![]() If you can separate the two, you can avoid arguments where you’re talking past each other, each accusing the other of supporting something they don’t. Pay close attention to which one you and your opponents are arguing about – don’t accuse the guy who’s arguing a moderate position of being a moonbat conspiracy theorist just because he happens to have moonbats on his side, and don’t try to defend an extreme position by equivocating it to a more reasonable-sounding one. The Motte and Bailey and The Weak Man: Two fallacies which both hinge on the same thing – combining something reasonable-sounding and something crazy-sounding and saying they’re the same. There might be some useful insight at the core, or some common ground you can share.Ģ. There may not be a good reason, but you should figure out what it is instead of dismissing them. The Principle of Charity/Chesterton’s Fence: If large numbers of people support something that sounds crazy to you, odds are there’s some reason why. Two simple tricks to make your internet arguments 20% less annoying:ġ. ![]() Especially when it comes to something ideologically motivated. *You should rarely have 0 or 100% confidence in your beliefs. You can’t tell what is going on inside their mind. So you shouldn’t necessarily be discouraged by your lack of progress in a debate. So that 10% could be the seed of a bigger change. ![]() It’s only after they have quietly contemplated the issue will they see that you had a point. Not only that but most people struggle to admit a good point in the middle of a debate. Congratulations, you won the argument! Maybe I changed your beliefs more than you did mine but you still changed my mind. However, we discuss the issue and you come away at 85 and I at 10. Let’s say that you have 100% confidence in belief in issue X and I have 0*. Let’s say that you and I are on opposite sides of an issue. In fact, if you are scared of learning something that challenges your beliefs, that probably means you need to study that more.Īnd something that isn’t in the sequences but I find useful as a framing device: you and your opponent can both be “right”. If you want to get closer to the truth, you can’t stop your inquiries once you have found a way to defend a cherished belief. Saying you are rational doesn’t make you so. You don’t get rationality points for making unfalsifiable claims. If you want to be right there should be a way to prove you wrong. “Right” and “wrong” is not a dichotomy but a continuum. As an alternative, Talleyrand sought a career in the Catholic clergy, bent on replacing his uncle, Alexandre Angélique de Talleyrand-Périgord, as the Archbishop of Reims, one of the wealthiest dioceses in France.The main ides from the sequences are probably something like: ![]() Having walked with a limp since childhood, Talleyrand was excluded from his anticipated career in the military. Though both parents held positions in the court of King Louis XVI, neither earned a steady income. Talleyrand was born on February 2, 1754, in Paris, France, to his 20-year-old father, Count Daniel de Talleyrand-Périgord and his mother, Alexandrine de Damas d'Antigny. Known Children: (disputed) Charles Joseph, comte de Flahaut Adelaide Filleul Marquise de Souza-Botelho “Mysterious Charlotte”Įarly Life, Education, and Career in the Catholic Clergy.Key Accomplishments and Awards: Foreign minister under four Kings of France, during the French Revolution, and under Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte played a key role in the restoration of the Bourbon monarchy.Parents: Count Daniel de Talleyrand-Périgord and Alexandrine de Damas d'Antigny.Known for: Diplomat, politician, member of the Catholic clergy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |