The Rush To Be Right

[Paladin]

I often find it so fascinating to listen in on the debate in these forums. What I find interesting is that very often much is sacrificed to the god "imrightnurrong"
One of the lesser known gods of antiquity, his worshippers would often burn classical greek texts on his altar, showing how this particular god would spurn logic and damn anyone who insisted on defining his opponents terms. Particulary abhorrent was the practice of calling another on his use of a fallacious argument. Since it is no longer fashionable to call oneself an "Imrightnurrongian" the old religion has gone underground and only surfaces in places where it is important to be right at all costs. I suspect that there are secret followers of this old religion lurking about, but cannot say for sure. Perhaps someone here has noticed this also?

Peace
Mark

[InLove]

Hi Paladin--

While I can't be sure of exactly what you mean by 'lurkers here in CR' (edited to add: I know those aren't exactly the words you used--I hope you don't mind the paraphrase) , I can only tell you that I have noticed that society in general seems to be leaning toward a "contest mentality". Perhaps this is the way it has always been, and I am just now seeing it. One can hardly turn on the telly without landing on a competition of some kind.

Just my thoughts....

InPeace,
InLove

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I suspect that there are secret followers of this old religion lurking about, but cannot say for sure. Perhaps someone here has noticed this also?

Yeah, I know, its called ego.
And I know I'm right about this

[wil]

Lesser god? I think of all the gods we put before G-d it has to be the most revereed!

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by InLove

Hi Paladin--

While I can't be sure of exactly what you mean by 'lurkers here in CR' (edited to add: I know those aren't exactly the words you used--I hope you don't mind the paraphrase) , I can only tell you that I have noticed that society in general seems to be leaning toward a "contest mentality". Perhaps this is the way it has always been, and I am just now seeing it. One can hardly turn on the telly without landing on a competition of some kind.

Just my thoughts....

InPeace,
InLove

I'm going to take a big chance here and blame the phenomenon on the lawyers. I wish Abogado were here to defend his profession. As I wrote him once, I was even accused of being one from time to time. The law, as it is practiced universally in the U.S. is ALWAYS about winners and losers. We are a nation of laws. Hence, every facet of our lives automatically become competitions here.

Me, I'd rather screw up once in a while, make mistakes, and learn something new. I call that learning by doing.

flow....

[China Cat Sunflower]

I haven't been on this forum all that long, but I've been doing this kind of thing: writing, blogging, journaling for a long time. I've found that if you include all the caveats and apologetics about "this is just my opinion" etc. every time you try to write it becomes really difficult to shotgun anything interesting out. Directly argumentaive "I'm right, your wrong" stuff is often the easiest to write for people. Nuance, and indeed saying what you actually think can be tough. I mean, it's hard to limit the rambling tendency and make it readable. I try to leave some handles hanging out so that it's easy for people to argue with me. I don't want to just write for myself.

Anyway...

Chris

[cavalier]

I couldn't say I'm a member of that religion but I have been engaged in a couple of these disputes. Tolerance and open-mindedness are good things, but there has to be a point where we draw the line. Some people, for a variety of different reasons, choose to draw the line sooner. That will sometimes lead on to argument, maybe this is exactly what some of those people want, but there are many who argue but do not want to. To be truly tolerant and open-minded shouldn't we give them the benefit of the doubt and try to understand where they're coming from?

In attacking those who say "I'm right and you're wrong" all we are doing is joining their ranks.

There has to be something wrong when we condemn a person for not being open-minded.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I often find it so fascinating to listen in on the debate in these forums. What I find interesting is that very often much is sacrificed to the god "imrightnurrong"...

...Perhaps someone here has noticed this also?

I've got the sacrificial altar, and I'm afraid that I use it far too often. I've also got the beads, the idols, and an entire library of evokations (*coughs*quotations*coughs*).

I'd give it up to the gods of fair and reasoned debate, but the bugger keeps following me around.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I often find it so fascinating to listen in on the debate in these forums. What I find interesting is that very often much is sacrificed to the god "imrightnurrong"
One of the lesser known gods of antiquity, his worshippers would often burn classical greek texts on his altar, showing how this particular god would spurn logic and damn anyone who insisted on defining his opponents terms. Particulary abhorrent was the practice of calling another on his use of a fallacious argument. Since it is no longer fashionable to call oneself an "Imrightnurrongian" the old religion has gone underground and only surfaces in places where it is important to be right at all costs. I suspect that there are secret followers of this old religion lurking about, but cannot say for sure. Perhaps someone here has noticed this also?

