patrick.net

My friend the other day took it as I was being argumentive, because I didn't agree with MSM view of Ukraine.
He was the one turning into an argument, I just pointed out that I didn't agree that there has been 100 billion dollars worth of munitions consumed in the conflict. And my position was that it was laundered to set up other conflicts around the world. I further stated, perhaps Russia is on it too. They could have easily taken Ukraine by now. Russia really hasn't assaulted Kieve and leveled it, to the degree that would be necessary for him to win. Which would then take 100 billion dollars worth of hardware in a show of defense. By the same token Ukraine could have and should have taken back all territories Russia took going back to 2008, during their internal strife with the Wagner group upheaval. They all pulled out and left it all wide open. While Ukraine and the US just sat on their dicks, like a referee called "Time Out!" or something.

At this point it's clear the Democrats are going to try to claim some made up legal constitutional claim, that a wartime President can suspend the Presidential election.

So rather than agreeing to disagree he said I was arguing.

Oh and I also pointed out how in just two weeks of the Israel conflict we have seen more wartime footage and destruction that justifies 10 times the munitions used in Ukraine to date. I pointed out how the media is on the ground in Palestine because the Palestinians are all unified against their common enemy Israel. So the BBC isn't going to get conflicting first hand accounts from residents of bombed out buildings, conflicting with the narrative that it came from the opposing side. I told him how the MSM has stayed out of Ukraine not because it's dangerous but because the people on the ground wont collaborate their narrative, that Russia did it and Putin is bad. My friend was like "BULL SHIT" I see videos all the time, I watch them all day. I said well show me one. He kept bringing up VLogs and Reporters behind desks playing a video while narrating over it. I told him those are TV shows, give me some videos some lame 80's synth tracks and a British Accent, and I'll produce the same thing for you. In Palestine we're getting actual reporters on the ground interviewing people who experienced the horrific event, from a firsthand account. You never see that in Ukraine. He was livid, but still couldn't produce a single valid news reel depicting what I asked for.

Tenpoundbass says

I didn't agree that there has been 100 billion dollars worth of munitions consumed

I think it is how they account for the replacement value in dollars of the military equipment and munitions transfer to Ukraine

The replacement value in dollars then goes to buying new replacements from Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc.

.

Patrick says

I learned this four-point method for argument somewhere, but always seem to fail to follow it:

1. State opponent's position so that he agrees with it 100%. This is to prevent either side from attacking a strawman and then declaring victory. Do not continue until opponent completely agrees with your summary of his position.

2. State points of agreement, especially anything learned from opponent.

3. Give own position.

4. Make it clear your own position is not a personal attack, but only an attack on the position clearly stated in 1.

One could still loose friends after following this plan. Humans are emotional

gabbar says

Patrick says

I learned this four-point method for argument somewhere, but always seem to fail to follow it:

1. State opponent's position so that he agrees with it 100%. This is to prevent either side from attacking a strawman and then declaring victory. Do not continue until opponent completely agrees with your summary of his position.

2. State points of agreement, especially anything learned from opponent.

3. Give own position.

4. Make it clear your own position is not a personal attack, but only an attack on the position clearly stated in 1.

One could still loose friends after following this plan. Humans are emotional

I like it - it's an excellent screening mechanism for friends. I've had knock-down drag out arguments with some friends, and they are still my friends today. I said "something" to other friends, and they are probably (I don't know, they don't reach out to me anymore) no longer friends.

Friends who value other friends will engage and challenge, so this is a useful method.

Right, the key is to keep it about the point and not about the person.

None of this will work if arguing with a female.
But it's probably fun to try anyway.

I'm in SoCal and many of my friends, neighbors and in-laws are Liberal, so I have some experience.

When debating with a new Liberal, I start off with:

"Can we at least first agree that we want mainly the same things like world peace, good economy, safe streets, clean environment, affordable healthcare..... We just believe in different paths on how to get there."

If they can't even accept that basic premise and go off on how evil they think Conservatives are, I know to move on and not waste my time.

