renowiggum
02-05-2010, 01:32 PM
A great post full of good points for blog comments (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/02/my_quarterly_plea_for_comment.php), most of which could be easily applied to message boards on topics both sports and non-sports related.
Among my favorites:
Assume goodwill on the part of those with whom you are arguing. Assume that they are basically good people. Assume that they, like you, are trying to make the universe a better place for a small planet full of East Africans Plains Apes. When you encounter a maddeningly frustrating argument, consider the following possibilities:
You are stuck on something that is ultimately a value judgement between two incommensurable and worthy goals: the autonomy of women versus the future life of a fetus
One of you has misunderstood the argument of the other (and you may be the one in error)
There are key missing facts
Try to employ these exclusively, rather than the thesis so beloved of most of the internet:
My opponent is a selfish jerk who wants to bring as many people as possible under the dominion of his iron fist. Also, he is stupid, has poor taste in clothes, and vivisects puppies in his spare time.
1) No one gets to pick some time in the distant past when everyone was right, and declare that they draw their moral authority from the denizens of that halcyon era. The fifties and the sixties are over, folks. If your idea can't stand on its own now, its popular history won't help it.
6) If you have to fudge numbers and blur distinctions in order to make a case for your ideas, why do you believe them? If you don't understand the science or math behind an issue, why are you arguing with people who understand it better? Do you hope to convince them with the vast inertial weight of your ignorance? Or are you hoping to get them so frustrated by the difficulty of explaining climatology to someone who dropped out of freshman physics that they spontaneously combust? [unfortunately, this does not work -- ed.] Or do you just enjoy looking like a total idiot in public?
12) If, when someone seems to refute a point you have made, you say "That's not the point", you must then state what the point is. If they then refute that point, you are not allowed to say that that actually wasn't the point either, and the real point was some third thing that hasn't been yet refuted. Neither may you change the subject to tangential or related issues until you have conceded that you were incorrect about the first topic.
Among my favorites:
Assume goodwill on the part of those with whom you are arguing. Assume that they are basically good people. Assume that they, like you, are trying to make the universe a better place for a small planet full of East Africans Plains Apes. When you encounter a maddeningly frustrating argument, consider the following possibilities:
You are stuck on something that is ultimately a value judgement between two incommensurable and worthy goals: the autonomy of women versus the future life of a fetus
One of you has misunderstood the argument of the other (and you may be the one in error)
There are key missing facts
Try to employ these exclusively, rather than the thesis so beloved of most of the internet:
My opponent is a selfish jerk who wants to bring as many people as possible under the dominion of his iron fist. Also, he is stupid, has poor taste in clothes, and vivisects puppies in his spare time.
1) No one gets to pick some time in the distant past when everyone was right, and declare that they draw their moral authority from the denizens of that halcyon era. The fifties and the sixties are over, folks. If your idea can't stand on its own now, its popular history won't help it.
6) If you have to fudge numbers and blur distinctions in order to make a case for your ideas, why do you believe them? If you don't understand the science or math behind an issue, why are you arguing with people who understand it better? Do you hope to convince them with the vast inertial weight of your ignorance? Or are you hoping to get them so frustrated by the difficulty of explaining climatology to someone who dropped out of freshman physics that they spontaneously combust? [unfortunately, this does not work -- ed.] Or do you just enjoy looking like a total idiot in public?
12) If, when someone seems to refute a point you have made, you say "That's not the point", you must then state what the point is. If they then refute that point, you are not allowed to say that that actually wasn't the point either, and the real point was some third thing that hasn't been yet refuted. Neither may you change the subject to tangential or related issues until you have conceded that you were incorrect about the first topic.