What To Do When You Are Attacked Personally in a Debate?

[Quark]

I'm pretty young (20 years old) and quite new to political debates. I educate myself as much as possible reading books on economics and politics that support my moral philosophy (libertarianism.) Often my good friend/housemate (who's much older) and I have political discussions. He describes himself as a "moderate" and it is quite clear that he is. Particularly of interest was a discussion on the necessity of central planning with zoning. He was once a part of a zoning board for his municipality, and because of this he strongly supports the central planning that goes on in the board. I politely, one day, said that I don't believe central planning is a good solution because it has negative affects on the economy and the property rights of individuals and consequently I can't sympathize with his stories involving his time on the zoning board. We got into an elevated argument in regards to this discussion. And I ended it by noting that it is likely a difference in our philosophies and forms of knowledge that add to our dissension, and that we will get nowhere in such a discussion. So the other night, on the news, there was a story about a man being bothered by the flashing lights of a shop close to his house. The man tried to ask the business-owner to turn off the flashing at night time, so that it wouldn't bother his and his wife's sleep. The business owner refused. Then the man went to several of his local government's meetings pleading his case. Nothing came out of it. In the end, the man went outside with a sign telling people to boycott the business. Instantly, my roommate said that this is why central planning and regulation is necessary. There should be an ordinance that says a sign within a few hundred feet of a residence should only be so bright. I chose to not discuss it with him. The next day he inquired again, because somehow we got onto the topic. I said that I don't want to share my opinions because I feel as if it would be a waste of time, which he took as me not wanting to talk with somebody I disagree with. He kept asking what MY "solution" to this man's problem would be. I kept telling him that if I gave him my ideas of a solution right there, off the top of my head, he'd pick and pick at anything it doesn't address, and unless I wrote an essay my thoughts would not accurately be expressed, fully, so I'd rather refrain from doing so. Eventually my efforts to refrain from entering the conversation failed, and I started providing my points. Eventually the attacks became personal:

I was told that "you don't care about others", " you're antisocial", and "you think that people should only care about themselves", which he knows are not true, but he says that when it comes to politics I have these behaviors.

In addition to that, there is a constant belief of his that my arguments are too abstract and that they have nothing to do with the real world. He devalues the books I read as just "on paper" theories, and that they might or might not be able to work. He also thinks I go off-topic when I explain the foundations of my reasoning, and he can't connect the foundations and general arguments with the specific discussion. For example, often I talk about spontaneous order when he professes chaos without regulation, and he thinks of it as an abstract concept rather than a real one.

On the other-hand, whenever I mention something that I read online, he instantly assumes that I hadn't checked the sources for reliability or my bias is inhibiting my ability to check the sources accurately. It doesn't matter if my sources are the mainstream media, or some other more obscure credible ones: he'll write them off as biased because of my views.

In every other aspect of life, we get along perfectly fine and do not argue, but when it comes to politics I feel as if I am attacked personally. I've recently tried to avoid such discussions, but it does not seem to work. How does one deal with such negative attitudes toward libertarian views, particularly those that affects one's views of your personal character?

[FloralScent]

Knuckle sandwich.

[staerker]

Limit your time around him. Not a good friend, that's it.

From personal experience, my life has been so much better after ignoring this type, even if they were 'good friends.'

I've had people fabricate the most insane lies about me in an argument, completely opposite of my true character.

Some people would rather rip you apart then entertain the thought that they are wrong, not worth your time.

[Quark]

Limit your time around him. Not a good friend, that's it.

That's the problem. If he weren't such a good friend in every other aspect, I'd do just that. But he is definitely one of the best friend I've had so far, and we get along quite fine otherwise.

[helmuth_hubener]

Wow, you're going to get some good practice, both for debating and for personal relationships!

You could just tell him your situation: "I feel like I'm being attacked a lot."

You are being the calm, collected one, and that's always good and an advantageous situation. In fact, it can be too advantageous. Often the other person being extremely calm and reasonable can just make the angry one angrier. So instead you can use your advantage of emotional control to deliberately and rationally rise to, not meet him, but approach closer to his level. Express some passion, some excitement. Raise your voice a little bit. This will probably, ironically, bring his level down.

Anyway, there's lots of ideas to try. I would try to really understand him, understand his thoughts, get inside his head.

[donnay]

When he brings up such topics tell him you simply do not want to discuss it with him. You have your view points and opinions (based upon your research) that are polar opposite of his indoctrinated view points and opinions, and not worth getting into a fist fight over.

Using reverse psychology on people helps. If he persists then you will have to prove to him your view points and opinions are based upon your research and show him. If he still doesn't want to believe any of it, let it go. You have planted seeds in his head.

[Demigod]

I'm pretty young (20 years old) and quite new to political debates. I educate myself as much as possible reading books on economics and politics that support my moral philosophy (libertarianism.) Often my good friend/housemate (who's much older) and I have political discussions. He describes himself as a "moderate" and it is quite clear that he is. Particularly of interest was a discussion on the necessity of central planning with zoning. He was once a part of a zoning board for his municipality, and because of this he strongly supports the central planning that goes on in the board. I politely, one day, said that I don't believe central planning is a good solution because it has negative affects on the economy and the property rights of individuals and consequently I can't sympathize with his stories involving his time on the zoning board. We got into an elevated argument in regards to this discussion. And I ended it by noting that it is likely a difference in our philosophies and forms of knowledge that add to our dissension, and that we will get nowhere in such a discussion. So the other night, on the news, there was a story about a man being bothered by the flashing lights of a shop close to his house. The man tried to ask the business-owner to turn off the flashing at night time, so that it wouldn't bother his and his wife's sleep. The business owner refused. Then the man went to several of his local government's meetings pleading his case. Nothing came out of it. In the end, the man went outside with a sign telling people to boycott the business. Instantly, my roommate said that this is why central planning and regulation is necessary. There should be an ordinance that says a sign within a few hundred feet of a residence should only be so bright. I chose to not discuss it with him. The next day he inquired again, because somehow we got onto the topic. I said that I don't want to share my opinions because I feel as if it would be a waste of time, which he took as me not wanting to talk with somebody I disagree with. He kept asking what MY "solution" to this man's problem would be. I kept telling him that if I gave him my ideas of a solution right there, off the top of my head, he'd pick and pick at anything it doesn't address, and unless I wrote an essay my thoughts would not accurately be expressed, fully, so I'd rather refrain from doing so. Eventually my efforts to refrain from entering the conversation failed, and I started providing my points. Eventually the attacks became personal:

I was told that "you don't care about others", " you're antisocial", and "you think that people should only care about themselves", which he knows are not true, but he says that when it comes to politics I have these behaviors.

In addition to that, there is a constant belief of his that my arguments are too abstract and that they have nothing to do with the real world. He devalues the books I read as just "on paper" theories, and that they might or might not be able to work. He also thinks I go off-topic when I explain the foundations of my reasoning, and he can't connect the foundations and general arguments with the specific discussion. For example, often I talk about spontaneous order when he professes chaos without regulation, and he thinks of it as an abstract concept rather than a real one.

On the other-hand, whenever I mention something that I read online, he instantly assumes that I hadn't checked the sources for reliability or my bias is inhibiting my ability to check the sources accurately. It doesn't matter if my sources are the mainstream media, or some other more obscure credible ones: he'll write them off as biased because of my views.

In every other aspect of life, we get along perfectly fine and do not argue, but when it comes to politics I feel as if I am attacked personally. I've recently tried to avoid such discussions, but it does not seem to work. How does one deal with such negative attitudes toward libertarian views, particularly those that affects one's views of your personal character?

You will get better at debating as you get older .Every one of those "abstract" arguments are really not that "abstract" if you know how to explain them.Taxes are not abstract they are "racketeering done by armed people",subsidies are stealing from the miners table to give to the farmers table and so on.If he starts attacking on a personal level just attack back in the same manner all those "you want kids to die" can be used just as easily if you know how to use them.

Just remember always to attack in a debate while he has to explain him self,also never get angry always smile at everything he says like it is a joke.Most importantly never argue about politics with just one other guy because a guy who would argue about politics 99% of the time has made his mind the guys who are sitting aside and hearing are the ones who need to be convinced in a debate and who decide who wins a debate.

[brushfire]

Personal attacks are a good indicator that they've lost the argument, or dont know enough about the topic to debate the content. Sometimes, its also just fun to attack one another. If you can master the art of discussion, you shall have a happy marriage. People have all sorts of methods to move discussion in a way that serves their argument, you just have to recognize it. My wife is a master of this technique - personal attacks are just one method/distraction.


Knuckle sandwich.

Sweep the leg.

[mosquitobite]

My response to him on most issues would be: "we will just have to agree to disagree and since I don't think either of us will change the others opinions, I see no merit in having the conversation."

I do feel he is slightly abusive so if this is someone you are potentially in a relationship with, this is something to consider. It is a controlling personality trait.

[FloralScent]

That's the problem. If he weren't such a good friend in every other aspect, I'd do just that. But he is definitely one of the best friend I've had so far, and we get along quite fine otherwise.

I've disowned many friends and family due to them being idiots. If I really want to maintain a friendship, I don't talk politics. If they persist, I lose 'em.

[specsaregood]

and not worth getting into a fist fight over.


But what better way to teach somebody the pain of others having power over you than a good beatdown?

[Cutlerzzz]

Use an English accent. He won't question you anymore.

[Root]

Start referring to all presidents as "the king".

[Demigod]

Why would you fight family and friends over something as trivial as politics?

[specsaregood]

./

[Cleaner44]

As a moderate, your friend is a statist and your main roadblock is that you don't see the state as the solution that he does. He probably see the central planners as solving problems, but ignores the problems they create. When he claims that you don't care about people, he is inferring that his solutions are more caring than yours. You could point out how central planning destroys people and how uncaring it is to some parties. Look at how his real life example of central planning has worked out in Detroit.

Something I like to do is take someone's own arguments and positions and then use them against them. What core beliefs does he have? Learn those and then show him how he violates them and contradicts himself.

[ClydeCoulter]

@Quark,

You have found yourself in a position to consider your stance on the issues.

Sometimes, a person gets attacked personally because the other side has no good argument. Other times, it is because neither side has a good argument so no other form of debate is left, but to personally attack. Not everyone will continue the debate if it has come down to personal attacks (seems a bit like you, but unlike the other).

So, perhaps, it's time to step back and find the words to describe what you intuitively know, such as "spontaneous order", etc...

What I have found, in my personal inquires into my own intuition, is that our natural language is not "English" (or whatever "native" language), but is instead that language between the mind and the heart and the gut that we were born with. Bringing those things that we have resolved (or not) to the forefront of the mind only (forefront in that communication that can be expressed to others) can be as enlightening to your own consciousness as it will be for others, once it is done. :)

[Quark]

Thank you very much for the replies so far. I'll definitely consider everything posted so far. I think the biggest issue for me is that until now all of my political discussions have been in an academic atmosphere, one in which ideology is discussed and applied, and one in which all parties stay relatively calm and intellectual about their reasoning and beliefs, using the dialogue as an inquiry. This conversation is with somebody whose experience with politics is purely experiential, and his political philosophy is not rooted in deductive theories but his personal experience. For example: to him, he sees the work and effort put into the zoning board from his experience on the board and thinks it must be fair and good, and I even sense a little bit of pride in his tone, but to me I think of the larger picture and how a central body controlling the community harms more than it helps, regardless of the intentions of its members. Maybe he views my attack on the concept of zoning boards as personal, because of the pride he had in his contribution to it, and that is the reason for his attacks toward me. I did attempt to use his same attacks toward him, though. For example we were talking about the death penalty, and I said off-hand, "You said that I don't care about others, yet you think it's alright that innocent people are acceptably murdered by the state just so the guilty are also murdered, is that the ideal of a person who cares about others?" Another example is that he often criticizes me for complaining about the system, yet not actively protesting. I tell him by sharing my ideas I help change the system, which he diminishes as not anything at all. Yet he will complain about the shale industry pollution and its tether to government, yet he does nothing about it other than express his disdain for it, similar to how I will complain about things that bother me in regards to the system. I brought that hypocrisy on his part up once and then he ended the conversation, never to use that argument again.

[jmdrake]

Interesting story. The fact is that the example your friend wants to use to show why central planning is necessary proves that central planning doesn't work. The man in question went to the "central government" to get help....and was ignored. That your friend can't see this is proof that he's too invested in the system to admit he is wrong about anything. It's like Obamacare. The fact that people are losing jobs and healthcare due to Obamacare just "proves" to some people just how "necessary" state run healthcare is.

Now, let's take your friend's "solution". How bright should the light be? "So bright" isn't an answer. At some point someone would have to pick an actual brightness value. Well...people are different. Say if this man and his wife are more sensitive to light than the average person? And why stop with lights? Car noise bothers some people. I was looking at a house my parents were thinking of buying the other day, and a person that was with us said "I couldn't live this near a highway. The noise would keep me up." Well...does that mean there needs to be an ordiance that no house can be built near a highway just because someone is bothered by it?

And, here's a thought. Why can't the man with the house not tint his windows and or get new window shades if the shades he has now doesn't block out enough light? Why can't he plant some hedge bushes in the line of sight to the business? I mean, really, some people work at night and sleep during the day. Does there need to be a city ordinance to block out the sun during the day when some people need to sleep?

So I would point out to your friend that while his "solution" exists, the ability to pass a new ordinance, so far it hasn't worked (no new ordinance has been passed) and the man in question could just fix the problem himself with some landscaping and re-moddeling. You won't win the argument, but you might plant a seed. Here's another thought. Contact the man who's doing the boycott and offer to help him with light fitlering landscaping and window treatments. Wouldn't that be a coup if a libertarian solved a problem that central planning had already failed to solve?


