Freedomain Radio

Well, I was debating with an individual on an Anarchist forum about market anarchy vs socialist anarchy.

Really, it wasn't a debate, I just doggedly stuck to the argument from morality, and he wrote these LONG replies replete with quotes from philosophers. I actually didn't quote anyone, I merely went through his argument and pointed out how the the use of force permeated the structure of his propsed system.

In everything he argued I kept seeing nothing more than arguments in favor of force acceptable. So I was sure to keep reminding him of these. I didn't offer any other alternatives; I didn't want to. My whole mission was to point out that the whole framework still required force through what he called "grass-roots direct democracy on a local level."

Eventually he told me my rhetoric was whiny and that I was retarded. I replied that if refusing to submit to aggression made me whiny and retarded, then it has never been so good to be mentally deficient.

Today I saw that I had been ejected from the forum. So much for open discourse about freedom, eh? Turns out people get pissed when you tell them any kind of democracy is just a scamble for the gun.

 

Wow, that is a pretty bad experience -- was there any indication that it would turn so rancid earlier on in the debate?

Not really. He accused me of trolling once, but that passed.

I think he felt strongly about the type of democracy he espoused, and was also quite bright. I think he felt I was quoting out of context, or didn't get what he was saying.

I just kept pointing out the need for force at the core of his system. I find that when you argue from morality, people eventually get really angry.

 

To be more precise, that's what happens when you argue it. If that's what always happened, this Board - or show - would not exist...

So - what are you doing to make people so angry?

Lol, true, true.

I just stay consistant with the argument from morality. I can get a bit preachy, but I think that can be a result of repetition. After a while, in an online debate, there gets to be a never ending back and forth dynamic. I find that they will change up their argument, give different quotes, etc, but I just stick to my guns.

I suppose that could get annoying...

 

In a way that is good news, it means they see their forum as private property.

 

Beeztown:

I just stay consistant with the argument from morality...  I just stick to my guns...

That can't really be the answer to Stef's question, can it? If it were, then in the context of Stef's comments above, wouldn't that also imply that Stef is somehow not consistent with his own argument?

Beeztown:

...I can get a bit preachy, but I think that can be a result of repetition. After a while, in an online debate, there gets to be a never ending back and forth dynamic. I find that they will change up their argument, give different quotes, etc...

I suspect the actual answer is somewhere in here. When you say "there gets to be", what do you mean?

You'd be surprised how people will react if you stay consistant in the face of statist philosophy. My answer still stands. It doesn't imply anything about Stefan, it just implies, about me, in THIS context, that what I did was, in fact, stick to my guns argumentatively.

 

The "gets to be" part is me showing that after a while there is a repetitive cycle wherein I just keep doggedly pointing out what I feel is the major flaws of said argument, and eventually it ends in anger on their part. It is eventually repitition for me in that I  stick to the same rhetoric. And while the person I was talking with changed up his argument a lot, I didn't, in fact I used my same language to go after any new way in which he proffered his arguments. 

 

 

 

After some thinking, I realize that I am probably kind of antagonistic in my debates. I think I should move away from that model of discourse. While I think I am being honest and consistant, I feel I may be getting people's goads a little, and that's no bueno.

If there's one thing I've learned from this community, it's that intellectual honesty is the tool of the day.