical premise , like discussing how things would be done in some future scenario) and this drifts away from our main objective, which is to actually act upon the present situation. that's my general feeling for most of the political discussion.

[dsayers]

keeping debates within an objective/practical perspective seems more productive and exciting

 

Is this normative? Is it objective? I happen to find it incredibly exciting to debate with somebody who accepts that the moral consideration is paramount. If more people that understood this led with this, could it not become that debates would be that much more exciting for everybody?

 

The way I see it people who unwittingly argue for aggression did not arrive at their conclusions by way of logic, reason, and evidence. They enjoy comfortable company in most people because most people do not encourage them to examine their conclusions. If more people made it more uncomfortable to maintain such positions, and to do so only required that we never let others forget that there is a moral consideration, then I think people would be less likely to green light aggression.

 

Also, you can make the moral argument without bothering with abstractions. I usually ask such a person who owns them. Nothing is less abstract to a person than themselves.