Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Persuasive argument or a gun?

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:13:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You want somebody to do something which that person doesn't want to do.

How do you go about it?

Use a very persuasive argument? Or a gun?

In the end, what's the difference?

If one's not allowed to use a gun, why should a persuasive argument be allowed? Isn't the persuasive argument like a con or trickery using words?

Could persuasion be counted as aggression? You ask the person to do it. They say no. Should be end of story, right? If you proceed after the initial no, you could as well use a gun and save time.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:21:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

If you have persuaded them successfully then generally they do want to do it. No one wants new double glazing, not until the salesman works his magic.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:22:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

There's nothing morally wrong with that since it was still the ultimate decision of the person to allow himself to be persuaded. The difference is, a gun is against their will, and persuasion is entirely their will.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:23:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:21:13 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

If you have persuaded them successfully then generally they do want to do it. No one wants new double glazing, not until the salesman works his magic.

And that magic is called ... persuasive argument :) So, you think it's ok to use that? Leave aside the repercussions for the moment.

Could it be seen as aggression though?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:25:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:22:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

There's nothing morally wrong with that since it was still the ultimate decision of the person to allow himself to be persuaded. The difference is, a gun is against their will, and persuasion is entirely their will.

But that's what you think. How can one allow oneself to be persuaded? If someone's pointing a gun at me, that can be one way of persuading me, right? Why should making up stories and changing my mindset be "not against my will"?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:27:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:13:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
You want somebody to do something which that person doesn't want to do.

How do you go about it?

Use a very persuasive argument? Or a gun?

In the end, what's the difference?

If one's not allowed to use a gun, why should a persuasive argument be allowed? Isn't the persuasive argument like a con or trickery using words?

Could persuasion be counted as aggression? You ask the person to do it. They say no. Should be end of story, right? If you proceed after the initial no, you could as well use a gun and save time.

Go with the argument.

A revolver has six bullets. A lot of people have seven friends.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:33:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:21:13 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

If you have persuaded them successfully then generally they do want to do it. No one wants new double glazing, not until the salesman works his magic.

This.

If you are persuaded, you allowed yourself to be persuaded through your own will and properly convinced by their reasoning.

It's not the other persons fault that you can't stand your ground if you know your position is right.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:33:41 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:21:13 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

If you have persuaded them successfully then generally they do want to do it. No one wants new double glazing, not until the salesman works his magic.

This.

If you are persuaded, you allowed yourself to be persuaded through your own will and properly convinced by their reasoning.

It's not the other persons fault that you can't stand your ground if you know your position is right.

Ahh...But then what about fraud? It could be easily justified using this viewpoint. It's not your fault if the other person doesn't know everything....etc.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:36:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:27:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:13:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
You want somebody to do something which that person doesn't want to do.

How do you go about it?

Use a very persuasive argument? Or a gun?

In the end, what's the difference?

If one's not allowed to use a gun, why should a persuasive argument be allowed? Isn't the persuasive argument like a con or trickery using words?

Could persuasion be counted as aggression? You ask the person to do it. They say no. Should be end of story, right? If you proceed after the initial no, you could as well use a gun and save time.

Go with the argument.

A revolver has six bullets. A lot of people have seven friends.

Aha. So, If I get a submachine gun, it'll make it more worthwhile.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:46:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.

Yes, I ran into this wall.

But suppose I have all the information that will make the other person change his view and do what I want, but I don't possess the skill to put the information out in the proper way.

If here, I'm not able to use the gun, then I would not be able to get that thing done, just because I don't have the mental capability. Doesn't such a situation make a thing "right" just because you have the necessary mental skills?

A kind of "mentalism"? Favoring one mentality over another (lesser) mentality?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:55:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Can we assume that the probability of them doing this something is higher when we use the gun approach?

What is the situation? Is this a serious something, like releasing a child they intend to rape, or a trivial one, like allowing you to borrow their car?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:06:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:46:16 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.

Yes, I ran into this wall.

But suppose I have all the information that will make the other person change his view and do what I want, but I don't possess the skill to put the information out in the proper way.

If here, I'm not able to use the gun, then I would not be able to get that thing done, just because I don't have the mental capability. Doesn't such a situation make a thing "right" just because you have the necessary mental skills?

A kind of "mentalism"? Favoring one mentality over another (lesser) mentality?

Intelligence is a virtue, results will be better for the intelligent. Including those intelligent enough not to draw a gun on people who aren't trying to kill them, as it rather increases the number of people trying to kill them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:07:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:36:59 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:27:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:13:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
You want somebody to do something which that person doesn't want to do.

How do you go about it?

Use a very persuasive argument? Or a gun?

In the end, what's the difference?

If one's not allowed to use a gun, why should a persuasive argument be allowed? Isn't the persuasive argument like a con or trickery using words?

