Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Is persuation an act of violence?

Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 2:23:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Chomsky in his dialogue with Krauss claims that was a belief held by Mahatma Ghandi and one he follows personally. Thoughts.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 5:05:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 2:23:42 AM, Roukezian wrote:
Chomsky in his dialogue with Krauss claims that was a belief held by Mahatma Ghandi and one he follows personally. Thoughts.

I think it is another attempt by a progressive to win the argument by distorting the words. Persuasion in regards to an act of violence is better understood by using the term 'coercion'.

Once the argument for 'persuasion' (but really coercion) is an act of violence is accepted, the progressive liberal will equate 'persuasion' with say 'proselytizing'. Using a series of false equivocations end a series of seemingly logical discourse that concludes with:

You can't say anything that isn't towing the liberal party line
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 5:59:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 5:05:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 2:23:42 AM, Roukezian wrote:
Chomsky in his dialogue with Krauss claims that was a belief held by Mahatma Ghandi and one he follows personally. Thoughts.

I think it is another attempt by a progressive to win the argument by distorting the words. Persuasion in regards to an act of violence is better understood by using the term 'coercion'.

Once the argument for 'persuasion' (but really coercion) is an act of violence is accepted, the progressive liberal will equate 'persuasion' with say 'proselytizing'. Using a series of false equivocations end a series of seemingly logical discourse that concludes with:

You can't say anything that isn't towing the liberal party line

If coercion is defined as persuasion with violence, then the dictionary assumes persuasion has no violence, I could say I don't share that belief. The point is that persuasion has some violence to it as you are being forthright and trying to force your perspective as the best or the less wrong. Instead of asking others to offer their perspectives and offering guidelines to the issue which do not promote a particular perspective.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 6:02:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
We are both now engaged in a violent act to establish a resolution or a side, both speaking in a forceful manner, even if is slight or minimal, it is there.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 12:20:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 5:59:28 AM, Roukezian wrote:
At 6/28/2015 5:05:44 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2015 2:23:42 AM, Roukezian wrote:
Chomsky in his dialogue with Krauss claims that was a belief held by Mahatma Ghandi and one he follows personally. Thoughts.

I think it is another attempt by a progressive to win the argument by distorting the words. Persuasion in regards to an act of violence is better understood by using the term 'coercion'.

Once the argument for 'persuasion' (but really coercion) is an act of violence is accepted, the progressive liberal will equate 'persuasion' with say 'proselytizing'. Using a series of false equivocations end a series of seemingly logical discourse that concludes with:

You can't say anything that isn't towing the liberal party line

If coercion is defined as persuasion with violence, then the dictionary assumes persuasion has no violence, I could say I don't share that belief. The point is that persuasion has some violence to it as you are being forthright and trying to force your perspective as the best or the less wrong. Instead of asking others to offer their perspectives and offering guidelines to the issue which do not promote a particular perspective.

You assume the tactic of persuasion comes before "asking others to offer their perspectives".

Continuing with what I said earlier. An attempt to win an argument not by sound reasoning but by changing the meaning of words. First I addressed "persuasion" now I'll address "violence". Violence is the threat of use of physical force to do harm. Eloquent persuasive speech is not physical, nor does it have the intent to do harm. You would have to be equating "changing ones mind" with doing harm for the OP original statement to work.

If we accept "persuasion as an act of violence", it would mean talking hostage taker into surrendering is police brutality.

Convincing a person to seek rehabilitation for drug use would be violently enforcing one's own judgement onto another person.

Expanded statement:

(the action or fact of influencing someone or of being influenced to do or believe something) is an act of (physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something).

That statement asserts that effecting change is damaging, that to intend to persuade is the intent to harm, that convincing speech is equivalent to physical battery.

I'm not sorry to say this sir, but I in No way accept the statement as true, or indicative of a proper description of human interaction.

On the contrary I find the train of thought to live by such a statement to be harmful to society at large, and detrimental to any reasonable exchange.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 1:12:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Persuasion only becomes coercive when you distort the facts in order to get people to accept your point of view. I see no reason to think that convincing argumentation (which is what persuasion really amounts to) is necessarily corrupt. When you have good reason to think something is true, you have the obligation to present its case in a convincing way.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 2:04:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 1:22:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
I feel that violence could only be a physical action, according to meaning.

I don't think that is true, many aspects of domestic violence seem to be verbal. While persuasion isn't as violent as verbal abuse, it still contains some inert violence it in it. As you're trying to prove yourself against others, there is a tug-war there.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 2:06:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 2:04:35 PM, Roukezian wrote:
At 6/28/2015 1:22:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
I feel that violence could only be a physical action, according to meaning.

I don't think that is true, many aspects of domestic violence seem to be verbal. While persuasion isn't as violent as verbal abuse, it still contains some inert violence it in it. As you're trying to prove yourself against others, there is a tug-war there.

Oh, thats true nevermind.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 2:06:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 1:12:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Persuasion only becomes coercive when you distort the facts in order to get people to accept your point of view. I see no reason to think that convincing argumentation (which is what persuasion really amounts to) is necessarily corrupt. When you have good reason to think something is true, you have the obligation to present its case in a convincing way.

Even if you personally have a good reason to believe it is true, those reasons might not convince others, and arguing them would make others feel under pressure to accept your points of view. Truth or not, the act of debating is a tug-war to put the other person and his viewpoints down so you can promote your own.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 2:11:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 2:04:35 PM, Roukezian wrote:
At 6/28/2015 1:22:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
I feel that violence could only be a physical action, according to meaning.

I don't think that is true, many aspects of domestic violence seem to be verbal. While persuasion isn't as violent as verbal abuse, it still contains some inert violence it in it. As you're trying to prove yourself against others, there is a tug-war there.

Are two sport teams competing violent? Is a race between sprinters violent?

The intent of persuasive argument is not to do harm. How can something be violent if the intent is not to do harm?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 3:09:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 2:06:47 PM, Roukezian wrote:
At 6/28/2015 1:12:23 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Persuasion only becomes coercive when you distort the facts in order to get people to accept your point of view. I see no reason to think that convincing argumentation (which is what persuasion really amounts to) is necessarily corrupt. When you have good reason to think something is true, you have the obligation to present its case in a convincing way.

Even if you personally have a good reason to believe it is true, those reasons might not convince others, and arguing them would make others feel under pressure to accept your points of view.

Of course they might not convince others - hence its not being coercive. And people should feel "under pressure" to accept points of view when they are convincingly argued. The only alternative is for people to become entrenched in their viewpoints and ignore any signs that they may be wrong.

Truth or not, the act of debating is a tug-war to put the other person and his viewpoints down so you can promote your own.

So? That's precisely what people ought to do. Whenever there's debate, the faults and fallacies of one side come under close scrutiny by the other, and vice versa, allowing people to make more informed decisions. It's only a problem when debate becomes dishonest and "dirty" (ad hom, misrepresentation, etc) that debate can do more harm than good.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 4:31:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/28/2015 2:23:42 AM, Roukezian wrote:
Chomsky in his dialogue with Krauss claims that was a belief held by Mahatma Ghandi and one he follows personally. Thoughts.

The commie Noam Chomsky has attempted to bolster his far-left ideals many times by taking quotes out of context. It's what he does, bro. LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Roukezian
Posts: 1,711
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2015 7:40:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are two sport teams competing violent? Is a race between sprinters violent?

Yes, there is always violence in competition, whether verbal, physical or psychological. It might be very nominal in some sports (sprinting and swimming), but very high in others(American Football and Hockey).

If we take sprinting for instance, the winner thrusts himself before others to be in the lead, feeling accomplishment when he dashes before them, hurting many of their feelings and forcing his competitors to compete angrily to reach him and feel bad about themselves when they're left behind. That is something which I would consider psychological violence that is inevitable in every system of competition where you have winners and losers.

That is not to say, that sports and debating should be prohibited, it is only the recognition that even our simplest activists exhibit violence, and that is something inevitable which we have to live with.