Nostr Web Client

Currently having a discussion here about the right to die.

In this and almost all other discussions I see, others frame your answers in ways unintended and proceed to explain that you are wrong about a point you are not making.

I think a good practise is to really try to understand what the other side is AND is not saying.

It is fine to extend the argument to other points that you find relevant, but don't expect the other person to join you on that journey.

MSM often takes an extreme possible outcome from a proposition and tries to use that as a reason why the original argument is wrong.

I hope we on NOSTR don't end up being like MSM using that technique when we cannot win an argument on merit alone.

dvo 6mo ago

the straw man tactic is a sleazy move

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mike 6mo ago

It might be sleazy, but most will resort to it when backed into a corner.

I have done it myself on occasion, but generally prefer to be less emotionally involved in an argument so am generally very willing to change my mind or admit I'm wrong.

I am a personality type INTP

dvo 6mo ago

I like how in schools for learning to debate properly, you have to learn to take both sides of an argument effectively. probably because it’s most efficient to debate the actual topic at hand, know your enemy

mike 6mo ago

Yes, I like that technique. I often attempt to understand and agree with the others view.

The Core vs Knots debate is one such instance.

Core are not wrong we will probably never succeed in removing spam from the blockchain, so they have a valid view that enabling it will reduce the impact of such spam.

I, however, prefer to continue the semi futile attempt to try to stop spam. This will not succeed, but I believe it will become more affective over time if we all work on improving the mechanisms used.

Abstract Equilibrium 6mo ago

"Why straw man when you can steel man?" 😏

Fuck MSM