Regarding Liberty Students Posting

In response to filc

Is the behavior not provoked? Aren't those who are more interested in arguing for the sake of being right, with immediate dismissal of any reason or logic, getting exactly what they're asking for? It's no surprise at all that people get frustrated.

No, personally I don't feel that any of us have done anything to provoke him (as by us I am primarily referring to Student, StrangeLoop and myself). As far as I can tell, we've done our best to maintain civility and honesty and the responses to us have been entirely unfair. I'm not sure who is arguing for the sake of being right, or even what's wrong with that. Presumably we all argue for the sake of being right? None of us have used any cheap tricks to win the debate or to make the conversation more difficult. From what I can tell all of us have longer posts than the average user here, are more willing to reference other sources in our posts and are more than willing to clarify what we mean. But perhaps I'm just playing the victim.

First of all, I am not debating you, so why you include yourself and student in a debate with strangeloop is beyond me.

Second of all, filc doesn't speak for me.

Third of all, if you're not a victim, then please stop complaining like one. I am not even debating with or addressing you.

I've tried to be tolerant, especially since he seems to have such strong defenders (e.g., filc); I thought perhaps I was being too biased since I was in the opposite camp of most arguments. However, I do believe, alongside EconomistInTraining, that liberty student argues with a distinctly hostile and insulting style. I am typically insensitive to ruder commentators, but his moderator status makes the issue a bit more lop-sided and disconcerting; I would prefer persons in that role to model consistently civil, peaceable discussions.

Rather than repeatedly, implicitly and explicitly, insult another person as stupid, only concrete issues and ideas should be debated; one should not simply boast of one's intellectual superiority as sufficient evidence of one's argument.

There will most certainly be intellectual tensions among persons whose beliefs differ (e.g., Student claiming that minimum-wage legislation cannot be a priori proved as reducing employment is sure to ruffle some feathers), but most commentators are interesting, willing to listen, and friendly, so we--and particularly moderators--shouldn't undercut that framework.

liberty student:

First of all, I am not debating you, so why you include yourself and student in a debate with strangeloop is beyond me.

Second of all, filc doesn't speak for me.

Third of all, if you're not a victim, then please stop complaining like one. I am not even debating with or addressing you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present Exhibit A.

Clearly, a more reasoned and peace-making response to EconomistInTraining would have been more appropriate: even bystanders to a debate, after all, can find some conduct unacceptable.

Strangeloop, knock it off. How you can criticise /that/ quote is beyond me....

See, this is what I mean: I sincerely believe his tone was unnecessarily harsh and dismissive. He outright told EconomistInTraining that he had no business even discussing this. But maybe my perspective is too skewed from my involvement? I honestly don't know.

I still seriously believe liberty student's response was overly rude and inappropriately condescending.

Its too bad LS isn't expert enough to be just-rude-enough-to-not-be-excessively-rude and only ever condescending when it is appropriate to so be. I'm sure if he reads more of your posts or mine, his odds will increase.

StrangeLoop:

Clearly, a more reasoned and peace-making response to EconomistInTraining would have been more appropriate: even bystanders to a debate, after all, can find some conduct unacceptable.

How was my response not reasoned?

Are you saying EconomistInTraining is entitled to a peace-making response? I don't see why. He's decided to stir it up and go after me in particular. He can pull up his big boy diapers and fight his own fights, particularly those he picks.

For some reason, he seems to be projecting everything I say to you, as being said to him and student. There isn't a lot I can do when people are confused about their identity.

liberty student:

There isn't a lot I can do when people are confused about their identity.

I just don't see why insults such as this are necessary. I understand you're being put into a corner here and it isn't pleasant, but there's a more civil defense you could've made.

Don't get me wrong: raisings complaints through such a suggestion-box process as this gives me the heebie-jeebies, but we can still have a fruitful discussion on how we can, from here on out, debate ideas more politely.

nirgrahamUK:

Its too bad LS isn't expert enough to be just-rude-enough-to-not-be-excessively-rude and only ever condescending when it is appropriate to so be.

I am really second guessing my decision to give up my omniscience in order to live a normal human life!

nirgrahamUK:

I'm sure if he reads more of your posts or mine, his odds will increase.

My odds in which lottery? ;)

StrangeLoop:

liberty student:

There isn't a lot I can do when people are confused about their identity.

I just don't see why insults such as this are necessary. I understand you're being put into a corner here and it isn't pleasant, but there's a more civil defense you could've made.

It wasn't an insult. I try to be honest. Oh sure, I ham it up a bit, but you guys are incredibly thin skinned to the point of needing an intellectual bubble to work from. I'm sorry if that's not something I can provide. Best not to go after me in debate if you don't like my style. I can't be responsible for your feelings.

Actually, it was Grayson Lilburne that originally suggested we venture here for the sake of civility. So, I'm not quite sure it was simply people playing "victims" that brought you here.

I am not thin-skinned, but relentlessly hearing "you're just not being logical" or that I should be "embarassed" by your intellectual showmanship reduces the debate to condescension and vacuous braggery. I'm all for fun-loving jerks who throw out toothless jabs and mockery; it's can be amusing. However, we all are here to seriously discuss ideas--any philosophic clashes should handled productively, not degradingly.

Frankly, I don't care what you call me or how much you question my intelligence so long as your're skillfully debating me, and that's what you give up when you fall back on trite insults like "you're not using logic." And, once again, claiming "A is A" is not a very talented demonstration of formal logic.

StrangeLoop:

And, once again, claiming "A is A" is not a very talented demonstration of formal logic.

It doesn't have to be talented. It only has to be true.

StrangeLoop:

so long as your're skillfully debating me

Why does this standard not go both ways? You make claims that I am not skillfully debating you (a pretty subjective thing, the degree of skill) but you don't substantiate it. When I claim you're being illogical, I very deliberately and clearly outline your logical error.

Example, up thread you claimed my response was not reasoned. I asked you why. You didn't reply back. This is typical of you. You make claims, then you avoid backing them up. Your newest claim is that I am not a skillful debater, which is pretty outrageous, given I am one of the best debaters here. Not always right by any stretch, but I have never been accused of being less than skillful or rigorous.

It's stuff like this that makes it hard to take you seriously.

Here are examples of what I am talking about

http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/19718/366895.aspx#366895

http://mises.org/Community/groups/memberissues/forum/p/19837/366776.aspx#366776

You make a claim, you won't respond when asked to back it up. Then you actually have the chutzpah to claim I am not skillfully debating.

liberty student:

You didn't reply back. This is typical of you. You make claims, then you avoid backing them up. You didn't reply back. This is typical of you. You make claims, then you avoid backing them up.

That was the only incidence, and your claim was why I dropped out of the conversation entirely. I was shocked that someone claiming to use "logic" against my "irrationality" could make such a fallacious statement as you had (the "opposite" of a term without an "absolute meaning" is not necessarily a term that possesses an "absolute meaning"; rather, the opposite of "no absolute meaning" as an idea would be "absolute meaning").

liberty student:

I am one of the best debaters here.

Your continued braggery is laughable. I take people like Esuric and Grayson Lilburne seriously, not you.

I hate the phrase, but this is an exercise in futility. I do look forward to hearing your opinions expressed in future discussions.

But, rather than stay on this sinking ship, I think we both should just spend our resources on more interesting debates elsewhere.

P.S. My only request--obviously not a demand--is that if you use the word "logic" as an indicator of what distinguishes our arguments, then demonstrate formal logic to buttress your argument or to dismantle mine.

StrangeLoop:

That was the only incidence

Not the only one. You also claimed I did not make a reasoned reply up thread. What was unreasonable about it?

StrangeLoop:

I was shocked that someone claiming to use "logic" against my "irrationality" could make such a fallacious statement as you had (the "opposite" of a term without an "absolute meaning" is not necessarily a term that possesses an "absolute meaning"; rather, the opposite of "no absolute meaning" as an idea would be "absolute meaning").

This is a twisted train of thought, but how was what I posted incorrect? What was incorrect about my conclusion? It was an argument I had posted a dozen times previous, and you continued to avoid addressing it.

Again, be responsible and back up your claim. How was it illogical?

StrangeLoop:

Your continued braggery is laughable. I take people like Esuric and Grayson Lilburne seriously, not you.

It's not braggery at all. I am one of the best debaters here. I'm poor in many other areas, but not that one. And who you take seriously is completely irrelevant. Obviously my audience is not you, since I am constantly exposing your arguments.

StrangeLoop:

if you use the word "logic" as an indicator of what distinguishes our arguments, then demonstrate formal logic to buttress your argument or to dismantle mine.

Will it make any difference? Or will you continue to avoid answering direct questions, offering concrete positions, and addressing logical errors you make. Pushing the burden on me in the discussion is a cop-out. I have already demonstrated logical errors in your arguments very clearly.

StrangeLoop:

I do look forward to hearing your opinions expressed in future discussions.

I look forward to reading your opinions as well. I hope that we both bring higher quality arguments in the future.

Man, agnostic viewpoints really piss off you logic-heads, huh?

Who is agnostic and about what?