The sad and frustrating thing is that most of my Democrat voting friends/family agree with me on over 75% of the issues, they are just hung up on the culture stuff believing all the media caricatures of Conservatives and absolutely despise Trump with every fiber of their being.

All liberals are essentially full of shit and believe you should be taxed to right society's "wrongs."

They don't believe in laws, personal property (e.g. your money) nor anything in the Constitution.

They generally have a mental problem, an addiction problem, a sexual identity problem, a problem with successful males, etc. etc.

There's no point in arguing with one although it might pass the time if you're bored.

I know deep down they resent me but fuck em.

That's way too much work and not at all satisfying. You should start all discussions with "Jane, you ignorant slut...." and it should go down hill from there.

clambo says

I know deep down they resent me but fuck em.

You're right.

Leftist politics is just resentment coming out in other ways.

Ceffer says

Jane, you ignorant slut...

The most brilliant rebuttal of all time.

It's a good way to prevent Motte and Bailey tactics, too.

The Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy is a rhetorical trick where someone argues a point, but when challenged, they retreat to a more defensible position and claim that's what they were arguing for all along. Here's an example:

Person A: "We should completely defund the police force. Policing is inherently oppressive and should be abolished."

Person B: "But without police, there would be chaos and crime would skyrocket."

Person A: "You're misunderstanding me. I'm just suggesting we need to rethink the way we approach law enforcement, maybe reallocate some funds to social programs."

My wife turns everything into an argument, no matter the technique ;)

"You felt an earthquake and didn't tell me about it?!"

clambo says

None of this will work if arguing with a female.
But it's probably fun to try anyway.

Exactly, it’s all about the feelz when hormones run the brain.

clambo says

All liberals are essentially full of shit and believe their feelings are more important than your feelings and your property and your rights.

Fixed it for you.

socal2 says

they are just hung up on the culture stuff believing all the media caricatures of Conservatives and absolutely despise Trump with every fiber of their being.

Which is hilarious! As if Trump is, was or ever will be a conservative!!!

PeopleUnited says

As if Trump is, was or ever will be a conservative!!!

Socially, no. Fiscally. yes. Close borders, no new wars, bring manufacturing back to the US, no vaxx mandates (but did goof on the vaxx itself).

clambo says

None of this will work if arguing with a female.
But it's probably fun to try anyway.

In my professional life I work mostly with men. I have known well only a few women in my personal life -- they seem to have neither the proclivity nor the ability to think logically.

I would be curious to know from those of you who have had more experience than I: do women in professional settings (lawyer, judge, doctor, engineer, manager, etc) display the same capacity for logic that one would expect from men? (I know that men don't necessary think or act logically either.)

PeopleUnited says

clambo says

None of this will work if arguing with a female.
But it's probably fun to try anyway.

Exactly, it’s all about the feelz when hormones run the brain.

Fixed it for you.

Proven with Counseling: Men, even if skeptical, try the "Conflict Resolution Techniques" when the argument gets heated. Women say "Paaah! Muh Feelings Emote Emote Emote!!!" even if they were enthusiastic with the counselor.

That's why Marriage Counselors put 100% on the man and cross the fingers.

ad says

Tenpoundbass says

I didn't agree that there has been 100 billion dollars worth of munitions consumed

I think it is how they account for the replacement value in dollars of the military equipment and munitions transfer to Ukraine

The replacement value in dollars then goes to buying new replacements from Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc.

.

The whole number is not even $100B, but only $43B. Out of that only about 2/3 is military assistance provided in form of equipment and munitions priced at replacement value, i.e. when an old Humvee you can buy at a surplus auction for $3K is sent out itʼs accounted for at a $300K replacement value of a new Oshkosh armored vehicle. So yeah, nobody spent $100B worth of ammunition, but nobody except TPB made this argument in the first place. And most of it will be spent here, creating US jobs and renewing US military equipment.

yawaraf says

do women in professional settings (lawyer, judge, doctor, engineer, manager, etc) display the same capacity for logic that one would expect from men?

I think women programmers are capable of using logic as well as men, but they simply do not enjoy it as much. This is why there are far fewer women programmers.

