Heikoku 2
18-01-2009, 12:38
I apologize, everyone, for the whole "right about Iraq" issue I showed in these last months.
It didn't come out of malice, or even out of sheer spite, but out of feeling cheated at arguing. And I had a minor epiphany last night and realized that no, I wasn't cheated. My opponent was a fearful military grunt moron who used lower-level appeals - emotion, fear - that WORKED WITH THE CONTEXT, a country paralyzed with fear over mushroom clouds, WMDs and so on. I wasn't in a discussion, I was in an argument, and I am finally able to realize the difference between the two: In a discussion, fallacies are - or would ideally be - hitting below the belt, since you are trying to convince your opponent, whom you regard with at least a modicum of respect. In an argument, nothing is below the belt, because you see your opponent as the evil one, the monster, or the idiot, and you will try to make sure your audience sees the same.
That I mistook the game didn't make my opponent a cheater back then. I had little to zero way to win it, in a situation in which being called anti-American still worked as a way to blacklist your opponent, and in which lots of people were drunk with fear. He won fair and square, manipulating context and low-level appeals that WORKED, and that, yes, in that situation, it was considered a clean fight. Fallacy isn't cheating in an argument. And, for that, I forgive him, let go of this defeat, and apologize to you all for being an asshole about it.
I WAS right about Iraq, but that's besides the point now: If the harsh reality isn't rubbing that in my former opponent's face enough, surely I won't be able to. And if it is, he, a former military grunt, surely can feel that the war he supported is sending service people to their unnecessary deaths.
I also did learn something about lower-level appeals, and, for that, I thank my former opponent - Now I know how to hit below the belt, and can train at it too.
So, that's it, I'm sorry, and, if I bring this up again in another less-nice light (NOT about Iraq but about the ARGUMENT), link me to this post. That's right, folks, I'm giving everyone a free card against me. :p
And yes, I still have my Brobdingnagian pride and ego, I'm still a veritable Asuka Langley Sohryuu of arguing, so, if anyone felt particularly annoyed by the "right about Iraq" thing, they can rest easy in the fact that a post admitting a (clean) defeat at arguing and apologizing on the same breath was none too easy to make. ;)
It didn't come out of malice, or even out of sheer spite, but out of feeling cheated at arguing. And I had a minor epiphany last night and realized that no, I wasn't cheated. My opponent was a fearful military grunt moron who used lower-level appeals - emotion, fear - that WORKED WITH THE CONTEXT, a country paralyzed with fear over mushroom clouds, WMDs and so on. I wasn't in a discussion, I was in an argument, and I am finally able to realize the difference between the two: In a discussion, fallacies are - or would ideally be - hitting below the belt, since you are trying to convince your opponent, whom you regard with at least a modicum of respect. In an argument, nothing is below the belt, because you see your opponent as the evil one, the monster, or the idiot, and you will try to make sure your audience sees the same.
That I mistook the game didn't make my opponent a cheater back then. I had little to zero way to win it, in a situation in which being called anti-American still worked as a way to blacklist your opponent, and in which lots of people were drunk with fear. He won fair and square, manipulating context and low-level appeals that WORKED, and that, yes, in that situation, it was considered a clean fight. Fallacy isn't cheating in an argument. And, for that, I forgive him, let go of this defeat, and apologize to you all for being an asshole about it.
I WAS right about Iraq, but that's besides the point now: If the harsh reality isn't rubbing that in my former opponent's face enough, surely I won't be able to. And if it is, he, a former military grunt, surely can feel that the war he supported is sending service people to their unnecessary deaths.
I also did learn something about lower-level appeals, and, for that, I thank my former opponent - Now I know how to hit below the belt, and can train at it too.
So, that's it, I'm sorry, and, if I bring this up again in another less-nice light (NOT about Iraq but about the ARGUMENT), link me to this post. That's right, folks, I'm giving everyone a free card against me. :p
And yes, I still have my Brobdingnagian pride and ego, I'm still a veritable Asuka Langley Sohryuu of arguing, so, if anyone felt particularly annoyed by the "right about Iraq" thing, they can rest easy in the fact that a post admitting a (clean) defeat at arguing and apologizing on the same breath was none too easy to make. ;)