Mods I wasn't sure if this would go in a subforum or here if it needs to be moved please do.
Anyway so I was recently having a dicussion with my dad about politics and big business. While the content isn't really relevant he came to a stance that honestly pissed me off.
His stance was that until I lived as many years as he did and had his experiences that my opinion on these subjects is uninformed and in general holds no water. I argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
Either of you are looking for a strategic advantage over the other, highly competitive and probably a familial trait. To make up for his lack of education he uses experience as a justification where as you are using your inexperience and research as the "superior."
The question I come down to is where the arguments are lain out and how they are and under what context. For example, you can read all you want about people but until you've actually dealt with a person in business you're not going to get things to "click." Theory and practical experience are meant to support each other, and build up wisdom over time. They aren't meant to replace each other, they augment and hold each other up.
Sometimes you'll never have the experience and just have to rely on the research and previous life experiences and reading and the like to come to a judgement. If he's being a prick about your opinions, then don't discuss such topics with him. It's that simple, I have a large family myself you think as an older person that I generally talk to all of my siblings the same way about every topic? Of course not, since each temperament is different and there are just certain topics just best not to bring up.
If you're looking for a place to talk about certain subjects, the debate forum works. I'll be honest when you run the gambit from anarcho capitalists to gays to lawyers to high school students.... you know there's something there.
My biggest suggestion for a young man that's interested in this stuff.... join the debate team and other such organizations. If your debate partner sucks, find new debate partners.
One of the things you will learn quickly in life is that people value their own opinion quite heavily, and conversion is a slow process and generally gradual. You have very few instances of punctuated equilibrium with a person who already has an opinion on something. In part, if you read certain person's posts it's not so much the debators that are convincing each other it's the people in lurker mode that are the most affected.
Debating is a full contact sport, it's overall political in nature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Being one of the older posters on this board, I can honestly tell you as you grow older your views on certain subjects will change. Your political views will sway as will the parties. Also, as you grow older, personal experiences can cloud reasonable judgement about certain subjects.
Education and experiences make you who you are. They shape your views. Until you have those experiences, nothing has been shaped. No matter how many books you read on the subject, you didnt live it and cant know the full extent of the experience.
No matter what, people believe in what they believe in and its hard to sway them from that thinking. No matter how unreasonable they seem or pissed off that makes you.
"Because I've lived it" is the same as saying "because I'm a mother" or "because I'm a school teacher". It's just one of those things people (typically wildly unqualified, ignorant, and overly-emotional people) say to justify thinking what they do and to prove they know what they are talking about (typically when they don't). They're just common excuses.
Experience is garbage unless it directly applies to the subject at hand, and even then it's knowing specified information about the subject that someone might not have insight into. It's not a reason you're more right without explaining why that viewpoint is more realistic.
I guess I do need to expand a little on the topic of what we where discussing after all. It had come around to big business and the control it can have over government as well as the government job to, in his view, "protect the little people from it."
He made statements that the insanly rich people want the power over everyone else, and he used experience such as AT&Ts original monopoly as a means of showing that business wants to exert it's power over us by having all the control over specific products. To me this sounded like conspiracy theories all over again as I argued the point was such businesses didn't involve exerting power over the "little people" but simply as a means to make more money, which would be basic business practices.
He them goes on to say that they are the people supplying the jobs and that they only care about what you can do for them and as soon as they don't need you they will get rid of you, which again I simply countered by stating that again it's basic business practice not some sinister plan of the rich.
Finally he made comments that business will lay off people going into the election to make Obama look bad and then made 2 predictions. He said if Romney is elected employment will improve for a short while to make him look good and the plummit. He said if Obama was elected it would continue to decline for a while and then get better. At this point I straight called him out on his conspiracy theories as he's suggesting all companies in the US are united to bring down Obama and support Romney which is crazy. He then went on to say that he's seen it happen in the past but when asked to actually state when is when we began to get into the current, and frustrating issue of experience vs research.
Now I don't think my dad is either uneducated or illogical, but I do feel he has become emotionally invested in this topic and his pride in his political selection that it is clouding his judgment and usual common sense.
Didn't you come here a while ago asking for advice on how to argue about religion with your dad?
No one's life matches anyone else's, and no one's insights are going to be your own. The difference in age between two people means literally nothing, with the exception of legally required age limits.
I agree no 2 people get the same effect from any experience but thats about all I agree with.
I used to think like this too when I was in my late teens and early twenties. As I got into my late thirties and into my mid forties and watch the younger generation, I have to disagree. Saying someone older doesnt have more experience and general knowledge is just being ignorant.