Reminder:



I'm saying this holds true on average, but is not an absolute categorization.

It's usually not a good tactic to begin a discussion with the words, 'the thing I hate most about you ...'

Also, I never enter into an argument with anyone that a) breathes exclusively through their mouth and b) insists upon calling me dude. But that's just me.

The higher forms of argument are rarer, and better.

Patrick says

I learned this four-point method for argument somewhere

Even better is to avoid the temptation to argue and debate unnecessarily. One way of doing this through self-examination. Why do I feel the need to debate? Is it necessary? Will it change anything? Does it come from a place of curiosity (good) or from ego (bad). Do I feel the need to be right?

Curiosity versus the need to be right is key. Am I looking to learn, or to arrive at the best possible solution, or do I just need to be right? My body gives clues, e.g. if I am defending my ego I will be tense, anxious, etc. If I am curious, I will relaxed and thoughtful.

I subscribe to Stoic philosophy If argument and debate won't change anything, then it is not worthwhile. If the debate can change something, such as allowing for the best decision to be made, then it has merit. Arguing with strangers never changes anything and is generally rooted in ego and a need to be right.

I learned this four-point method for argument somewhere, but always seem to fail to follow it:

1. State opponent's position so that he agrees with it 100%. This is to prevent either side from attacking a strawman and then declaring victory. Do not continue until opponent completely agrees with your summary of his position.

2. State points of agreement, especially anything learned from opponent.

3. Give own position.

4. Make it clear your own position is not a personal attack, but only an attack on the position clearly stated in 1.

——-//————-
@patrick
Only works when you are debating with people of honor and integrity indulging in altruistic debate.

Most of the modern world debates are propaganda and profit driven(must win at any cost)…
In this situation just swamp the opponent or they will do it to you. Logic/Facts play critical but much smaller part than what people think.

Just look around who are winning the debates and getting result.. Billionaires owning the air to generate propaganda

Patrick says

The higher forms of argument are rarer, and better.

I always just say I did or said nothing wrong. Which usually shuts anyone up. Conversation at least. Make them have to prove their point and 9 out of 10 times they can't and I'm mostly ready with a rebuttal. They usually get caught in their own trap if I know I'm right.

My mom has TDS. I just ask her was it better under Biden than Trump. She now knows she's in the trap. She doesn't like Trump as a person. That's the only reason. There are a lot of arguments, but war, border and inflation are easy. That happen under Trump.

Generally though I just say whatever. That pisses them off more which is funny. I don't care what they have to say and just shrug them off. I know it's stupid and won't go to their level, so I basically ignore. "So how about that local sports team" is another go to. It's like I have no interest in arguing politics with you. Big Lebowski, "you're out of your element Donny."

Nomograph says

I subscribe to Stoic philosophy If argument and debate won't change anything, then it is not worthwhile. If the debate can change something, such as allowing for the best decision to be made, then it has merit. Arguing with strangers never changes anything and is generally rooted in ego and a need to be right.

@Nomograph I also am very impressed with Stoic philosophy and do a lot of reading. Epictetus is my favorite Stoic so far. Kinda brutal, but very realistic.

And I agree that debate has to have some hope of changing things to be worthwhile. But I disagree that arguing with strangers is pointless. First of all, it clarifies one's own thoughts. Second, people of goodwill are open to changing their mind if presented with a good argument presented in a non-personal way. Last, publicly stating what everyone is thinking but afraid to say can do an immense amount of good by being an example of courage that they can follow.

One of the sick psych experiments at Stanford showed that even one public dissenter has immense power to break conformity.

Nomograph says

I subscribe to Stoic philosophy If argument and debate won't change anything, then it is not worthwhile. If the debate can change something, such as allowing for the best decision to be made, then it has merit. Arguing with strangers never changes anything and is generally rooted in ego and a need to be right.

Meanwhile, Trump won the popular vote and is steamrolling DEI out of the FedGov. The Media is trying the "Look at this Fat middle aged Guatemalan woman with 5lb of makeup crying at the border" pictures but it's not moving the needle one bit.

Also, the old joke about the Stoic's secret weapon: