"Not an argument"

[The Babypuke]

I don't know if anyone's suggested this before but maybe Stef should start printing NAA / "Not an argument" T-shirts so I don't have to keep repeating the phrase. I'm lazy and it's easier to point to my shirt.

[A4E]

You could also design one yourself and use some third party to sell it.

[The Babypuke]

Woah now let's not get nutty. That would require work.

[A4E]

Life gets better instantaneously when you fully accept and stop waiting for other people to do something (for you).

[ValueOfBrevity]

I think people often feel  that something is wrong, but haven't put time into the argumentation. Instead of presenting a rational argument, they go with their gut feeling (often driven by cognitive dissonance) and say things are "disgusting", "evil", or "problematic".

What they mean is that they are personally disgusted and that it causes problems in their world view.

Your time would be better spent explaining why their feelings are not convincing you to change your perspective.
A catty T-shirt will only dilute the meaning of "Not an Argument".

 

[jimmo100]

On 6/7/2017 at 7:44 PM, ValueOfBrevity said:

I think people often feel  that something is wrong, but haven't put time into the argumentation. Instead of presenting a rational argument, they go with their gut feeling (often driven by cognitive dissonance) and say things are "disgusting", "evil", or "problematic".

What they mean is that they are personally disgusted and that it causes problems in their world view.
 

ValueOfBrevity (that is one username I wish I had thought of, btw),

What you say here is in my view better summed up (for the sake of honing in on the crux of the issue) as violating the NAP. If you ask me, I would never use 'not an argument' without the suffix: 'for violating the NAP'.

Because that is the one thing that makes any lack of argument of any danger or threat to the innocent.

To elaborate further, I mostly hear 'not an argument' as a response by those who assume a winning argument is all you need to resolve conflict. That is of course a truism but it doesn't address the problem that people in fear are effectively disabled from engaging rationally in a debate or argument.

From what I can observe - and I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on this - it appears to me that no person - ever - has been able to occupy a state of lucidity, with the capacity to reason on the basis of observation, and a state of fear.... simultaneously.

And this(or more precisely, not being aware of this), it seems to me, is the ultimate barrier which holds mankind back. And he is oblivious to it. Because as I say.... moving from lucidity(being capable of reasoning) to fear, necessarily involves abandoning reasonable thought and immediately engaging in pure instinctual reaction. It's a human frailty which probably serves us in some raw-survival capacity.

If you had a lot to hide. Let's say you were an intelligent criminal. You made it to the highest levels of an entity that provided shelter for you from the prying eyes of those at liberty to observe and draw conclusion to problems. And from there you proceeded to engage in crimes from one end of the scale e.g. petty thievery, to the other e.g. crimes against humanity. And let's say that if a small contingency of the masses were free to observe the mechanism by which the worst criminals are able to perpetuate their destructive ways.... that there is no way it could continue. Now you as the intelligent criminal need - more than anything else your life depends on - to find a way to interrupt this freedom to observe... before the number of observers grows.

And there you have it.... fear-inducement and the ability to hold in fear.... the masses. So that that small contingency of people who, through knowing this trick alone, render themselves largely unaffected by it(the fear-inducement) and hence retain their ability to observe... are left impotent in opposing the mechanism.

Edited June 17, 2017 by jimmo100
add qualification (prior to any future responses)