Between The Lines
Register

User Tag List

Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. ISO #1

    Between The Lines

    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 :

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    -1

    Nah you aren't going to blame me for how your friends behave here.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
    Sarcasm?
    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    Last edited by OzyWho; January 20th, 2021 at 08:46 AM.

  2. ISO #2

    Re: Between The Lines

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  3. ISO #3

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    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...

  4. ISO #4

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  5. ISO #5

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    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.

  6. ISO #6

  7. ISO #7

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  8. ISO #8

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    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.

  9. ISO #9

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  10. ISO #10

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  11. ISO #11

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    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.

  12. ISO #12

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  13. ISO #13

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    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.

  14. ISO #14

    Re: Between The Lines

    Quote Originally Posted by OzyWho View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •