Are insults OK here? They seem to be, as long as they don't trigger moderator action. Ridicule? Sarcasm? Seems to be fairly common here. — Bitter Crank

True

You have been presenting an immensely consistent anti-natalist argument with infinite patience for years, and you haven't resorted to ranting, raving, insult, or even (as far as I know) cutting sarcasm. — Bitter Crank

Thank you for at least noting that, haha. I try.

Maybe we should all just shut up and go plant trees. — Bitter Crank

Understand this sentiment.

I've backed lost causes too. Even If they were morally and intellectually superior, they just didn't appeal to most people. C'est la vie. — Bitter Crank

True enough. I do get something out of it if the person I'm debating brings up things to consider.. even if eventually they just get subsumed in strengthening my argument. I was saying earlier that I see productive argumentation in a form similar to Hegel's dialectic. That is to say, thesis-antithesis-and synthesis. There are nascent things revealed in the disagreement that then become realized.

I'm just saying try not to wrap your content in insult. Just make the argument. — schopenhauer1

Agreed. But I don't have to know much about who doesn't agree with that to agree. I don't care very much about the other side.

I would say having a good faith dialectic with someone is what should be happening (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), considering things that haven't been considered. I don't expect a "winner" but what can happen is that each side finds ways to strengthen their arguments and consider things otherwise not considered. — schopenhauer1

:up: :100:

The only point of arguing is to exchange new ideas.

Are insults legitimate debate tactics? — schopenhauer1

It's a tactic, sure, but a particularly lowbrow one at that. It also precludes the discussion from flowing in a "civilized" manner, especially when both parties start engaging in random potshots.

So then for example, you would say if someone was debating policy and leadership quality, but your interlocutor, let's call him "Trump" starts talking about how your a bumbling idiot with kids who take cocaine and are of low character.. this is legitimate argumentation? I don't get your machismo, "who can take a punch". — schopenhauer1

I believe I just explicitly called it nonsense but nevertheless the right crowd will eat it up. In a land of the blind the one eyed man is king, even or especially rather if he only pretends to be. Am I a bumbling idiot? I could be. That implies he'd be willing to compare intellectual works. Do my kids in fact take cocaine and happen to be of low character? Another opportunity for comparison. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Of course, it all circles back to the why a discussion or argument began in the first place and in a political context what the observers and crowd is expecting, entertainment or productivity. Though its usually about swaying opinion, garnishing interest, or sometimes even simply gaining attention.

It is not "my" anything, I already told you or at least implied I find that style of communication revolting. I simply know how some people, who even if are not the majority are unfortunately sizeable enough to not be dismissed entirely, think and go about life.

The only point of arguing is to exchange new ideas. — Pfhorrest

Agreed, especially on a philosophy forum, if everyone's arguing in good faith and not just because one gets some weird kick being pissed off or pissing others off.

It's a tactic, sure, but a particularly lowbrow one at that. It also precludes the discussion from flowing in a "civilized" manner, especially when both parties start engaging in random potshots. — Ying

Yes, exactly.

So if there was no real insult thrown at you personally, is it legitimate to use insults, puts-downs, sneering sarcasm, — schopenhauer1

Sarcasm is not the same as an insult. Sarcasm is not necessarily disrespectful. In fact, it is one of the staples of a lively argumentation. It also helps illuminate a point that could otherwise be ignored or not reach the "aha!" moment.

Insults are unavoidable in heated arguments, or controversial topics. And there are types of insults -- personal, technical, professional, or topical. It's the personal insults that have no place in philosophical arguments.

Those who create threads for discussion, like you, will naturally have a share of sarcasms and insults. That is the nature of the beast. Call them out if it's personal -- otherwise, you can respond to insults and sarcasms and move the topic along.

a particularly lowbrow one at that — Ying

Cruelly insulting, like ridiculing the handicapped. I mean, people can't help it if they are lowbrow slobs, really. Also humiliating--particularly for people who have intellectual aspirations--is calling would-be elite aspirants "middlebrow. They want to be highbrow! They just don't have the right educational history to either be highbrow, or to produce the verisimilitude of natural born highbrow elitism. Getting nailed with the "middlebrow" monicker is much like hoping you can join the in-crowd for lunch and being told to fuck off.

Tragic really.

The abusive type of ad hominem argument can be defined in terms of the concept of insult. Personal integrity, moral character, psychological health, or intellectual ability are classic examples. — Zophie

I've been thinking about starting a discussion about how ad hominem arguments are different from insults. They are, but I sometimes have trouble deciding if an example is one or the other. An insult is not an argument.