I'm pretty young (20 years old) and quite new to political debates. I educate myself as much as possible reading books on economics and politics that support my moral philosophy (libertarianism.) Often my good friend/housemate (who's much older) and I have political discussions. He describes himself as a "moderate" and it is quite clear that he is. Particularly of interest was a discussion on the necessity of central planning with zoning. He was once a part of a zoning board for his municipality, and because of this he strongly supports the central planning that goes on in the board. I politely, one day, said that I don't believe central planning is a good solution because it has negative affects on the economy and the property rights of individuals and consequently I can't sympathize with his stories involving his time on the zoning board. We got into an elevated argument in regards to this discussion. And I ended it by noting that it is likely a difference in our philosophies and forms of knowledge that add to our dissension, and that we will get nowhere in such a discussion. So the other night, on the news, there was a story about a man being bothered by the flashing lights of a shop close to his house. The man tried to ask the business-owner to turn off the flashing at night time, so that it wouldn't bother his and his wife's sleep. The business owner refused. Then the man went to several of his local government's meetings pleading his case. Nothing came out of it. In the end, the man went outside with a sign telling people to boycott the business. Instantly, my roommate said that this is why central planning and regulation is necessary. There should be an ordinance that says a sign within a few hundred feet of a residence should only be so bright. I chose to not discuss it with him. The next day he inquired again, because somehow we got onto the topic. I said that I don't want to share my opinions because I feel as if it would be a waste of time, which he took as me not wanting to talk with somebody I disagree with. He kept asking what MY "solution" to this man's problem would be. I kept telling him that if I gave him my ideas of a solution right there, off the top of my head, he'd pick and pick at anything it doesn't address, and unless I wrote an essay my thoughts would not accurately be expressed, fully, so I'd rather refrain from doing so. Eventually my efforts to refrain from entering the conversation failed, and I started providing my points. Eventually the attacks became personal:

I was told that "you don't care about others", " you're antisocial", and "you think that people should only care about themselves", which he knows are not true, but he says that when it comes to politics I have these behaviors.

In addition to that, there is a constant belief of his that my arguments are too abstract and that they have nothing to do with the real world. He devalues the books I read as just "on paper" theories, and that they might or might not be able to work. He also thinks I go off-topic when I explain the foundations of my reasoning, and he can't connect the foundations and general arguments with the specific discussion. For example, often I talk about spontaneous order when he professes chaos without regulation, and he thinks of it as an abstract concept rather than a real one.

On the other-hand, whenever I mention something that I read online, he instantly assumes that I hadn't checked the sources for reliability or my bias is inhibiting my ability to check the sources accurately. It doesn't matter if my sources are the mainstream media, or some other more obscure credible ones: he'll write them off as biased because of my views.

In every other aspect of life, we get along perfectly fine and do not argue, but when it comes to politics I feel as if I am attacked personally. I've recently tried to avoid such discussions, but it does not seem to work. How does one deal with such negative attitudes toward libertarian views, particularly those that affects one's views of your personal character?

[Red Green]

I immediately break down and cry. It's best to start out with the lip quiver and progress to restrained tears then on to full-out bawling. That usually makes them feel bad and if there's any women around, they'll usually rush in to comfort me. I then try to parlay that into sympathy sex later on.

[Quark]

Interesting story. The fact is that the example your friend wants to use to show why central planning is necessary proves that central planning doesn't work. The man in question went to the "central government" to get help....and was ignored. That your friend can't see this is proof that he's too invested in the system to admit he is wrong about anything. It's like Obamacare. The fact that people are losing jobs and healthcare due to Obamacare just "proves" to some people just how "necessary" state run healthcare is.

Now, let's take your friend's "solution". How bright should the light be? "So bright" isn't an answer. At some point someone would have to pick an actual brightness value. Well...people are different. Say if this man and his wife are more sensitive to light than the average person? And why stop with lights? Car noise bothers some people. I was looking at a house my parents were thinking of buying the other day, and a person that was with us said "I couldn't live this near a highway. The noise would keep me up." Well...does that mean there needs to be an ordiance that no house can be built near a highway just because someone is bothered by it?

And, here's a thought. Why can't the man with the house not tint his windows and or get new window shades if the shades he has now doesn't block out enough light? Why can't he plant some hedge bushes in the line of sight to the business? I mean, really, some people work at night and sleep during the day. Does there need to be a city ordinance to block out the sun during the day when some people need to sleep?

So I would point out to your friend that while his "solution" exists, the ability to pass a new ordinance, so far it hasn't worked (no new ordinance has been passed) and the man in question could just fix the problem himself with some landscaping and re-moddeling. You won't win the argument, but you might plant a seed. Here's another thought. Contact the man who's doing the boycott and offer to help him with light fitlering landscaping and window treatments. Wouldn't that be a coup if a libertarian solved a problem that central planning had already failed to solve?

He said that any new ordinance wouldn't help this man, but it would act as a prevention for others who have the same problem in the future, and if an ordinance were in place the man wouldn't have this problem. I said that the only way this man can be helped is by doing what he is doing, telling others to boycott the store, voluntarily. He agreed, but believes it still won't work regardless. In his eyes this man shouldn't have to do anything to get what he wants (no flashing light.) I don't agree with that, but if I were to express this belief he would construe it as me not caring about the man's problem.

[helmuth_hubener]

Back with more thoughts. Expanding on my previous advice to try to really understand him, here is an excerpt from a book that explains the idea perfectly:


From the life story of Ben Franklin:

...Determined to break this pattern and change his ways, Franklin decided there was only one solution: in all of his future interactions with people, he would force himself to take an initial step backward and not get emotional. From this more detached position, he would focus completely on the people he was dealing with, cutting off his own insecurities and desires from the equation. Exercising his mind this way every time, it would turn into a habit. In imagining how this would work, he had a strange sensation. It reminded him of the process he went through in creating the Dogood letters—thinking inside the character he had created, entering her world, and making her come alive in his mind. In essence, he would be applying this literary skill to everyday life. Gaining position inside people’s minds, he could see how to melt their resistance or thwart their malevolent plans.

To make this process foolproof, he decided he would also have to adopt a new philosophy: complete and radical acceptance of human nature. People possess ingrained qualities and characters. Some are frivolous like Keith, or vindictive like his brother, or rigid like the printers. There are people like this everywhere; it has been that way since the dawn of civilization. To get upset or try to alter them is futile—it will only make them bitter and resentful. Better to accept such people as one accepts the thorns on a rose. Better to observe and accumulate knowledge on human nature, as one accumulates knowledge in the sciences. If he could follow this new path in life, he would rid himself of his terrible naïveté and bring some rationality to his social relations....

To be truly charming and socially effective you have to understand people, and to understand them you have to get outside yourself and immerse your mind in their world.

Only when he realized how deeply naïve he had been could Franklin take the necessary steps to move past this naïveté. His focus on gaining social intelligence was the turning point of his career—it transformed him into the preeminent observer of human nature, a man with a magical ability to see into people. It also made him the perfect social companion—men and women everywhere fell under his spell because of his ability to attune himself to their energies. With tranquil and productive social relations, he could focus more of his time and attention to writing, to questions of science, to his endless inventions—to mastery.

It might be deduced from Benjamin Franklin’s story that social intelligence requires a detached, emotionless approach to people, making life rather dull in the process, but this is hardly the case. Franklin himself was by nature a very emotional man. He did not repress this nature, but rather turned his emotions in the opposite direction. Instead of obsessing over himself and what other people were not giving him, he thought deeply of how they were experiencing the world, what they were feeling and missing. Emotions seen inside other people create empathy and bring a deep understanding of what makes them tick. For Franklin, this outward focus gave him a pleasant feeling of lightness and ease; his life was hardly dull, but simply free of unnecessary battles.

Understand: you will continue to have problems in attaining social intelligence until you come to the realization that your view of people is dominated by the Naïve Perspective. Following Franklin’s example, you can reach this awareness by reviewing your past, paying particular attention to any battles, mistakes, tensions, or disappointments on the social front. If you look at these events through the lens of the Naïve Perspective, you will focus only on what other people have done to you—the mistreatments you endured from them, the slights or injuries you felt. Instead, you must turn this around and begin with yourself—how you saw in others qualities they did not possess, or how you ignored signs of a dark side to their nature. In doing this, you will be able to clearly see the discrepancy between your illusions about who they are and the reality, and the role you played in creating this discrepancy. If you look closely enough, you can often perceive in your relationships with bosses or superiors reenactments of the childhood family dynamic—the idealizing or demonizing that has become habitual.

By making yourself aware of the distorting process of the Naïve Perspective, you will naturally grow less comfortable with it. You will realize that you are operating in the dark, blind to people’s motivations and intentions, vulnerable to the same mistakes and patterns that occurred in the past. You will feel your lack of real connection to other people. The desire will naturally arise from within to change this dynamic—to start looking outward instead of focusing only on your own feelings, to observe before you react.

This new clarity about your perspective should be accompanied by an adjustment of your attitude. You must avoid the temptation to become cynical in your approach as an overreaction to your prior naïveté. The most effective attitude to adopt is one of supreme acceptance. The world is full of people with different characters and temperaments. We all have a dark side, a tendency to manipulate, and aggressive desires. The most dangerous types are those who repress their desires or deny the existence of them, often acting them out in the most underhanded ways. Some people have dark qualities that are especially pronounced. You cannot change such people at their core, but must merely avoid becoming their victim. You are an observer of the human comedy, and by being as tolerant as possible, you gain a much greater ability to understand people and to influence their behavior when necessary.

With this new awareness and attitude in place, you can begin to advance in your apprenticeship in social intelligence. It will yield invaluable skills that are essential in the quest for mastery.

Understand: we can never really experience what other people are experiencing. We always remain on the outside looking in, and this is the cause of so many misunderstandings and conflicts. But the primal source of human intelligence comes from the development of mirror neurons (see here), which gives us the ability to place ourselves in the skin of another and imagine their experience. Through continual exposure to people and by attempting to think inside them we can gain an increasing sense of their perspective, but this requires effort on our part. Our natural tendency is to project onto other people our own beliefs and value systems, in ways in which we are not even aware. When it comes to studying another culture, it is only through the use of our empathic powers and by participating in their lives that we can begin to overcome these natural projections and arrive at the reality of their experience. To do so we must overcome our great fear of the Other and the unfamiliarity of their ways. We must enter their belief and value systems, their guiding myths, their way of seeing the world. Slowly, the distorted lens through which we first viewed them starts to clear up. Going deeper into their Otherness, feeling what they feel, we can discover what makes them different and learn about human nature. This applies to cultures, individuals, and even writers of books. As Nietzsche once wrote, “As soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion.”

In summary: You need to develop a supreme acceptance of who this man is, rather than making any attempt to change him (an attempt which will fail).

You also have to decide what you want from the relationship. What are your goals? We as posters in this thread might make any number of assumptions about what you want to have happen, how you want this to all turn out. Most such assumptions will probably be wrong.

Once you understand him, and once you understand yourself, once you understand both of your positions and natures, then you can take your knowledge of those givens and use them to go about making your situation better, whatever that may mean for you.

I hope this helps.

[ClydeCoulter]

Thank you very much for the replies so far. I'll definitely consider everything posted so far. I think the biggest issue for me is that until now all of my political discussions have been in an academic atmosphere, one in which ideology is discussed and applied, and one in which all parties stay relatively calm and intellectual about their reasoning and beliefs, using the dialogue as an inquiry. This conversation is with somebody whose experience with politics is purely experiential, and his political philosophy is not rooted in deductive theories but his personal experience. For example: to him, he sees the work and effort put into the zoning board from his experience on the board and thinks it must be fair and good, and I even sense a little bit of pride in his tone, but to me I think of the larger picture and how a central body controlling the community harms more than it helps, regardless of the intentions of its members. Maybe he views my attack on the concept of zoning boards as personal, because of the pride he had in his contribution to it, and that is the reason for his attacks toward me. I did attempt to use his same attacks toward him, though. For example we were talking about the death penalty, and I said off-hand, "You said that I don't care about others, yet you think it's alright that innocent people are acceptably murdered by the state just so the guilty are also murdered, is that the ideal of a person who cares about others?" Another example is that he often criticizes me for complaining about the system, yet not actively protesting. I tell him by sharing my ideas I help change the system, which he diminishes as not anything at all. Yet he will complain about the shale industry pollution and its tether to government, yet he does nothing about it other than express his disdain for it, similar to how I will complain about things that bother me in regards to the system. I brought that hypocrisy on his part up once and then he ended the conversation, never to use that argument again.

I don't see that as a personal attack ("you just don't care" is a personal attack), but an attack on the "root problems of a thought", where personality could be removed, but has been injected. The statement could be reworded as a question of ideological consistency. Just as the attack he made (in the OP) about "spontaneous order" actually ending in "chaos" is an unsubstantiated claim (neither giving proof) needs consistency and basis.

(This is a good discussion, thanks for the OP)

[jmdrake]

He said that any new ordinance wouldn't help this man, but it would act as a prevention for others who have the same problem in the future, and if an ordinance were in place the man wouldn't have this problem. I said that the only way this man can be helped is by doing what he is doing, telling others to boycott the store, voluntarily. He agreed, but believes it still won't work regardless. In his eyes this man shouldn't have to do anything to get what he wants (no flashing light.) I don't agree with that, but if I were to express this belief he would construe it as me not caring about the man's problem.

But your friend is discounting the possibility that A) the ordinance might not pass because most people might think it was stupid and B) there could be other things that might prevent someone from sleeping and you can't pass a law for everything, although people try. Also, why should everyone get everything that they want, especially if they could fix the problem themselves with hedgebushes and blinds? Or, here's another cheap and easy solution that's actually guaranteed to work.

http://paintthecityneonpink.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/2683_4265.jpg?w=500

[Quark]

I don't see that as a personal attack ("you just don't care" is a personal attack), but an attack on the "root problems of a thought", where personality could be removed, but has been injected. The statement could be reworded as a question of ideological consistency, just as the attack he made (in the OP) about "spontaneous order" actually ending in "chaos".

(This is a good discussion, thanks for the OP)

Alone it wasn't, but he coupled it as a justification for a previous assessment that I'm anti-social (which he's not using to mean sociopath as it should mean, but to mean a combination of atomist, selfish, and asocial.) My usage wasn't a personal attack, but it used his negative personal assessment of me to show that one can construe him to have the same characteristic as he had attributed to me, using the same methodology. It was multi-purposed: to show that he is being inconsistent, but also to show that it is easy to construe somebody as not caring and that he might be wrong in his prior assessment that I don't care about other people because of my views.

[jmdrake]

I don't see that as a personal attack ("you just don't care" is a personal attack), but an attack on the "root problems of a thought", where personality could be removed, but has been injected. The statement could be reworded as a question of ideological consistency. Just as the attack he made (in the OP) about "spontaneous order" actually ending in "chaos" is an unsubstantiated claim (neither giving proof) needs consistency and basis.

(This is a good discussion, thanks for the OP)

Good point! How often do those of us who advocate for smaller government get the "You just don't care about (the poor, the environment, the innocent people being killed by a despot)" argument? What we know to be true, but have a hard time articulating, is that often the regulations, welfare and wars just make the problems being "solved" worse and/or exacerbate or create new problems. What we have to do to win hearts and minds is move beyond simply railing against government "solutions" to better expressing ideas about non government solutions.