There are mainly 3 ways teens and young adults learn. There are the ones who need to read it to learn something (showing them confuses them, and normally they wont try anything until they read up on it), there are those that need to be shown to learn something (they are confused when reading about it and wont tackle on their own until they have been shown), or there are those that need to do to learn something(reading it or hearing it from someone else doesnt sink in). Its a rare person that can learn from all 3.
Now I don't think my dad is either uneducated or illogical, but I do feel he has become emotionally invested in this topic and his pride in his political selection that it is clouding his judgment and usual common sense.
When you live your life believing and supporting a certain way of life, its hard to see the other side. It sounds like you have just started on your journey, he is entrenched in his. Take his opinions and knowledge and form your own ideals. You dont have to agree with your parents about everything.
Saying someone older doesnt have more experience and general knowledge is just being ignorant.
Flatly, people do not have an infinite capacity for wisdom and knowledge and experience requires more than just staying alive under normal 1st world conditions. A white male growing up in middle upper class and working in the middle upper class probably has a very limited breadth of valuable general life advice if all he does is work, have a suburban family, and watch prime time television. Experience (pretty much by definition) is a gathering of specific knowledge wisdom to specific situations, and outside those situations it is not all that valuable.
Flatly, people do not have an infinite capacity for wisdom and knowledge and experience requires more than just staying alive under normal 1st world conditions. A white male growing up in middle upper class and working in the middle upper class probably has a very limited breadth of valuable general life advice if all he does is work, have a suburban family, and watch prime time television. Experience (pretty much by definition) is a gathering of specific knowledge wisdom to specific situations, and outside those situations it is not all that valuable.
Yes and no, it depends on the person and the upbringing too. I know older people who are jacks of all trades and knows a little about a lot but isnt an expert about any of them. Then there are the people who were only exposed to certain things and thats all they know and care to know about. I agree you dont go to an electrician for banking needs, but if you have an electrical problem why are you going to tell the electrician how to do his job?
I am an old man and I learn something new almost every day and try and have new experiences weekly if not more often. I believe you can continually learn and experience new things.
Instead of butting heads over ideals and beliefs, ask the others stance and use that in forming your own.
He made statements that the insanly rich people want the power over everyone else, and he used experience such as AT&Ts original monopoly as a means of showing that business wants to exert it's power over us by having all the control over specific products. To me this sounded like conspiracy theories all over again as I argued the point was such businesses didn't involve exerting power over the "little people" but simply as a means to make more money, which would be basic business practices.
Yeah, that is a bit conspiratorial. I doubt that most of the rich elites think very much about the "little people." But people like to win, and winners don't like to compete again. So in fiddling with government (a light way of putting it) to rig the game in their continued favor, the rich elites might indirectly or directly-but-unintentionally hurt the "little people."
Then again there might be a few who actually do hate us. *shrug* I don't see much difference.
As a critique of your argument, though, you seem to be closer to your dad's ideas than your rhetoric might let on. Just to check, though, do you think those "basic business practices" are a good thing? Bad thing? Conditional? Neutral? If you do agree that they can be bad (even only sometimes), let your dad know that you agree on that point at least. The way you phrased it now, it seems like you're apologizing for Big Business (which is a sure way to get him to lock you out of the discussion).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Yeah, that is a bit conspiratorial. I doubt that most of the rich elites think very much about the "little people." But people like to win, and winners don't like to compete again. So in fiddling with government (a light way of putting it) to rig the game in their continued favor, the rich elites might indirectly or directly-but-unintentionally hurt the "little people."
Then again there might be a few who actually do hate us. *shrug* I don't see much difference.
As a critique of your argument, though, you seem to be closer to your dad's ideas than your rhetoric might let on. Just to check, though, do you think those "basic business practices" are a good thing? Bad thing? Conditional? Neutral? If you do agree that they can be bad (even only sometimes), let your dad know that you agree on that point at least. The way you phrased it now, it seems like you're apologizing for Big Business (which is a sure way to get him to lock you out of the discussion).
I've always felt that business was simply that it was business the focus should be on it's success and what is good for it. In this breathe I do feel that whats good for the business is to look out for it's employees so they can perform at their best. So do I feel they are bad in principle? Not really what I feel is bad is when people take them to extremes at which case I feel they hurt both the business and the "little people" working for them.
Anyway so I was recently having a dicussion with my dad about politics and big business. While the content isn't really relevant he came to a stance that honestly pissed me off.
His stance was that until I lived as many years as he did and had his experiences that my opinion on these subjects is uninformed and in general holds no water. I argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
So you two were having a pissing contest is what you're saying.
Why? I mean, you say this is an ongoing thing and you don't like it. Why get into it in the first place?
