Patrick Wright2 said:I’ve been noticing lately on this forum that some folks—and I’m talking about the ones who actually show a spark of intelligence and common sense, not the clowns who basically trip over their own feet in a single sentence 🤦—who tend to lean into logical, coherent reasoning and follow a thought process pretty selectively when they're using their brains.
For example, someone will grab a logical argument just to tear down someone else's point, completely failing to see that the exact same logic totally nukes their own argument too. So, they just pick and choose where to apply logic, staying totally blind to it whenever it hits their own side of the fence.
That kind of intellectual hypocrisy and inconsistency really gets under my skin. Personally, if I ever debunk a claim and realize it might actually mess with my own stance, I’m more than willing to pivot and revise my view if it turns out I was being illogical.
Have you guys run into this kind of mindset before, and honestly, how do you even get people to start applying the same logical standards to themselves as they do to everyone else?
I’d tackle this problem from a completely different angle. The mere fact that someone wants to debate you—no matter how flawed their logic is—is worth paying attention to. Besides, any debate serves to get people on the same page regarding meaning. It’s not really about whether the opponent's arguments are logically bulletproof; what matters is what that meaning signifies to you personally.
Me, for example, I love a good challenge. On a religion forum, I might start with the premise that God doesn't exist, or vice versa. It thrills me when someone hunts for new ways to prove a point. Take LIQ, for instance—his logic is just fascinating. Even though I disagree with 90% of what he says, watching him try to prove something is incredibly interesting. The guy is just an original.
Look, we’re human. Someone tells you you're handsome when you know they're lying, but you still feel good hearing it. After a while, you realize they actually *do* think you're handsome, but because of your own strict beauty standards, you don't fit their mold.
It reminds me of when a friend and I were walking through San Diego, and some photographer caught us mid-discussion on Broadway and posted it on a local news site. When I saw the photo, I thought to myself, "God, I look terrible, but my buddy looks great." He, unlike me, looked at the photo and said, "I've never seen anyone uglier than myself, but man, look at how good and intellectual my friend looks." We spent two hours debating why that happened.
The way people debate is just as important.
For example, I can't stand excessive cynicism (Krvnik), rambling sentences that go nowhere (Alima), or sometimes overly complicated argumentation (Volver) that's just too dense. When I read their posts, I end up ignoring both the logic and the nuance that's often behind their claims.
I bet I annoy people the same way or get taken too lightly myself.
That's exactly why there's no such thing as inconsistency in a debate. There's only ignorance and black-and-white thinking. When that crashes into actual knowledge and multifaceted truths, it creates a frustration in us, like the line from Walt Whitman: "The thirsty beast or the eager shell; what I cannot, what I cannot do to lift us up."😁