[helmuth_hubener]

Maybe he views my attack on the concept of zoning boards as personal, because of the pride he had in his contribution to it. Good! You have already started to try to understand him. Continue pursuing more and deeper thoughts like this, and you will go far and have success.

[Quark]

But your friend is discounting the possibility that A) the ordinance might not pass because most people might think it was stupid and B) there could be other things that might prevent someone from sleeping and you can't pass a law for everything, although people try.

I brought that up as well, and he said that it would likely pass because people would be afraid of it happening to them. I knew that if I questioned this, he'd use an "appeal to authority" fallacy and say that he knows how these things work because of his experience. So I didn't bother.



Also, why should everyone get everything that they want, especially if they could fix the problem themselves with hedgebushes and blinds? Or, here's another cheap and easy solution that's actually guaranteed to work.

He'll agree in general that not everybody should get what they want, but his bias for this specific circumstance puts the guy being bothered in the right and the business-owner in the wrong. He also believes that these large signs don't do much at all for the business and that the business owner would not be hurt with these restrictions. I told him that he has no way of knowing that, and cannot substantiate it. That was another dead-end.

If you're interested here's the news story.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/12/02/local-couple-leads-boycott-of-store-over-its-bright-led-sign/

This bit is interesting


Howard says he’s offered to buy the couple blinds or shades for their windows, but Mercadante denies ever hearing the offer.

[jllundqu]

Why would you fight family and friends over something as trivial as politics?

Agreed. I have many friends from different parts of the political spectrum. Heck, half my family is uber-liberal california crazy! There are plenty more important things to talk about with friends and family than politics (and religion). I had to find this forum to discuss my ideas. I have no one to talk to about politics, otherwise.

[donnay]

Just remember:

“If you’re not catching flak you’re not over the target”

[aGameOfThrones]

http://m.quickmeme.com/img/54/541224302272e28bbbd5218194626bf42855ec7377105e545f 0f36be95a59676.jpg

[invisible]

As a moderate, your friend is a statist and your main roadblock is that you don't see the state as the solution that he does. He probably see the central planners as solving problems, but ignores the problems they create. When he claims that you don't care about people, he is inferring that his solutions are more caring than yours. You could point out how central planning destroys people and how uncaring it is to some parties. Look at how his real life example of central planning has worked out in Detroit.

Something I like to do is take someone's own arguments and positions and then use them against them. What core beliefs does he have? Learn those and then show him how he violates them and contradicts himself.

This!
Go ahead and let him drag you into the argument. Agree to do so, only if you will not be subjected to personal attacks, point them out if they occur, then tell him you will continue the next time you see him. The biggest problem you will have in flipping an argument around on him, is that he is probably too young to own or have owned property himself. To win the argument with him, you will need to demonstrate two things:
1) How zoning / central planning would keep HIM from doing things he wanted to do, or violate HIS property rights.
2) How zoning / central planning would harm others, or discourage productivity in the economy (destroys the "you don't care about people" attack).
A few quick examples off the top of my head:
He enjoys fishing, and wants to buy a boat. His garage is too small to keep a boat in it, and the zoning ordinance says that he can't keep it anywhere else on his property or park it on the street.
He wants to put a tv antenna on his roof. Should his neighbor who dislikes him be able to keep him from watching tv because he's "blocking their view of the skyline / mountains / sunset"?
Neighborhoods change, and thus the demand for different goods and services changes over time. If the zoning ordinance was written in 1930, the location of commercial zoning designations will by outdated. This creates an unnecessary burden on both those who want to supply the needs of the residents, and on the residents themselves because they cannot buy the goods and services they need.
If zoning exists to "isolate and concentrate undesirable activity", then why should that "undesirable activity" be forced onto some arbitrary group of people? Demand that he explain why some people should be "helped" at the expense of "hurting" others.
Surely you can think of many more examples that will hit close to home with his own personal interests. Always keep him on the defensive. Always flip things around, and use his own arguments against him.

[surf]

I think you two should smoke a bowl together and then discuss the positive aspects of freedom in an un-free world.

[bolil]

Personal attack? Deploy the spyderco and begin screaming. No words, just murder scream. Wait for them to run from the room (hopefully) and have a good laugh.

[Christian Liberty]

I've disowned many friends and family due to them being idiots. If I really want to maintain a friendship, I don't talk politics. If they persist, I lose 'em.

I know too many idiots to do this:p

Seriously though, there are certain family members I think I've decided I'm not going to talk about politics with anymore. Its just not worth it. I don't care how stupid ones views are so much as how they discuss them. If a person will rationally debate (In this case I use "rational" to refer to style, not substance) or at least be reasonable I'll talk to them. Very different when I get personal attacks, or worse, attacks on my age.

[Ender]

Dude- give him an answer.

Something like:
a) The neighbor needs blackout curtains on his bedroom windows.
b) The neighbor needs some negotiating skills: "I'll sweep your drive if you'll turn the lights out at night" or some such thing.

While your friend goes off on these, find other answers/solutions; turn it into a game and have some fun.

If he gets personal just say "Come on- is that the best you've got?" ;)

[acptulsa]

Turn it on him. There's always a way. Then de-escalate.

Oh, I care about children all right. It's you who care more about the politicians and the subcontractors getting their cut. If you didn't, you'd let people keep enough of what they earn to be able to contribute to private charities, which are demonstrably more efficient than any government, or county governments, which are demonstrably more efficient than the federal government. So, obviously, you care much, much more about the fat cats getting their cut than about any children. If you care about any children at all. Are they giving you a cut too?

Oh? You don't want to get personal? Then don't get personal and debate me like a rational person, and I won't fight fire with fire. Agreed?

This sort of retort can always be found, once you get practiced at looking for it. What's more, it almost always gets under their defenses. And even when it doesn't, it leads every witness in the room to declare you the winner of the debate.

Seriously. The only way you can't use this is when you're just flat dead wrong. And even then something along these lines can usually be found anyway.

[enhanced_deficit]

I'm pretty young (20 years old) and quite new to political debates.

No one can really "attack" effectively/offend you without your consent. It is upto you if you decide to dignify personal attacks with a response or not, better to ignore unless major consequences or political costs etc.

[Natural Citizen]

Personal attacks are a good indicator that they've lost the argument, or dont know enough about the topic to debate the content.



This is the answer, I think.

I would only add that often people who tend to view themselves as leaders or perceive themselves to be viewed as leaders by those around them feel threatened in situations like this and so this is a human tendency to retaliate in this way because it is, in effect, something that they themselves take personal. It's a way for them to reassure themselves (if even in their own mind) that they are...oh, I don't know...something.

[mosquitobite]

No one can really "attack" effectively/offend you without your consent. It is up to you if you decide to dignify personal attacks with a response or not, better to ignore unless major consequences or political costs etc.

Well said,

Someone only has the power to control you if you allow them that power.

That's how bullies operate.

Funny thing is, it was a full-fledged internet troll that taught me that!

[2young2vote]

Tell him that zoning laws single-handedly account for huge amounts of job loss and poverty. Zoning laws limit land usage which decreases supply. this increases the cost of living for the poor (he must hate poor people, correct? He must because he supports zoning and central planning) and makes it extremely difficult for them to get out of poverty and to get a house of their own.

Not only that, but small businesses spend tens of thosuands (literally, I can tell you from experience that zoning laws, as well as other regulations, have cost my dad's business tens of thousands, not to mention lost sales from not being able to make it as appealing as we want it to, and I'm not even talking about flashing signs) of dollars due to zoning laws. Everything from the inflated cost of real estate to rules regarding usage of the property to the square footage of signage which I KNOW FOR A FACT affects sales which affects how many people we CAN hire.

So, whats that again? He hates poor people and job growth? The minor inconveniences that may be caused by the lack of, or not stringent enough, zoning laws are nothing compared to what it costs society as a whole.

Zoning laws and permits are, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same. "You cannot do this here because 'X'. You cannot sell here because 'X'" A regulation is a regulation, it just so happens that Zoning has an affect on both individuals AND businesses.

They (as well as the thousands of other government regulations) create a barrier to entry that is often so high that people cannot make a living for themselves.

I have a great example. There was a boy who grew up in my city in the 40s, I believe, and started a business at the age of 15. He nailed together some styrofoam and plywood or particle board (which was supposedly a new product at that time), and put it on his bike. He then rode around the city in public areas like the sidewalk outside a baseball stadium or in the downtown area, selling forzen deserts. By the time he was 17 he had a fleet of these bikes all around the state and was bringing in over $100,000 per year, in 1940s dollars. Needless to say, he went on to become a multi-millionaire who my dad worked for for a time. My dad now owns an ice cream shop and was vending out of an ice cream cart at a public event (after spending hundreds on getting the require permits, losing money in the process) and this now old man comes up to him and slaps him on the shoulder and says happily "Hey, I made my first million out of one of these!" My dad responded "If I did now what you did then, I would be arrested, fined, and sent to jail."

These zoning laws and other city/state laws really, REALLY, are some of the only laws that can get me upset because I know first hand how much they hurt employees, business and customers. People who believe that they are actually benefiting society by pushing these ridiculous rules are fools, and your friend is too.

P.S. Just ignore the personal insults, they don't mean anything. You have to go on the offensive and TELL him why he is wrong. Do more research on zoning laws, do more research on business. Heck, just for fun you should make a video and interview local business owners and as you ask them generic questions about their business you can throw in some regarding zoning and regulation. Remember, your friends philosophy isn't just about zoning, its about the idea of government being involved in the personal and business lives of individuals.

[DamianTV]

I'd take it that a Personal Attack means they've run out of ammo of logical arguments, which means you've won the debate and they're just crying about it.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I'm pretty young (20 years old) and quite new to political debates. I educate myself as much as possible reading books on economics and politics that support my moral philosophy (libertarianism.) Often my good friend/housemate (who's much older) and I have political discussions. He describes himself as a "moderate" and it is quite clear that he is. Particularly of interest was a discussion on the necessity of central planning with zoning. He was once a part of a zoning board for his municipality, and because of this he strongly supports the central planning that goes on in the board. I politely, one day, said that I don't believe central planning is a good solution because it has negative affects on the economy and the property rights of individuals and consequently I can't sympathize with his stories involving his time on the zoning board. We got into an elevated argument in regards to this discussion. And I ended it by noting that it is likely a difference in our philosophies and forms of knowledge that add to our dissension, and that we will get nowhere in such a discussion. So the other night, on the news, there was a story about a man being bothered by the flashing lights of a shop close to his house. The man tried to ask the business-owner to turn off the flashing at night time, so that it wouldn't bother his and his wife's sleep. The business owner refused. Then the man went to several of his local government's meetings pleading his case. Nothing came out of it. In the end, the man went outside with a sign telling people to boycott the business. Instantly, my roommate said that this is why central planning and regulation is necessary. There should be an ordinance that says a sign within a few hundred feet of a residence should only be so bright. I chose to not discuss it with him. The next day he inquired again, because somehow we got onto the topic. I said that I don't want to share my opinions because I feel as if it would be a waste of time, which he took as me not wanting to talk with somebody I disagree with. He kept asking what MY "solution" to this man's problem would be. I kept telling him that if I gave him my ideas of a solution right there, off the top of my head, he'd pick and pick at anything it doesn't address, and unless I wrote an essay my thoughts would not accurately be expressed, fully, so I'd rather refrain from doing so. Eventually my efforts to refrain from entering the conversation failed, and I started providing my points. Eventually the attacks became personal:

I was told that "you don't care about others", " you're antisocial", and "you think that people should only care about themselves", which he knows are not true, but he says that when it comes to politics I have these behaviors.

In addition to that, there is a constant belief of his that my arguments are too abstract and that they have nothing to do with the real world. He devalues the books I read as just "on paper" theories, and that they might or might not be able to work. He also thinks I go off-topic when I explain the foundations of my reasoning, and he can't connect the foundations and general arguments with the specific discussion. For example, often I talk about spontaneous order when he professes chaos without regulation, and he thinks of it as an abstract concept rather than a real one.

On the other-hand, whenever I mention something that I read online, he instantly assumes that I hadn't checked the sources for reliability or my bias is inhibiting my ability to check the sources accurately. It doesn't matter if my sources are the mainstream media, or some other more obscure credible ones: he'll write them off as biased because of my views.

In every other aspect of life, we get along perfectly fine and do not argue, but when it comes to politics I feel as if I am attacked personally. I've recently tried to avoid such discussions, but it does not seem to work. How does one deal with such negative attitudes toward libertarian views, particularly those that affects one's views of your personal character?

What should you do?

Win

[jmdrake]

Wow! That's profound. What's the name of the book? (I looked on Amazon.com for "The Life Story of Ben Franklin" and I don't see it come up if that's the title.)


Back with more thoughts. Expanding on my previous advice to try to really understand him, here is an excerpt from a book that explains the idea perfectly:


From the life story of Ben Franklin:

...Determined to break this pattern and change his ways, Franklin decided there was only one solution: in all of his future interactions with people, he would force himself to take an initial step backward and not get emotional. From this more detached position, he would focus completely on the people he was dealing with, cutting off his own insecurities and desires from the equation. Exercising his mind this way every time, it would turn into a habit. In imagining how this would work, he had a strange sensation. It reminded him of the process he went through in creating the Dogood letters—thinking inside the character he had created, entering her world, and making her come alive in his mind. In essence, he would be applying this literary skill to everyday life. Gaining position inside people’s minds, he could see how to melt their resistance or thwart their malevolent plans.

To make this process foolproof, he decided he would also have to adopt a new philosophy: complete and radical acceptance of human nature. People possess ingrained qualities and characters. Some are frivolous like Keith, or vindictive like his brother, or rigid like the printers. There are people like this everywhere; it has been that way since the dawn of civilization. To get upset or try to alter them is futile—it will only make them bitter and resentful. Better to accept such people as one accepts the thorns on a rose. Better to observe and accumulate knowledge on human nature, as one accumulates knowledge in the sciences. If he could follow this new path in life, he would rid himself of his terrible naïveté and bring some rationality to his social relations....

To be truly charming and socially effective you have to understand people, and to understand them you have to get outside yourself and immerse your mind in their world.

Only when he realized how deeply naïve he had been could Franklin take the necessary steps to move past this naïveté. His focus on gaining social intelligence was the turning point of his career—it transformed him into the preeminent observer of human nature, a man with a magical ability to see into people. It also made him the perfect social companion—men and women everywhere fell under his spell because of his ability to attune himself to their energies. With tranquil and productive social relations, he could focus more of his time and attention to writing, to questions of science, to his endless inventions—to mastery.