They just don't have the right educational history to either be highbrow, or to produce the verisimilitude of natural born highbrow elitism. — Bitter Crank

"Verisimilitude" - highbrow or middlebrow? I'd say highbrow. For me, there is no worse insult than "middlebrow." Wayne Dyer, Malcolm Gladwell, most of TED, "Scientific American" now (As opposed to how it used to be), "Time" magazine. Sorry, off track.

It's not a usual classification. One wonders how the concept of an insult might be defined for purposes of logic. Bonevac 1990 may be of assistance, though he leaves the question unanswered. I take insults as part of pragmatics. I believe it's convenient to reduce them to speech acts.

Procedurally, on pf, I think they're allowed.
But also: the world insults us, continually.
Is that insult legitimate?
Maybe a thread on legitimacy would best-focus the anti-natalist question. Not joking.
Is it legitimate that I live to suffer, that others cause others to suffer? etc.
Book of Job?

is it legitimate to use insults, puts-downs, sneering sarcasm, fake exasperation and the like as part of your argument? — schopenhauer1

There is rational discussion, where the goal is to find the truth, and there is rhetoric, where the goal is to convince, i.e. to win the argument. Insults are not legitimate in a rational argument. They don't lead to achieving the goal. Are they legitimate in a debate, polemic, or political speech? They're not nice. They're not civil or honorable. They might work or they might backfire. Are they legitimate? I guess the answer is "who cares."

One wonders how the concept of an insult might be defined for purposes of logic. — Zophie

It's no more logical than a punch in the nose.

A question of pragmatic force, then.

Agreed, especially on a philosophy forum, if everyone's arguing in good faith and not just because one gets some weird kick being pissed off or pissing others off. — schopenhauer1

I had a thought the other day that seems like a plausible explanation behind a lot of behavior that I see here and similar places on the internet. Metaphorically, people are looking for the satisfaction of beating someone up. So if you're not fighting them, they'll be upset at you, because they're here to fight damnit! And if you're unmoved by their blows, they'll be upset at you, because just punching a pillow or a brick wall or whatever is no fun, it's only satisfying if what you hit breaks. Not fighting or just quietly absorbing or deflecting their attacks isn't "playing fair", it's some kind of "foul play" in their minds. But of course if you do react to being hit with some kind of hurt response, they'll be gleeful and gloat over that. Basically the only "winning" move (inasmuch as it's a move that will make them stop fighting and not whine about you cheating somehow) is to concede defeat. Because that's what they're here for: the thrill of victory over someone else.

And while philosophy is aptly analogized to a "martial art of the mind", as someone who trained in TaeKwonDo for 11 years I can tell you the kind of students who come into a class just looking to beat someone up for fun are not taken well. Studying how to fight in a calm, friendly, cooperative, disciplined way has a very different emotional energy than an actual fight, and people coming into such a discipline with that actual-fight emotional energy are not usually welcomed.

I wish there was a place on the internet that was more like a real martial arts club than an MMA FFA ring.

Sometimes it's hard to tell because certain posters tend to intertwine the two, thus trying to get away with a criticism while presenting a legitimate argument. Why not just stick to the argument? Wouldn't criticism be rhetorical bullshit to cause consternation? Is unnecessarily poisoning the well a legitimate argument tactic? — schopenhauer1

It is a legitimate action and argument but the main goal here, inside in this forum, is how to attract people to debate. Sometimes I don’t even have answers in the posts. So, it doesn’t matter if you insult if you keep the thread alive to be honest

So if you're not fighting them, they'll be upset at you, because they're here to fight damnit! — Pfhorrest

Well put.

And if you're unmoved by their blows, they'll be upset at you, because just punching a pillow or a brick wall or whatever is no fun, it's only satisfying if what you hit breaks. — Pfhorrest

Yep, also true.

Not fighting or just quietly absorbing or deflecting their attacks isn't "playing fair", it's some kind of "foul play" in their minds. But of course if you do react to being hit with some kind of hurt response, they'll be gleeful and gloat over that. Basically the only "winning" move (inasmuch as it's a move that will make them stop fighting and not whine about you cheating somehow) is to concede defeat. Because that's what they're here for: the thrill of victory over someone else. — Pfhorrest

Yep, also true it seems.

