Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
I think it's important to to aim to be convincing but this is slightly different from "aiming to convince". Historically a necessary part of passing a degree in the West was the ability to argue both sides of a given proposition because if you can only successfully argue one side you don't fully understand the proposition in question.
I find it very difficult to argue a perspective I don't personally believe unless it is my specific assignment (and this isn't an academic space). Incidentally I am also very bad at lying. Not in the sense that I couldn't tell you "no" if you asked me if I ate the last cookie and I did in fact eat the last cookie; I am basically incapable of inventing a complex untruth (as I see it). If I were ever in a position to lie to your face you would probably be able to detect my mendacity very easily. It can certainly be called a form of stupidity. At the same time my flaw leaves me impatient with anything but the utmost ingenuousness.

There are two ways to argue - you can either seek to undermine your interlocutor and destroy their arguments or you can engage with them and seek to understand their argument. If both parties engage in the latter way of arguing then not only is the experience generally more congenial, it is also more humble.
I try to do both at the same time. Consider, for example, that your understanding of the propositions you put forth may not exhaust the content of those propositions.

It's the difference between saying, "You're wrong, because..." and saying, "I'm sorry, I don't believe that because..."

Put another way, you should be seeking to argue for your position and not against your opponent.
Sometimes I may be arguing one thing independent of you. Sometimes you might post something distinct that I think is flawed and needs to be contested. If I say "Vanilla ice cream is the best flavor"* and you say "The moon is made of cheese," there is no obligation for me to continue arguing for the former and never against the latter. So.......... ???

Don't think that your procedural criticisms of me are simply flying over my head, I'm sure there is a kernel of validity and am always vigilant for one, even if it's just that I make you feel bad too often and you don't like it. But there is a tension, or difficulty, in disentangling the fair criticism that I would admit from a metadiscursive disagreement that is itself substantive.

You remind me of the robot monster thing that was battling to prevent me from taking the three infants from the drawers even though I was just backtracking to get some other item for my party and needed the infants to open the doors, but the infants were respawned and therefore duplicates to the ones I originally picked up on the first run anyway and my combat actions became unresponsive to input (like they frequently do in my dreams) so I haplessly whacked the monster over the head with a bag and promised to surrender the infants once I had the other item and rebacktracked.


*In connection with the above, I do not think vanilla is the best ice cream flavor, and I would not be able to construct a casuism for why it is.