It might be deduced from Benjamin Franklin’s story that social intelligence requires a detached, emotionless approach to people, making life rather dull in the process, but this is hardly the case. Franklin himself was by nature a very emotional man. He did not repress this nature, but rather turned his emotions in the opposite direction. Instead of obsessing over himself and what other people were not giving him, he thought deeply of how they were experiencing the world, what they were feeling and missing. Emotions seen inside other people create empathy and bring a deep understanding of what makes them tick. For Franklin, this outward focus gave him a pleasant feeling of lightness and ease; his life was hardly dull, but simply free of unnecessary battles.

Understand: you will continue to have problems in attaining social intelligence until you come to the realization that your view of people is dominated by the Naïve Perspective. Following Franklin’s example, you can reach this awareness by reviewing your past, paying particular attention to any battles, mistakes, tensions, or disappointments on the social front. If you look at these events through the lens of the Naïve Perspective, you will focus only on what other people have done to you—the mistreatments you endured from them, the slights or injuries you felt. Instead, you must turn this around and begin with yourself—how you saw in others qualities they did not possess, or how you ignored signs of a dark side to their nature. In doing this, you will be able to clearly see the discrepancy between your illusions about who they are and the reality, and the role you played in creating this discrepancy. If you look closely enough, you can often perceive in your relationships with bosses or superiors reenactments of the childhood family dynamic—the idealizing or demonizing that has become habitual.

By making yourself aware of the distorting process of the Naïve Perspective, you will naturally grow less comfortable with it. You will realize that you are operating in the dark, blind to people’s motivations and intentions, vulnerable to the same mistakes and patterns that occurred in the past. You will feel your lack of real connection to other people. The desire will naturally arise from within to change this dynamic—to start looking outward instead of focusing only on your own feelings, to observe before you react.

This new clarity about your perspective should be accompanied by an adjustment of your attitude. You must avoid the temptation to become cynical in your approach as an overreaction to your prior naïveté. The most effective attitude to adopt is one of supreme acceptance. The world is full of people with different characters and temperaments. We all have a dark side, a tendency to manipulate, and aggressive desires. The most dangerous types are those who repress their desires or deny the existence of them, often acting them out in the most underhanded ways. Some people have dark qualities that are especially pronounced. You cannot change such people at their core, but must merely avoid becoming their victim. You are an observer of the human comedy, and by being as tolerant as possible, you gain a much greater ability to understand people and to influence their behavior when necessary.

With this new awareness and attitude in place, you can begin to advance in your apprenticeship in social intelligence. It will yield invaluable skills that are essential in the quest for mastery.

Understand: we can never really experience what other people are experiencing. We always remain on the outside looking in, and this is the cause of so many misunderstandings and conflicts. But the primal source of human intelligence comes from the development of mirror neurons (see here), which gives us the ability to place ourselves in the skin of another and imagine their experience. Through continual exposure to people and by attempting to think inside them we can gain an increasing sense of their perspective, but this requires effort on our part. Our natural tendency is to project onto other people our own beliefs and value systems, in ways in which we are not even aware. When it comes to studying another culture, it is only through the use of our empathic powers and by participating in their lives that we can begin to overcome these natural projections and arrive at the reality of their experience. To do so we must overcome our great fear of the Other and the unfamiliarity of their ways. We must enter their belief and value systems, their guiding myths, their way of seeing the world. Slowly, the distorted lens through which we first viewed them starts to clear up. Going deeper into their Otherness, feeling what they feel, we can discover what makes them different and learn about human nature. This applies to cultures, individuals, and even writers of books. As Nietzsche once wrote, “As soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my position and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion.”

In summary: You need to develop a supreme acceptance of who this man is, rather than making any attempt to change him (an attempt which will fail).

You also have to decide what you want from the relationship. What are your goals? We as posters in this thread might make any number of assumptions about what you want to have happen, how you want this to all turn out. Most such assumptions will probably be wrong.

Once you understand him, and once you understand yourself, once you understand both of your positions and natures, then you can take your knowledge of those givens and use them to go about making your situation better, whatever that may mean for you.

I hope this helps.

[Ender]

Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener


In summary: You need to develop a supreme acceptance of who this man is, rather than making any attempt to change him (an attempt which will fail).

You also have to decide what you want from the relationship. What are your goals? We as posters in this thread might make any number of assumptions about what you want to have happen, how you want this to all turn out. Most such assumptions will probably be wrong.

Once you understand him, and once you understand yourself, once you understand both of your positions and natures, then you can take your knowledge of those givens and use them to go about making your situation better, whatever that may mean for you.

I hope this helps.

Beautiful!

I have learned to follow The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz.
(wisdom taught by the ancient Toltecs)

They are:

1. Keep your word impeccable (without sin). This means your words to yourself as well as others.
2. Take nothing personally. Nothing is about you- people's problems are theirs- let them have them.
3) Don't assume. We all know what this does. ;)
4) Do your best. In what ever circumstances you find yourself in- do your best.

[jmdrake]

I brought that up as well, and he said that it would likely pass because people would be afraid of it happening to them. I knew that if I questioned this, he'd use an "appeal to authority" fallacy and say that he knows how these things work because of his experience. So I didn't bother.

Did he tell you how much it would cost to actually get it on the ballot in the first place? I just looked it up and it takes over 3,500 signatures of registered voters to get something on the ballot in Pittsburg.

http://ballotpedia.org/City_of_Pittsburg_Urban_Limit_Line,_Measure_I_%28N ovember_2011%29

Assuming this person makes at least minimum wage, the time it would take to collect the signatures would be far less than money it would cost to buy some shades. And, of course, winning assumes that businesses aren't able to launch any kind of counter offensive. People would be afraid of what happening to them? Having to buy shades? Wouldn't they want shades?

That said, this shows why statists are a powerful bunch. They are good at rallying sheeple around stupid causes. Could we get people afraid enough about getting shot by cops who mistake their house for a drug house to pass ballot initiatives against no knock warrants?



He'll agree in general that not everybody should get what they want, but his bias for this specific circumstance puts the guy being bothered in the right and the business-owner in the wrong. He also believes that these large signs don't do much at all for the business and that the business owner would not be hurt with these restrictions. I told him that he has no way of knowing that, and cannot substantiate it. That was another dead-end.

If you're interested here's the news story.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/12/02/local-couple-leads-boycott-of-store-over-its-bright-led-sign/

This bit is interesting

Hmmm....sounds like this couple is just out for publicity. I bet that a year from now nothing will have changed and there will have been no new "ordinance" either. Shades, easy fix. Boycott? Probably isn't going to work. Ordinance? Ain't gonna happen. Of course a year is a long time to wait just to tell your friend "I told you so." ;)

[helmuth_hubener]

Wow! That's profound. What's the name of the book? (I looked on Amazon.com for "The Life Story of Ben Franklin" and I don't see it come up if that's the title.) It's called Mastery. Yes, I've found it highly worthwhile. Good thesis; a lot of good ideas.


http://goinswriter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Mastery-robert-greene.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Mastery-Robert-Greene/dp/0670024961)

[Christian Liberty]

What I hate even more than when I get personally attacked is when someone pretends to be personally attacked even when they weren't.

For instance, I once said I didn't like cops because of the victimless crimes laws they enforce (I later realized that there was a better way to approach this without generalizing, even if the generalization is mostly accurate, but nonetheless...) My uncle responded by taking it personally because of a friend of his who had died in a car crash on his way to work, who was a cop, and another one of his friends who was killed by a drunk driver.