Peace
Mark

I've noticed it goes both ways. There are also those who will frantically pull out the "you're a follower of imrightnurrong" card as a distraction when they don't want to engage in logical debate. I would say that "Imrightnurrong" is just a mask {subtle reference to ego} that covers the true face of this lesser god: the Creater of Radicals. In whichever application mentioned here, it is simple logic and morality that is sacrificed, in favor of an "easy way out."

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

I've noticed it goes both ways. There are also those who will frantically pull out the "you're a follower of imrightnurrong" card as a distraction when they don't want to engage in logical debate. I would say that "Imrightnurrong" is just a mask {subtle reference to ego} that covers the true face of this lesser god: the Creater of Radicals. In whichever application mentioned here, it is simple logic and morality that is sacrificed, in favor of an "easy way out."

I agree, and further, it seems that fallacies of logic predominate in certain threads I have read

[InLove]

Originally Posted by flowperson

I wish Abogado were here to defend his profession.

I wish Abogado were here, as well. After all, as you have pointed out, lawyers need representation, too. I feel as if I may have inadvertantly figured into his "present absence" in some way.

I think that sometimes we all just kind of trip over each other. As I said to someone recently, one person's ripples get in the way of another person's ripples, and on the seasons turn. Maybe we should just all sit down with some Ripple and talk it over. Okay, maybe not Ripple.

I think that, in time, (or sometimes in a big, lightbulb-worthy moment), people who are sincerely interested in sharing and learning here do. I look back at some of the things I have written in the past, both in CR and other places, and wonder why I wrote them the way I did. It is all part of the journey.

InPeace,
InLove

[Caimanson]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I agree, and further, it seems that fallacies of logic predominate in certain threads I have read

The way I see it when we refer to the ego is not just self pride in "winning" a discussion that we are dealing with.
Sometimes behind people's stubborn position on certain topics, what happens is that they are desperately (can I say "I", "we"?) protecting a strong emotional, intellectual, and perhaps even a financial investment on those ideas/views.

If you manage to remove or challenge their views they may be left with an existential crisis and maybe forced to face the ugly reality that they were trying to avoid in the first place. I think is more an exercise of convincing ourselves than convincing others.
Personally, I sense that I am less defensive when I am truly confident about something, or when I don't mind either way.

Alvaro

[Paladin]

I think you might have nailed it Cai. I agree that we tend to identify ourselves with our ideas. It seems so silly to do so, yet without hijacking my own thread, I wonder if the ego itself isn't just another idea desperately clung to. On another forum I once posted a list of the classic fallacies of logic to see what people would make of it, and it went over like the proverbial lead balloon. How clever the human species is at subverting reason when it comes to defending the false self.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by InLove

Okay, maybe not Ripple.

Heck, Fred Sanford would be glad to join you!

Chris, I like what you were saying. I notice that sometimes it's just a subtlety of language that makes all the difference in the world - even if what we meant to write was something else. Being direct and up-front about things is helpful, yet the trick I run into often comes down plain old phraseology.

An example might be a thread about the scientific process of evolution. Someone could say that there seems to be no direct evidence of a `God' in the world around us. I happen to disagree, and almost wonder how a person could miss it. But I have a choice as to how I proceed.

I can come in guns blazing. I can be defensive and act all offended. I can post matter-of-factly (very close to the "Imrightnurrongians"). Or I can give voice to the spirit of diplomacy and civil discourse, and say my piece, peacefully. We don't have to agree, but we do have to respect one another. Else we're inviting conflict.

As for a post in which someone points out that we cannot literally see G-d, I can say, "That is true. However, we do see things like the chambered nautilus, which literally incarnates the Golden Ratio. Plants do the same in the pattern of their leaves, and humans in the various propotions of the body. So for some, this is evidence." Then again, I could just say, "You're wrong. There is proof!" - and go on to give my evidence.

Hmmm, I'm remembering a certain comedy sketch. "Hello, I'd like to buy an argument."

Kinda comes back to motive, purpose, and the question of (personal) agendas ... and it seems we've all got a little bit of each of these. So, too, every group, political party, and religious group under sun. [It's not the atheists and agnostics that worry me ... ]

Namaskara,

taijasi

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Hmmm, I'm remembering a certain comedy sketch. "Hello, I'd like to buy an argument."



taijasi

Oh yeah! That was John Cleese from Monty Python's Flying Circus not so?
I think I can find the original text on Atheism web