Between The Lines

[OzyWho]

If you compare the act of responding to a written/said text directly versus responding to the thought process that went behind it - what differences do you see? In terms of benefits and proper use.
Which do you prefer and when?
Do you agree that the latter is mostly only found in FM's?

I myself think that in any social interactions, the latter would tense up people while the former would give them a sigh of relief. But I believe people do the latter regardless?

You'd think that only the former is what you need to construct arguments in debates, yet I think on TV debates I see the latter often. Especially when lacking the knowledge for direct talk. Is that even a debate at that point?


I'm not sure if it's this topic related, but what 3rd option (if) causes this sort of misunderstanding?

Spoiler : Quotes :

bro you can't complain about site toxicity and then be a dick to ppl for their religious beliefs. It wouldn't matter if the dude advocated sharia law and stoning adulturers. He's still just some guy on the internet and winning an argument won't dEstRoY rEliGioN. Have you never heard of embodying the change you want to see?

-1

Nah you aren't going to blame me for how your friends behave here.

Your post is a little ambiguous, but no I'm not trying to suggest you're responsible for site toxicity. Not even half of it. That would be ridiculous.

Sarcasm?

He pointed out your hypocrisy, explaining reasonably how a certain behavior is part of the problem.
He never claimed you to be the only one at fault, that'd be ridiculous.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

In FM, you reply to the thought process because it's the thought process that matters when you need to read people. In life, depending on the situation, you'll either reply directly to what the other person is saying (that's what happens in everyday conversations most of the time) or reply to what is implied by what the other person is saying (when you are debating with someone, for example, so that you can see if what they are saying is valid). Responding to the thought process itself is quite dangerous in a logical debate where you have to find out whether a given statement is true or false and when it doesn't involve lies from the other person, because you are likely to derail the conversation, to make ad hominem attacks, etc.

[OzyWho]

In FM, you reply to the thought process because it's the thought process that matters when you need to read people. In life, depending on the situation, you'll either reply directly to what the other person is saying (that's what happens in everyday conversations most of the time) or reply to what is implied by what the other person is saying (when you are debating with someone, for example, so that you can see if what they are saying is valid). Responding to the thought process itself is quite dangerous in a logical debate where you have to find out whether a given statement is true or false and when it doesn't involve lies from the other person, because you are likely to derail the conversation, to make ad hominem attacks, etc.

For ad hominem to occur you'd have to assume their intentions instead of thought process though, right?


Maybe it's the same thing...

[Marshmallow Marshall]

For ad hominem to occur you'd have to assume their intentions instead of thought process though, right?


Maybe it's the same thing...

Fundamental attribution error will make this happen rather often. Most conflicts actually stem from that specific cognitive bias (personal take and conclusion after observing conflicts "in hindsight" or from an external point of view, not from a study or anything like that).
Plus, since humans are humans, you cannot completely dissociate their intentions from their logical thought process, unless you have absolute trust in a specific person, which is rather rare.

[OzyWho]

In FM, you reply to the thought process because it's the thought process that matters when you need to read people. In life, depending on the situation, you'll either reply directly to what the other person is saying (that's what happens in everyday conversations most of the time) or reply to what is implied by what the other person is saying (when you are debating with someone, for example, so that you can see if what they are saying is valid). Responding to the thought process itself is quite dangerous in a logical debate where you have to find out whether a given statement is true or false and when it doesn't involve lies from the other person, because you are likely to derail the conversation, to make ad hominem attacks, etc.

Could you provide a hypothetical example? Though, I realize it might not be easy.

[OzyWho]

Fundamental attribution error will make this happen rather often.

Hmm.. makes sense.
In your opinion, would it be better IRL to perhaps only respond to the direct text?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Could you provide a hypothetical example? Though, I realize it might not be easy.

A: Death penalty should be restored.
B: So you believe humans have the right to kill other humans under certain conditions?
A, if their thoughts are consistent: Yes, because X Y Z.

[OzyWho]

A: Death penalty should be restored.
B: So you believe humans have the right to kill other humans under certain conditions?
A, if their thoughts are consistent: Yes, because X Y Z.

I'd say that practically it'd be easier to just ask "Why?" instead of rephrasing the question. Or have the same effect with responding to direct text "Why [repeat premise]?".
I don't see a benefit in this example at least tbh.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Hmm.. makes sense.
In your opinion, would it be better IRL to perhaps only respond to the direct text?

No, because that would close us this kind of transcendence in thoughts:

A: Death penalty should be restored.
B: So you believe humans have the right to kill other humans under certain conditions?
A, if their thoughts are consistent: Yes, because X Y Z.

Instead, B would be asking about why death penalty should be restored, which wouldn't touch the core of the debate topic. Or, even worse, they'd say "No" and go away because they don't agree with the text. Trying to guess someone's intention from their words is possible, but dangerous, and should not be done lightly.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I'd say that practically it'd be easier to just ask "Why?" instead of rephrasing the question. Or have the same effect with responding to direct text "Why [repeat premise]?".
I don't see a benefit in this example at least tbh.

If you ask "why", which is an open-ended question, you will most likely get the answer "because some fuckers don't deserve to live" or something similar, and you'll never touch the core of the topic.

[OzyWho]

Instead, B would be asking about why death penalty should be restored, which wouldn't touch the core of the debate topic.

The core of the debate is whether or not death penalty should be restored - asking why is core to it.
B questions A's morality, it has nothing to do with the idea that A is bringing forward imo.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

The core of the debate is whether or not death penalty should be restored - asking why is core to it.
B questions A's morality, it has nothing to do with the idea that A is bringing forward imo.

Since death penalty was abolished for moral reasons, morality has everything to do with restoring death penalty. Also, be careful with your words: B questions the morality of A's stance, not A's morality itself.

[OzyWho]

Since death penalty was abolished for moral reasons, morality has everything to do with restoring death penalty. Also, be careful with your words: B questions the morality of A's stance, not A's morality itself.

Ohh, that's fair.
Well, I can say that I see this as an alternative approach for sure which I don't think I've noticed before.

But I'd argue that the same could be accomplished by direct text, by proposing a direct moral argument against the idea. I'd never had figured that there's a different possible way/approach tbh.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Ohh, that's fair.
Well, I can say that I see this as an alternative approach for sure which I don't think I've noticed before.

But I'd argue that the same could be accomplished by direct text, by proposing a direct moral argument against the idea. I'd never had figured that there's a different possible way/approach tbh.

True, but going straight to the core is better, because it ensures the topic will be exactly what it has to be. Instead, if you propose a direct moral argument against the idea, you're probably going to end up with something like that:

But human life is sacred, and it is not up to us to decide whether or not someone should live.
or
Killing people makes us as criminal as the ones we'd kill.
etc.

Which would lead to arguments that are close to the core of the topic, but not touching it. Of course, it wouldn't be horrible, but it wouldn't be optimal either.