I discontinued the conversation, but I was ticked.

[Carson]

I try not to let it get to me and remind myself if they have resorted to personal attacks they have already lost the argument.


"Never argue with an idiot ! first they will drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."

Some guy on Fark.



“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

― Mark Twain

[helmuth_hubener]

What I hate even more than when I get personally attacked is when someone pretends to be personally attacked even when they weren't.

For instance, I once said I didn't like cops because of the victimless crimes laws they enforce (I later realized that there was a better way to approach this without generalizing, even if the generalization is mostly accurate, but nonetheless...) My uncle responded by taking it personally because of a friend of his who had died in a car crash on his way to work, who was a cop, and another one of his friends who was killed by a drunk driver.

I discontinued the conversation, but I was ticked.

"I don't like them" + context + your tone of voice (I'm sure) = "They are bad."

Your uncle was unable to reconcile what he knew about his friend, who was a upstanding, kind-hearted individual, a loyal friend, and good in every way, with your accusation that he must be a bad person. Thus, the problem.

[helmuth_hubener]

Man, my connection is flaky!

[fr33]

Consider the words and precepts that both you and your friend use. Don't just accept these precepts as legitimate. It's probably not going to help you with their claim that you are anti-social but reject the "we" that is always thrown around when describing what "we" must do for everyone. Who is this "we"? Did you ever agree to be part of this "we"?

[Christian Liberty]

"I don't like them" + context + your tone of voice (I'm sure) = "They are bad."

Your uncle was unable to reconcile what he knew about his friend, who was a upstanding, kind-hearted individual, a loyal friend, and good in every way, with your accusation that he must be a bad person. Thus, the problem.

There was a little more to it than that. We were talking about something specific, so it wasn't like I just said "You know, I don't really like cops" just because I felt like it. I'm actually very calm in actual debates. His tone of voice is always more "harsh" than mine, which wouldn't bother me as such, except that its annoying when replaced by actual debate.

And no, I was NOT talking about his friend, who, from everything I've heard (This man died when I was 11 and I met him like once) was indeed a good, Christian man. I know a police captain, one of the strongest Christians that I know. I still oppose all aggression on principle.

Which is ultimately what I should have said. I found Copblock.org's "badges don't grant extra rights" slogan to be helpful.

That said, I've decided I'm not going to debate this particular uncle anymore. There's no real purpose to it, and not only that, his son is my best friend, so I frankly don't want to open the can of worms. There are some people you can debate in a civil manner, and others who you can't. He's one that you can't. Its like when a liberal says that if you don't support gun control you think 26 deaths at Sandy Hook were "worth it." Its the same degree of illogic. There are certain circumstances where I would debate someone that dumb, and those would be circumstances where I absolutely, positively do not care what the other party's opinion of me is. That isn't one of them.

[Christian Liberty]

Man, my connection is flaky!

What do you mean "Bad"?

I agree that a person's responsibility is to some extent based on what he knows. To be completely ignorant is to hold less responsibility than if you have had the principles of liberty presented to you, but do not agree with them, which in turn would hold less moral responsibility than knowing the truth but still acting contrary to it out of self-interest. I won't call someone a "bad person" (I don't really like that word as a believer in total depravity, please understand that I'm using this word very loosely here) if they fall under the 1st or 2nd category as long as they aren't deliberate sociopaths. However, if someone does defend themselves against their aggression, even if their aggression is done ignorantly, the person defending himself should not be legally culpable. I don't always think that "Everything that is permissible is beneficial" but people do have a right to defend themselves against aggression.

On the other hand, I would indeed consider someone who fell under category #3, or those who go beyond what the law requires, to be "bad."

But I wouldn't consider anyone who doesn't fall under that to be "good" either. Just a little less culpable.

[helmuth_hubener]

What do you mean "Bad"?I'm not saying that you were intentionally meaning to say cops are bad.

I am not even saying that they aren't bad!

And obviously you were not specifically talking about the friend.

I'm just saying that doubtless your uncle took it a certain way when you said "I don't like cops." Saying things like that are basically not socially acceptable.

Doesn't mean I haven't said just such things, and far more explosive ones, myself, and probably far more than you! But when people get mad at it, it really isn't a mystery.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not saying that you were intentionally meaning to say cops are bad.

I am not even saying that they aren't bad!

And obviously you were not specifically talking about the friend.

I'm just saying that doubtless your uncle took it a certain way when you said "I don't like cops." Saying things like that are basically not socially acceptable.

Doesn't mean I haven't said just such things, and far more explosive ones, myself, and probably far more than you! But when people get mad at it, it really isn't a mystery.

Hey, man, I've listened to you enough to know we mostly agree on stuff. I wasn't taking it as you disagreeing with me.

Of course its not socially acceptable. The entire libertarian ethic is socially unacceptable. That fact, combined with my Biblical evidence for it, continues to convince me that the libertarian ethic is a Christian ethic.

The question is, what do you do about that fact? What's the best way to handle conversations like that, if at all? I mean, education is the way to change things, despite the fact that only a minority will accept the message and a majority will hate it. So... what's the best way to handle things like that?

[helmuth_hubener]

The question is, what do you do about that fact? All I know is that I know enough to know that I really don't know.

[Champ]

When the debate turns into personal attacks from one side or the other, it means he has no more logic or facts to stand on to continue countering your points. He is either doing this out of complete frustration from talking to you or he is trying to take you down a peg, hurt you, in order to make himself feel good, to save his ego the despair of admitting he is wrong.

I know you probably think this is a great guy, minus the one issue, but as a younger guy, you might be content being friends with people still that differ greatly in such important aspects of your life, like politics and philosophy. At a younger age, you can probably afford to waste your energy on people like this, but just from my own experience of being a bit older, it ends up being too much energy wasted on these type of friendships.

I'm picky as all hell about whom I become friends with now, especially in the philosophical and intellectual category, but it saves me the energy, anger, and frustration of having encounters like the one you shared here. I feel like I have more time now to focus on other slightly more important things, like somehow saving this country, instead of trying to feel good about a single friendship.

In order to have good friends that think a lot as a libertarian, minarchist, or anarchist, it definitely takes a lot more seeking out and trying to find people that are similar in lifestyle as you, since we all know, and most unfortunate, those groups are scrutinized and are social pariahs at this point in time. The people that you grew up with, live in your city, attended the same school as you, likely are in a different place as you on an intellectual level. It's a lot of work, but I think it's worth it putting in the extra effort to find people that have that same mentality you have of living free and not imposing your lifestyle on others through government and force.

Either way, good luck with however you decide to handle this issue.

[Dianne]

[QUOTE=brushfire;5329696]Personal attacks are a good indicator that they've lost the argument, or dont know enough about the topic to debate the content. Sometimes, its also just fun to attack one another. If you can master the art of discussion, you shall have a happy marriage. People have all sorts of methods to move discussion in a way that serves their argument, you just have to recognize it. My wife is a master of this technique - personal attacks are just one method/distraction.

"Personal attacks are a good indicator that they've lost the argument" . One of the best comments ever, that I have read on this forum. Completely true... he no longer wants to debate, he knows you won.............. he has no legitimate answers; so to save face he will resort to personal attacks. It's the same thing Barry Obama does every day.