And while philosophy is aptly analogized to a "martial art of the mind", as someone who trained in TaeKwonDo for 11 years I can tell you the kind of students who come into a class just looking to beat someone up for fun are not taken well. Studying how to fight in a calm, friendly, cooperative, disciplined way has a very different emotional energy than an actual fight, and people coming into such a discipline with that actual-fight emotional energy are not usually welcomed.

I wish there was a place on the internet that was more like a real martial arts club than an MMA FFA ring. — Pfhorrest

It would be nice.

There is rational discussion, where the goal is to find the truth, and there is rhetoric, where the goal is to convince, i.e. to win the argument. Insults are not legitimate in a rational argument. They don't lead to achieving the goal. Are they legitimate in a debate, polemic, or political speech? They're not nice. They're not civil or honorable. They might work or they might backfire. Are they legitimate? I guess the answer is "who cares." — T Clark

Yep, good distinction an one that seems to be blurred here a lot. Once someone continually shows the rhetoric card, then I am forced to get in the mud it seems too. I don't like the asymmetry, but then.. there I am with mud, so in a way I am already dirty. The problem is that if you don't want to do it, you either take the abuse or go to their level, both are bad options.

I maintain the distinction between rhetorical and rational is taste. Not truth.

I maintain the distinction between rhetorical and rational is taste. Not truth — Zophie

So my taste is to poison the well, therefore poisoning the well is legitimate. My taste is to X therefore Xing is legitimate. Is this a case for no rules of conduct whatsoever?

I see insults as being the worst aspect of debate, because it seems to be going beyond that, to personal attacking of someone. Once a person goes off into insulting, I usually dismiss what the person is saying, because it seems that they are going outside of rational exploration of ideas.

I see insults as being the worst aspect of debate, because it seems to be going beyond that, to personal attacking of someone. Once a person goes off into insulting, I usually dismiss what the person is saying, because it seems that they are going outside of rational exploration of ideas. — Jack Cummins

Agreed, but there is a sort smamriness that pervades legitimate remarks. It's not just "outright" insult. That would be too obvious.. It is the subtly of things.. like if I were to say, "For fuck's sake.." etc. So what of those? What of legitimate content wrapped in those kind of unnecessary rhetorical devices?

I do agree that it is often more subtle than outright insults. This is probably true in all levels of life beyond debates. There are backhanded compliments and all kinds of ways people use to put other people down. At least with insults, it makes it easier to identify, because they stand out, whereas with other more subtle attacks, it is possible to miss them, and, nevertheless, the experience of receiving them may have an insidious effect.

We conduct a disembodied dialogue here, but we are all embodied and our thoughts are also embodied. I would suggest that there is the legitimacy of argumentation which is based on logic, but that this is unbearably thin. The prospect of a site conducted entirely in propositional logic is not very attractive. I, at least, need as well as the argument to get the flavour of the person I am communicating with. Emoticons help sometimes, and other informal expressions give one a sense of a real person that cares about things.

So personally I want to see expressions of frustration, or boredom or confusion, or arrogance, or amusement, or love, from time to time. I want to see the passion behind the argument; if nobody cares about the argument the conclusion is - ahem - "academic" (in the insulting belittling sense). But there are limits of course, and if your limits are exceeded, there are 2 things I recommend; 1, stop responding, and 2, report to the mods.

arrogance — unenlightened

Why so much of that one though? Is that a philosophy thing, an internet thing, a forum thing, a cultural thing, an individual thing? I'm not sure why people can't disagree without being disagreeable.

I'm not sure why people can't disagree without being disagreeable. — schopenhauer1

I think people mostly think the other side is the one being disagreeable. People generally don't seem themselves as instigators. In an insult-off, it is common that both sides think the other started it. What counts as "disagreeable" is different for each person. You never know what someone will take offence to. It's like minesweeper.

With some exceptions of course. Some people are just plain disagreeable cunts. Most aren't.

Then there are the saints that continue to keep calm even when they perceive the other side is being disagreeable (regardless of whether they intend to). Those are even rarer.

arrogance
— unenlightened

Why so much of that one though? — schopenhauer1

I think it's a philosophy thing particularly, but not exclusively. Philosophy depts are notorious for sexism, racism and all forms of assumed superiority. You and I of course are above such things. :wink:

I'm looking to test my arguments, and I'm not that interested in convincing others of them, so insults and "poisoning the well" wouldn't make much difference to me. However I can see such underhanded tactics being frustrating when trying to put a very minority view.