Could persuasion be counted as aggression? You ask the person to do it. They say no. Should be end of story, right? If you proceed after the initial no, you could as well use a gun and save time.

Go with the argument.

A revolver has six bullets. A lot of people have seven friends.

Aha. So, If I get a submachine gun, it'll make it more worthwhile.

Just make sure the guy isn't popular.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:09:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:55:08 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Can we assume that the probability of them doing this something is higher when we use the gun approach?

What is the situation? Is this a serious something, like releasing a child they intend to rape, or a trivial one, like allowing you to borrow their car?

It doesn't matter what the situation is. I am just wondering if there's actually a difference, rather than a semantic one, other than the repercussions, of course.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:12:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 3:06:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:46:16 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.

Yes, I ran into this wall.

But suppose I have all the information that will make the other person change his view and do what I want, but I don't possess the skill to put the information out in the proper way.

If here, I'm not able to use the gun, then I would not be able to get that thing done, just because I don't have the mental capability. Doesn't such a situation make a thing "right" just because you have the necessary mental skills?

A kind of "mentalism"? Favoring one mentality over another (lesser) mentality?

Intelligence is a virtue, results will be better for the intelligent. Including those intelligent enough not to draw a gun on people who aren't trying to kill them, as it rather increases the number of people trying to kill them.

Virtues? I never thought I'd read you write that!

So, you are a "mental"ist then. Why does that label get a pass, I wonder. It's not like you can learn to be intelligent. You are either intelligent, or you are not. Knowledgeable, you can learn to be. Intelligence, I somehow don't think so.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:16:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 3:12:52 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:06:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:46:16 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.

Yes, I ran into this wall.

But suppose I have all the information that will make the other person change his view and do what I want, but I don't possess the skill to put the information out in the proper way.

If here, I'm not able to use the gun, then I would not be able to get that thing done, just because I don't have the mental capability. Doesn't such a situation make a thing "right" just because you have the necessary mental skills?

A kind of "mentalism"? Favoring one mentality over another (lesser) mentality?

Intelligence is a virtue, results will be better for the intelligent. Including those intelligent enough not to draw a gun on people who aren't trying to kill them, as it rather increases the number of people trying to kill them.

Virtues? I never thought I'd read you write that!

So, you are a "mental"ist then. Why does that label get a pass, I wonder. It's not like you can learn to be intelligent. You are either intelligent, or you are not. Knowledgeable, you can learn to be. Intelligence, I somehow don't think so.

The brain needs exercise. If not rewarded, it won't be exercised. Some people won't be able to chase it anyway, but frankly I don't give a ****, and why would you?

A "non-mentalist" world would be an absolute hellhole.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:32:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 3:16:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:12:52 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:06:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:46:16 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.

Yes, I ran into this wall.

But suppose I have all the information that will make the other person change his view and do what I want, but I don't possess the skill to put the information out in the proper way.

If here, I'm not able to use the gun, then I would not be able to get that thing done, just because I don't have the mental capability. Doesn't such a situation make a thing "right" just because you have the necessary mental skills?

A kind of "mentalism"? Favoring one mentality over another (lesser) mentality?

Intelligence is a virtue, results will be better for the intelligent. Including those intelligent enough not to draw a gun on people who aren't trying to kill them, as it rather increases the number of people trying to kill them.

Virtues? I never thought I'd read you write that!

So, you are a "mental"ist then. Why does that label get a pass, I wonder. It's not like you can learn to be intelligent. You are either intelligent, or you are not. Knowledgeable, you can learn to be. Intelligence, I somehow don't think so.

The brain needs exercise. If not rewarded, it won't be exercised. Some people won't be able to chase it anyway, but frankly I don't give a ****, and why would you?

A "non-mentalist" world would be an absolute hellhole.

But any label that is favored would make those in the lower parts of that label have a "hellhole" of a life.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 3:38:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:23:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:21:13 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

If you have persuaded them successfully then generally they do want to do it. No one wants new double glazing, not until the salesman works his magic.

And that magic is called ... persuasive argument :) So, you think it's ok to use that? Leave aside the repercussions for the moment.

Could it be seen as aggression though?

No, aggression requires a threat of force, or some malign action taken against you.

"Buy new windows... in the long run you are saving money etc etc." = Persuasion

"Pay your electric bill or I will cut you off" = Limited aggression.

"Give me your wife or I'll chop your balls of with a rusty spoon" = Aggression.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 4:35:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 3:32:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:16:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:12:52 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:06:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:46:16 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.

Yes, I ran into this wall.

But suppose I have all the information that will make the other person change his view and do what I want, but I don't possess the skill to put the information out in the proper way.

If here, I'm not able to use the gun, then I would not be able to get that thing done, just because I don't have the mental capability. Doesn't such a situation make a thing "right" just because you have the necessary mental skills?

A kind of "mentalism"? Favoring one mentality over another (lesser) mentality?

Intelligence is a virtue, results will be better for the intelligent. Including those intelligent enough not to draw a gun on people who aren't trying to kill them, as it rather increases the number of people trying to kill them.

Virtues? I never thought I'd read you write that!

So, you are a "mental"ist then. Why does that label get a pass, I wonder. It's not like you can learn to be intelligent. You are either intelligent, or you are not. Knowledgeable, you can learn to be. Intelligence, I somehow don't think so.

The brain needs exercise. If not rewarded, it won't be exercised. Some people won't be able to chase it anyway, but frankly I don't give a ****, and why would you?

A "non-mentalist" world would be an absolute hellhole.

But any label that is favored would make those in the lower parts of that label have a "hellhole" of a life.
No it wouldn't. They're morons, they're guaranteed a hellhole of a life, that's not marginal to your decisions, only whether to drag the rest down with them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 5:42:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.:

Forcing somebody under the threat of death is a world of difference from persuading someone through reason and logic.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 5:44:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But that's what you think. How can one allow oneself to be persuaded? If someone's pointing a gun at me, that can be one way of persuading me, right? Why should making up stories and changing my mindset be "not against my will"?:

Because coersion is not the same thing as persuasion.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:37:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 5:42:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.:

Forcing somebody under the threat of death is a world of difference from persuading someone through reason and logic.

Yes, of course.

In a world where physical strength is the key, the physically stronger person would possess the most persuasive arguments.

In a world where reason and logic is the key, the mentally stronger person would possess the most persuasive arguments.

Looking dispassionately, when you reason and logic with a person, the person "sees" the inherent sense in it and complies.

You threaten a person, and the person "sees" the sense in not getting physically hurt and complies.

In each case, a different "logic", if you will, applies.

In the end, all you are doing is caring how the other person feels, which to me, appears pretty altruistic, come to think of it, in this world of DDO!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:46:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:13:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
You want somebody to do something which that person doesn't want to do.

How do you go about it?

Use a very persuasive argument? Or a gun?

In the end, what's the difference?

If one's not allowed to use a gun, why should a persuasive argument be allowed? Isn't the persuasive argument like a con or trickery using words?

Could persuasion be counted as aggression? You ask the person to do it. They say no. Should be end of story, right? If you proceed after the initial no, you could as well use a gun and save time.

A gun allows you to convince people through force (or threat of force). A persuasive arguement allows you to convince them through a snakes tounge. While hopefully the PA is based upon nothing but unbias facts, we all know this is likely not the case.

People should be convinced based on facts. The only way for this to happen is 1) people can only use PA, not the gun (i.e. force) and 2) people are smart enough to recognize facts over the silk tounge.

Of course, the silk tounge is going to want people to stay dumb and easily manipulated, where as knowledge and intellegence is the key to seeing through the silk tounge. Therefore, it is expected that the silk tounge is going to want to keep knowledge and intellegnce limited (or better yet, use that to further the brain washing).

In such a case, one must sometimes use the gun to hold off the silk tounge so that the masses can actually wise up to the point where manipulation is a thing of the past (then you have to throw away the gun).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:49:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 3:38:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:23:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:21:13 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

If you have persuaded them successfully then generally they do want to do it. No one wants new double glazing, not until the salesman works his magic.

And that magic is called ... persuasive argument :) So, you think it's ok to use that? Leave aside the repercussions for the moment.

Could it be seen as aggression though?

No, aggression requires a threat of force, or some malign action taken against you.

"Buy new windows... in the long run you are saving money etc etc." = Persuasion

"Pay your electric bill or I will cut you off" = Limited aggression.

"Give me your wife or I'll chop your balls of with a rusty spoon" = Aggression.

Here's a question (to all really).

What's the difference between...

"Buy a fuel efficient car, you'll save enough money in gas, that it'll be cheaper in the long run" vs "Buy an electric car, or the world is going to burn as they chop down every tree to make it into oil."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 7:53:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 4:35:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:32:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:16:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:12:52 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:06:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:46:16 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.

Yes, I ran into this wall.

But suppose I have all the information that will make the other person change his view and do what I want, but I don't possess the skill to put the information out in the proper way.

If here, I'm not able to use the gun, then I would not be able to get that thing done, just because I don't have the mental capability. Doesn't such a situation make a thing "right" just because you have the necessary mental skills?

A kind of "mentalism"? Favoring one mentality over another (lesser) mentality?

Intelligence is a virtue, results will be better for the intelligent. Including those intelligent enough not to draw a gun on people who aren't trying to kill them, as it rather increases the number of people trying to kill them.

Virtues? I never thought I'd read you write that!

So, you are a "mental"ist then. Why does that label get a pass, I wonder. It's not like you can learn to be intelligent. You are either intelligent, or you are not. Knowledgeable, you can learn to be. Intelligence, I somehow don't think so.

The brain needs exercise. If not rewarded, it won't be exercised. Some people won't be able to chase it anyway, but frankly I don't give a ****, and why would you?

A "non-mentalist" world would be an absolute hellhole.

But any label that is favored would make those in the lower parts of that label have a "hellhole" of a life.
No it wouldn't. They're morons, they're guaranteed a hellhole of a life, that's not marginal to your decisions, only whether to drag the rest down with them.

As morons, they are guaranteed a hellhole of life in this system where mental proficiency is king. In a racist society, the skin color defines who has a hellhole of a life. How does it matter how the dice is thrown?

You've put the brain on a pedestal, when it's just one of the organs that make up the human body, albeit it's very important.

Right now, the brain is given all the incentive to make human life more easier, longer and enjoyable.

In a physical strength society, the brain is given all the incentive to build up the human body to greater strengths.

It just seems very arbitrary to me, making up the "class" system based on what actions the brain is incentivized to do, if you follow my drift.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 8:09:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 7:49:16 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:38:28 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:23:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:21:13 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:19:28 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:16:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
A persuasive argument is the best approach, less likely to create antagonism in the subject, less likely to end up in your death.

Yes, of course. But is there any difference? In the end, you are making that other person do what they don't want to do.

If you have persuaded them successfully then generally they do want to do it. No one wants new double glazing, not until the salesman works his magic.

And that magic is called ... persuasive argument :) So, you think it's ok to use that? Leave aside the repercussions for the moment.

Could it be seen as aggression though?

No, aggression requires a threat of force, or some malign action taken against you.

"Buy new windows... in the long run you are saving money etc etc." = Persuasion

"Pay your electric bill or I will cut you off" = Limited aggression.

"Give me your wife or I'll chop your balls of with a rusty spoon" = Aggression.

Here's a question (to all really).

What's the difference between...

"Buy a fuel efficient car, you'll save enough money in gas, that it'll be cheaper in the long run" vs "Buy an electric car, or the world is going to burn as they chop down every tree to make it into oil."

The first one is true.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 8:16:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 7:53:37 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 4:35:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:32:39 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:16:44 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:12:52 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 3:06:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:46:16 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/15/2011 2:40:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Persuasion isn't magic. It offers information, to act on or no. You introduce no threats, they have at least as many options as they did before you tried to persuade.

With a gun, they no longer have the option of ignoring you with an unaltered chance of survival.

Yes, I ran into this wall.

But suppose I have all the information that will make the other person change his view and do what I want, but I don't possess the skill to put the information out in the proper way.

If here, I'm not able to use the gun, then I would not be able to get that thing done, just because I don't have the mental capability. Doesn't such a situation make a thing "right" just because you have the necessary mental skills?

A kind of "mentalism"? Favoring one mentality over another (lesser) mentality?

Intelligence is a virtue, results will be better for the intelligent. Including those intelligent enough not to draw a gun on people who aren't trying to kill them, as it rather increases the number of people trying to kill them.

Virtues? I never thought I'd read you write that!

So, you are a "mental"ist then. Why does that label get a pass, I wonder. It's not like you can learn to be intelligent. You are either intelligent, or you are not. Knowledgeable, you can learn to be. Intelligence, I somehow don't think so.

The brain needs exercise. If not rewarded, it won't be exercised. Some people won't be able to chase it anyway, but frankly I don't give a ****, and why would you?

A "non-mentalist" world would be an absolute hellhole.

But any label that is favored would make those in the lower parts of that label have a "hellhole" of a life.
No it wouldn't. They're morons, they're guaranteed a hellhole of a life, that's not marginal to your decisions, only whether to drag the rest down with them.

As morons, they are guaranteed a hellhole of life in this system where mental proficiency is king.
No, they are guaranteed a hellhole of life no matter what system they are in.

How does it matter how the dice is thrown?
One is essentially pareto efficient.


You've put the brain on a pedestal, when it's just one of the organs that make up the human body, albeit it's very important.
It's the organ that controls whether someone qualifies as a human in the first place, as opposed to a fleshbag.


Right now, the brain is given all the incentive to make human life more easier, longer and enjoyable.

In a physical strength society, the brain is given all the incentive to build up the human body to greater strengths.
A "Physical strength society" is meaningless. Are you thinking in terms of a barbarian tribe?

What we reward is providing value to us. It just so happens that the brain is better than doing that than some brutish moron.


It just seems very arbitrary to me, making up the "class" system based on what actions the brain is incentivized to do, if you follow my drift.
You're stuck in a Rawlsian fantasy, among other problems. In reality, we do not start behind a veil of ignorance, and it is absolutely stupid to expect someone's decisions to work as though they do. Clearly you enjoy computers, so why are you trying to destroy them?

Remember, the premise behind every statement I make is selfishness.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.