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
The fact that he's lived longer does not automatically mean he wins, no.
But you can't dismiss experience either.
Although this doesn't seem to be about experience so much as trying to be dismissive of you.
I guess I do need to expand a little on the topic of what we where discussing after all. It had come around to big business and the control it can have over government as well as the government job to, in his view, "protect the little people from it."
He made statements that the insanly rich people want the power over everyone else, and he used experience such as AT&Ts original monopoly as a means of showing that business wants to exert it's power over us by having all the control over specific products. To me this sounded like conspiracy theories all over again as I argued the point was such businesses didn't involve exerting power over the "little people" but simply as a means to make more money, which would be basic business practices.
He them goes on to say that they are the people supplying the jobs and that they only care about what you can do for them and as soon as they don't need you they will get rid of you, which again I simply countered by stating that again it's basic business practice not some sinister plan of the rich.
Finally he made comments that business will lay off people going into the election to make Obama look bad and then made 2 predictions. He said if Romney is elected employment will improve for a short while to make him look good and the plummit. He said if Obama was elected it would continue to decline for a while and then get better. At this point I straight called him out on his conspiracy theories as he's suggesting all companies in the US are united to bring down Obama and support Romney which is crazy. He then went on to say that he's seen it happen in the past but when asked to actually state when is when we began to get into the current, and frustrating issue of experience vs research.
Now I don't think my dad is either uneducated or illogical, but I do feel he has become emotionally invested in this topic and his pride in his political selection that it is clouding his judgment and usual common sense.
I missed this post while chatting with EP.
Big business does control the government with lobbyists. The 'little guys' cant afford the shear number of lobbyists the big business's can.
Big business is associated with the Republican side of the aisle. I can see where certain things would seem fishy from the past, monopolies and such, but I dont know of any flat out conspiracies.
I do know in the late 50s and early 60s when the power companies were pushing for nuclear powered stations they sold the people on the safety and the up front cost without explaining the life expectancy of such stations. A lot of those old timers that originally paid the start up cost thru a raise in service fees still complain about it when the subject of new power plants come up. They feel as though they have been had by the power companies.
Can big business sway elections? Maybe, but I dont know of any concrete evidence from the past that would say they have. I do know unions come out and tell every member who they are to vote for and they lay a thick guilt trip on the members. So I would imagine big business plays the same game. Though I have world at drug companies and I have never heard a boss or higher up suggest that anyone vote for anyone certain candidate.
Anyone who can't defend their point with reasons is either covering their ignorance or tired of arguing.
Have you considered that your father simply gets tired of arguing the same points with you? Are you sure you are arguing effectively, and not just spouting opposing rhetoric?
In any case, I've seen that kind of father before (not my own, thankfully), and it can be frustrating. However, they tend to produce very stubborn children who don't typically review their own ideological stances, either. So while you may disagree, are you sure your own views are fully reasoned out, or do you just 'know' you are right?
So you two were having a pissing contest is what you're saying.
Why? I mean, you say this is an ongoing thing and you don't like it. Why get into it in the first place?
This I think is the only idea I want to address in this thread.
People ask me why I post on forums like this when it's just people engaging gin pissing contests. My answer is that even if it's just a pissing contest you never know what someone is going to say that is going to change my mind. Having something/someone challenge my beliefs or views on any particular issue and change my mind is something I actually enjoy.
Finding out that I've been using a faulty series of logic can be embarrassing but it's necessary to develop rigorous and well thought positions. Sometimes you need to get into a pissing contest for this to happen. Sometime you don't change your mind and you find the lack of an argument against something you think strengthens that thought.
There are lots of times when people are focusing on changing other people's minds instead of looking for justifications to change their own. But when that is not happening, it is never a waste of time to argue any position IMO.
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
This I think is the only idea I want to address in this thread.
People tell me the thing when I discuss one thread or another that I'm posting in on these forums. My answer is that even if it's just a pissing contest you never know what someone is going to say that is going to change my mind. Having something/someone challenge my beliefs or views on any particular issue and change my mind is something I actually enjoy.
Finding out that I've been using a faulty series of logic can be embarrassing but it's necessary to develop rigorous and well thought positions. Sometimes you need to get into a pissing contest for this to happen. Sometime you don't change your mind and you find the lack of an argument against something you think strengthens that thought.
There are lots of times when people are focusing on changing other people's minds instead of looking for justifications to change their own. But when that is not happening, it is never a waste of time to argue any position IMO.
I've definitely found that this board challenges my impressions and interpretations of facts and information. Every serious point made against my opinion either helps me either refine or reevaluate those opinions. I've had my mind changed several times on this board.
The problem is the people who aren't open to other interpretations, which is why I commented asking the OP if he himself was open or just repeating opposing rhetoric.
Mods I wasn't sure if this would go in a subforum or here if it needs to be moved please do.
Anyway so I was recently having a dicussion with my dad about politics and big business. While the content isn't really relevant he came to a stance that honestly pissed me off.
His stance was that until I lived as many years as he did and had his experiences that my opinion on these subjects is uninformed and in general holds no water. I argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
I highly doubt that he throws that at you as a "tactic" per se. Look at it from his point of view.
He saw you born, changed your diapers 5000-8000 times, watched as you learned your letters, cried over booboos, and announced ideas you learned in elementary school as if you had discovered them yourself.
Now in your 20s, when you start arguing your deep insights into politics with a tone of a full equal, or even talking down to him as if your current knowledge base makes you wiser or more qualified, of course his natural reaction is going to be:
"Why the hell would you think you actually KNOW the answer? I've seen you change your mind on these kinds of important issue 5 times on this over the past 5 years, just like I did when I was your age. If you really know the definitive answer to these things, why do you keep changing your mind?"
He knows what it was like to be 20 or 30. Do you know what it's like to be 50? Look back at the young bucks in high school, who think they're hot ****. As a guy in his 20s, don't you look back at those 16 year olds and say "Man, if you only knew how naive you are. Listen to MEEEEE..."
Its this stupid concept that many people have that "NOW I'M AT THE PINNACLE OF PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS... at the PEAK OF HISTORY" (rather than some random point in the middle, and at victim of my own youth)
It's a little bit like people who think that mankind is on some kind of continuous ethical/political/moral climb, and that the wisdom of older people from earlier generations are invalidated because they had different prejudices than young adults of today, that we consider old fashioned.
Many of the more civilized Asian cultures respect their elders and their knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and those people who don't treat their elders with respect are just TRASH. Sure those elders may be senile, prejudiced, or wrong-thinking in their ways, but on many ways, you have a lot to learn from older people.
Really, just look at your own life: Do you honestly think you are no wiser than you were 5 years ago? 5 years before that? 15 years ago? 20? So how can you talk with a guy 20 years older than you, and refuse to even CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT HIS EXPERIENCE MEANS SOMETHING? Your tone and argumentation should reflext some respect for that experience, openly acknowledge what you DON'T know and haven't experienced, and work from there, with introducing your relatively untested arguments.
It reminds me of my dad arguing politics and against some more ultra-liberal ideas: "Have you ever actually experienced communism? Or lived under a totalitarian regime? You have no idea why I casually dismiss such systems as horrible."
In general: The loser of an argument learns more than the winner.
Is it better to reaffirm how smart you are? Or is it better to learn something new?
I highly doubt that he throws that at you as a "tactic" per se. Look at it from his point of view.
He saw you born, changed your diapers 5000-8000 times, watched as you learned your letters, cried over booboos, and announced ideas you learned in elementary school as if you had discovered them yourself.
Now in your 20s, when you start arguing your deep insights into politics with a tone of a full equal, or even talking down to him as if your current knowledge base makes you wiser or more qualified, of course his natural reaction is going to be:
"Why the hell would you think you actually KNOW the answer? I've seen you change your mind on these kinds of important issue 5 times on this over the past 5 years, just like I did when I was your age. If you really know the definitive answer to these things, why do you keep changing your mind?"
He knows what it was like to be 20 or 30. Do you know what it's like to be 50? Look back at the young bucks in high school, who think they're hot ****. As a guy in his 20s, don't you look back at those 16 year olds and say "Man, if you only knew how naive you are. Listen to MEEEEE..."
Its this stupid concept that many people have that "NOW I'M AT THE PINNACLE OF PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS... at the PEAK OF HISTORY" (rather than some random point in the middle, and at victim of my own youth)
It's a little bit like people who think that mankind is on some kind of continuous ethical/political/moral climb, and that the wisdom of older people from earlier generations are invalidated because they had different prejudices than young adults of today, that we consider old fashioned.
Many of the more civilized Asian cultures respect their elders and their knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and those people who don't treat their elders with respect are just TRASH. Sure those elders may be senile, prejudiced, or wrong-thinking in their ways, but on many ways, you have a lot to learn from older people.
Really, just look at your own life: Do you honestly think you are no wiser than you were 5 years ago? 5 years before that? 15 years ago? 20? So how can you talk with a guy 20 years older than you, and refuse to even CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT HIS EXPERIENCE MEANS SOMETHING? Your tone and argumentation should reflext some respect for that experience, openly acknowledge what you DON'T know and haven't experienced, and work from there, with introducing your relatively untested arguments.
It reminds me of my dad arguing politics and against some more ultra-liberal ideas: "Have you ever actually experienced communism? Or lived under a totalitarian regime? You have no idea why I casually dismiss such systems as horrible."
I think you are misunderstanding my stance when we come to this arguement. I'm not dismissing experience as useless or invalid simply pointing out that it doesn't invalidate research and also pointing out that research can actually provide a better perspective on a topic due to no emotional connection.
At no point did I or do I believe I have all the answers or know everything. I don't even have an issue with disagreeing to him and each of us having our own views. My issue is this belief that his experience negates any and all work I put into researching the history and present of the topic we are discussing.
Have you considered that your father simply gets tired of arguing the same points with you?
He's done this with various topics not just politics and big business. He gets into this "I stated my side and yours is irrelevent because your younger" mode whenever we actually start getting into the heart of the debate.
So you two were having a pissing contest is what you're saying.
Why? I mean, you say this is an ongoing thing and you don't like it. Why get into it in the first place?
In general I enjoy debate and I know I can always learn more by talking to people with more experience. I hate that he gets into this stance but at the same time feel I can in general take something semi-positive away from the discussion.
I think you are misunderstanding my stance when we come to this arguement. I'm not dismissing experience as useless or invalid simply pointing out that it doesn't invalidate research and also pointing out that research can actually provide a better perspective on a topic due to no emotional connection.
At no point did I or do I believe I have all the answers or know everything. I don't even have an issue with disagreeing to him and each of us having our own views. My issue is this belief that his experience negates any and all work I put into researching the history and present of the topic we are discussing.
I think you are the one who misunderstands.
You are taking your father's rather aggressive posture on that "experience trumps everything" as if he's asserting an absolute axiom. That would only be the case if he dropped that bomb,and turned his back on you.
He is just taking a very strong position on that stance. Remember when you assert your own relatively young, untested opinion rather assertively, you are putting pressure on his position, which he may not be able to articulate as well as you can, but because of his experience and wisdom, and having been in your shoes, he "knows" he is right.
If you don't acknowledge or on some level concede your fallibility in the face of his experience, then what argument is there to have? Because you can spout a few stats, or research or whatever (all of which is non-definitive) and he has no "research" to argue back with, then you're basically saying that your ability to tapdance while juggling data puts you on top of the argument. So he plays to his own strength.
Not saying that's the only way to look at things, but it is definitely one of the valid ways to look at this little dance.
You wish to define the "groundrules of debate" with your dad in a way that simply favors you on every level, then when he doesn't want to play by your rules, you whine here.
You wish to define the "groundrules of debate" with your dad in a way that simply favors you on every level, then when he doesn't want to play by your rules, you whine here.
This is where you are wrong. I'm not telling him he can't use experience, or that his experience is wrong. I'm telling him that his experience doesn't not negate the research and evidence I am able to present. I'm not trying to hinder or limit his ability to debate I'm trying to get him to understand that his experience doesn't "trump" everything else.
You seem to want to pretend that you're the one being open-minded, but your words reveal that you are equally closed minded, and taking the stance that YOU are the ones who knows everything.
I'm telling him that his experience doesn't not negate the research and evidence I am able to present.
You're TELLING him? A man who knew you when you believed in Santa Claus?
I'm not telling him he can't use experience, or that his experience is wrong.
Sounds like that's exactly what you're telling him. The research and evidence you present trumps his experience.
I'm not trying to hinder or limit his ability to debate I'm trying to get him to understand that his experience doesn't "trump" everything else.
"Trying to get him to understand"? What a patronizing attitude to the man who taught you how to not crap your pants.
I think he understands you quite well. You are defining the terms of the discussion
You're telling me that I'm wrong, and I'm sure I'm right. You seem convinced you're right, and I get the impression you're only superficially reading what I write. This very thread you've chosen to frame the problem in a way that favors you, rather than recognizing it for what it is. You've decided he is simply closed minded, and you pay lip service to respecting his superior experience, when all you're doing is saying "I acknowledge you're experienced, but I don't think it negates anything I say."
"Evidence" you cite on most topics may or may not be of high quality. But because he does not have the ability to engage you on that particular level, you wish to keep things on that level. He is TELLING you just as you are TELLING him.
You seem to want to pretend that you're the one being open-minded, but your words reveal that you are equally closed minded, and taking the stance that YOU are the ones who knows everything.
So, because I want research and evidence to be respected on par with experience in a debate I'm close minded? Just want to make sure I'm hearing this right because frankly what you're saying is coming across like you're just trying to get under my skin.
You're TELLING him? A man who knew you when you believed in Santa Claus?
If you think what I believed as a 5 year old has any relevancy to my current day ideals and beliefs or ability to debate you would be wrong. It doesn't matter if he knew me when I believed in Santa Claus, what matters is the current issue at hand and pointing out that fact that research and evidence are accepted as being just as valuable as experience is hardly arrogant or out of line.
Sounds like that's exactly what you're telling him. The research and evidence you present trumps his experience.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly stated that I want evidence and research to be respected as valid in a debate as much as the experience he brings to the table. Right now you are twisting it completely out of context to try and make a point, and not really succeeding.
"Trying to get him to understand"? What a patronizing attitude to the man who taught you how to not crap your pants.
Hardly patronizing. Yes he is intelligent and experience that doesn't mean he understands everything or is willing to see it without prodding. It took me nearly walking out of his house for good to get him to sit down, listen and understand that calling someone a liar, even in a joking fashion, is increadibly disrespectful. Something he thought was funny when he sat down and was willing to listen to where I came from he walked away with a different understanding that allowed both of us to have a better relationship. I'm glad you think you know my dad but I'm talking about a man who has admitted to being set in his ways and openly refuses that without someone or something strongly pushing him while presenting him with facts he can't argue with he won't change. So yes when I say I'm trying to get him to understand I have a very valid place to come from based both in personal experience and his own admissions. Patronizing has nothing to do with it.
Also again you bring up irrelevent childhood matters that have nothing to do with the current discussion.
You're telling me that I'm wrong, and I'm sure I'm right. You seem convinced you're right, and I get the impression you're only superficially reading what I write. This very thread you've chosen to frame the problem in a way that favors you, rather than recognizing it for what it is. You've decided he is simply closed minded, and you pay lip service to respecting his superior experience, when all you're doing is saying "I acknowledge you're experienced, but I don't think it negates anything I say."
Again you're twisting what I have said. I never once said he didn't have anything relevent I stated that I want the work I put into researching and finding evidence for a topic to be respected for what it is. I don't want it dismissed, in some cases before I'm even able to bring it to the front, simply because of his experience.
Evidence" you cite on most topics may or may not be of high quality. But because he does not have the ability to engage you on that particular level, you wish to keep things on that level. He is TELLING you just as you are TELLING him.
I wish to keep the field of debate open to evidence presented through both research, and experience. I don't want anyone crippled in the debate so that only one side is heard or understood, but rather both sides openly expanded upon and understood so that both people can grow from the discussion.
argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
In your OP you are strictly characterizing your dad as the closed minded bad guy, and you as the victim.
You can protest as much as you like that you are respecting him and only looking to be respected back, but your OP question doesn't reflect that at all.
You claim you are asking whether "this same tired and frustrating argument" "holds water", but you know that it doesn't "hold water" when the question is framed in the biased way you've framed it.
Quote from Captain_Morgan »
Either of you are looking for a strategic advantage over the other, highly competitive and probably a familial trait. To make up for his lack of education he uses experience as a justification where as you are using your inexperience and research as the "superior."
Captain Morgan saw it on POST NUMBER ONE, and I see the exact same thing. You are each straining for advantage by setting the ground rules in ways that favor yourselves, and my further exposition on it, and my discussions on WHY your father takes his position actually was conceding that he was doing it out of defensiveness, and actually favored you.
You're in total denial if you're going to continue to frame this as a "my dad always falls back on the same tired and frustrating argument" where he is the bad guy and you are the victim.
We're only hearing YOUR side of the story, yet still somehow we've both come to the conclusion that both you and dad are guilty parties in this conflict.
In your OP you are strictly characterizing your dad as the closed minded bad guy, and you as the victim.
You can protest as much as you like that you are respecting him and only looking to be respected back, but your OP question doesn't reflect that at all.
You claim you are asking whether "this same tired and frustrating argument" "holds water", but you know that it doesn't "hold water" when the question is framed in the biased way you've framed it.
It doesn't? When you see difference sources of information that can be just as valid, and in some cases more valid, that another are you not giving it respect on a equal level? In terms of the question I phrased it with the potential for someone to state or defend it while finishing with my own personal view of what I see in it.
As for my characterization of his arguement as "tired and frustrating" I personally feel it applies when the same thing happens in the majority of the debates we have as soon as something that contradicts or opposes his point of view is brought up and supported with evidence of some kind.
Captain Morgan saw it on POST NUMBER ONE, and I see the exact same thing. You are each straining for advantage by setting the ground rules in ways that favor yourselves, and my further exposition on it, and my discussions on WHY your father takes his position actually was conceding that he was doing it out of defensiveness, and actually favored you.
You're in total denial if you're going to continue to frame this as a "my dad always falls back on the same tired and frustrating argument" where he is the bad guy and you are the victim.
We're only hearing YOUR side of the story, yet still somehow we've both come to the conclusion that both you and dad are guilty parties in this conflict
"Takes two to tango" I don't hold any ideals of being completely "innocent" on this matter, I'm well aware of my stubbornness, again however when the work I put into my half of the debate and it is constantly dismissed based on experience without really even being discussed I feel "frustration and tired" are very appropriate means of describing it.
"Takes two to tango" I don't hold any ideals of being completely "innocent" on this matter, I'm well aware of my stubbornness, again however when the work I put into my half of the debate and it is constantly dismissed based on experience without really even being discussed I feel "frustration and tired" are very appropriate means of describing it.
well clearly you don't need any advice here, and have it all figured out. Why did you bother to ask whether your dad's arguments "hold water" if you already knew the answer?
I suggested trying an alternate approach and looking at it from his PoV and try to offer more respect and you basically just argue that youve done all you can.
I don't believe you. I believe you can do better. And yeah, I think I takes two to tango, and this back & forth between you is about more than just getting him to respect a few of your arguments.
I'll point you toward Aristotle for some Rhetoric advice:
"He who asserts must prove." is the golden rule of debate.
It is also possible to have a correctly built argument which has a flawed or incorrect premise.
Another good rule is to not bother expanding rhetoric with people who don't abide by the rules and jump off into epic fail fallacy land.
Anyway so I was recently having a dicussion with my dad about politics and big business. While the content isn't really relevant he came to a stance that honestly pissed me off.
His stance was that until I lived as many years as he did and had his experiences that my opinion on these subjects is uninformed and in general holds no water. I argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
The question I come down to is where the arguments are lain out and how they are and under what context. For example, you can read all you want about people but until you've actually dealt with a person in business you're not going to get things to "click." Theory and practical experience are meant to support each other, and build up wisdom over time. They aren't meant to replace each other, they augment and hold each other up.
Sometimes you'll never have the experience and just have to rely on the research and previous life experiences and reading and the like to come to a judgement. If he's being a prick about your opinions, then don't discuss such topics with him. It's that simple, I have a large family myself you think as an older person that I generally talk to all of my siblings the same way about every topic? Of course not, since each temperament is different and there are just certain topics just best not to bring up.
If you're looking for a place to talk about certain subjects, the debate forum works. I'll be honest when you run the gambit from anarcho capitalists to gays to lawyers to high school students.... you know there's something there.
My biggest suggestion for a young man that's interested in this stuff.... join the debate team and other such organizations. If your debate partner sucks, find new debate partners.
One of the things you will learn quickly in life is that people value their own opinion quite heavily, and conversion is a slow process and generally gradual. You have very few instances of punctuated equilibrium with a person who already has an opinion on something. In part, if you read certain person's posts it's not so much the debators that are convincing each other it's the people in lurker mode that are the most affected.
Debating is a full contact sport, it's overall political in nature.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Education and experiences make you who you are. They shape your views. Until you have those experiences, nothing has been shaped. No matter how many books you read on the subject, you didnt live it and cant know the full extent of the experience.
No matter what, people believe in what they believe in and its hard to sway them from that thinking. No matter how unreasonable they seem or pissed off that makes you.
Experience is garbage unless it directly applies to the subject at hand, and even then it's knowing specified information about the subject that someone might not have insight into. It's not a reason you're more right without explaining why that viewpoint is more realistic.
He made statements that the insanly rich people want the power over everyone else, and he used experience such as AT&Ts original monopoly as a means of showing that business wants to exert it's power over us by having all the control over specific products. To me this sounded like conspiracy theories all over again as I argued the point was such businesses didn't involve exerting power over the "little people" but simply as a means to make more money, which would be basic business practices.
He them goes on to say that they are the people supplying the jobs and that they only care about what you can do for them and as soon as they don't need you they will get rid of you, which again I simply countered by stating that again it's basic business practice not some sinister plan of the rich.
Finally he made comments that business will lay off people going into the election to make Obama look bad and then made 2 predictions. He said if Romney is elected employment will improve for a short while to make him look good and the plummit. He said if Obama was elected it would continue to decline for a while and then get better. At this point I straight called him out on his conspiracy theories as he's suggesting all companies in the US are united to bring down Obama and support Romney which is crazy. He then went on to say that he's seen it happen in the past but when asked to actually state when is when we began to get into the current, and frustrating issue of experience vs research.
Now I don't think my dad is either uneducated or illogical, but I do feel he has become emotionally invested in this topic and his pride in his political selection that it is clouding his judgment and usual common sense.
No that wasn't me.
I used to think like this too when I was in my late teens and early twenties. As I got into my late thirties and into my mid forties and watch the younger generation, I have to disagree. Saying someone older doesnt have more experience and general knowledge is just being ignorant.
There are mainly 3 ways teens and young adults learn. There are the ones who need to read it to learn something (showing them confuses them, and normally they wont try anything until they read up on it), there are those that need to be shown to learn something (they are confused when reading about it and wont tackle on their own until they have been shown), or there are those that need to do to learn something(reading it or hearing it from someone else doesnt sink in). Its a rare person that can learn from all 3.
When you live your life believing and supporting a certain way of life, its hard to see the other side. It sounds like you have just started on your journey, he is entrenched in his. Take his opinions and knowledge and form your own ideals. You dont have to agree with your parents about everything.
Yes and no, it depends on the person and the upbringing too. I know older people who are jacks of all trades and knows a little about a lot but isnt an expert about any of them. Then there are the people who were only exposed to certain things and thats all they know and care to know about. I agree you dont go to an electrician for banking needs, but if you have an electrical problem why are you going to tell the electrician how to do his job?
I am an old man and I learn something new almost every day and try and have new experiences weekly if not more often. I believe you can continually learn and experience new things.
Instead of butting heads over ideals and beliefs, ask the others stance and use that in forming your own.
Yeah, that is a bit conspiratorial. I doubt that most of the rich elites think very much about the "little people." But people like to win, and winners don't like to compete again. So in fiddling with government (a light way of putting it) to rig the game in their continued favor, the rich elites might indirectly or directly-but-unintentionally hurt the "little people."
Then again there might be a few who actually do hate us. *shrug* I don't see much difference.
As a critique of your argument, though, you seem to be closer to your dad's ideas than your rhetoric might let on. Just to check, though, do you think those "basic business practices" are a good thing? Bad thing? Conditional? Neutral? If you do agree that they can be bad (even only sometimes), let your dad know that you agree on that point at least. The way you phrased it now, it seems like you're apologizing for Big Business (which is a sure way to get him to lock you out of the discussion).
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I've always felt that business was simply that it was business the focus should be on it's success and what is good for it. In this breathe I do feel that whats good for the business is to look out for it's employees so they can perform at their best. So do I feel they are bad in principle? Not really what I feel is bad is when people take them to extremes at which case I feel they hurt both the business and the "little people" working for them.
So you two were having a pissing contest is what you're saying.
Why? I mean, you say this is an ongoing thing and you don't like it. Why get into it in the first place?
The fact that he's lived longer does not automatically mean he wins, no.
But you can't dismiss experience either.
Although this doesn't seem to be about experience so much as trying to be dismissive of you.
I think you're thinking about Hallucinogen and how he wanted advice on how to argue with his brother.
Although the situation appears to be similar.
I missed this post while chatting with EP.
Big business does control the government with lobbyists. The 'little guys' cant afford the shear number of lobbyists the big business's can.
Big business is associated with the Republican side of the aisle. I can see where certain things would seem fishy from the past, monopolies and such, but I dont know of any flat out conspiracies.
I do know in the late 50s and early 60s when the power companies were pushing for nuclear powered stations they sold the people on the safety and the up front cost without explaining the life expectancy of such stations. A lot of those old timers that originally paid the start up cost thru a raise in service fees still complain about it when the subject of new power plants come up. They feel as though they have been had by the power companies.
Can big business sway elections? Maybe, but I dont know of any concrete evidence from the past that would say they have. I do know unions come out and tell every member who they are to vote for and they lay a thick guilt trip on the members. So I would imagine big business plays the same game. Though I have world at drug companies and I have never heard a boss or higher up suggest that anyone vote for anyone certain candidate.
Have you considered that your father simply gets tired of arguing the same points with you? Are you sure you are arguing effectively, and not just spouting opposing rhetoric?
In any case, I've seen that kind of father before (not my own, thankfully), and it can be frustrating. However, they tend to produce very stubborn children who don't typically review their own ideological stances, either. So while you may disagree, are you sure your own views are fully reasoned out, or do you just 'know' you are right?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This I think is the only idea I want to address in this thread.
People ask me why I post on forums like this when it's just people engaging gin pissing contests. My answer is that even if it's just a pissing contest you never know what someone is going to say that is going to change my mind. Having something/someone challenge my beliefs or views on any particular issue and change my mind is something I actually enjoy.
Finding out that I've been using a faulty series of logic can be embarrassing but it's necessary to develop rigorous and well thought positions. Sometimes you need to get into a pissing contest for this to happen. Sometime you don't change your mind and you find the lack of an argument against something you think strengthens that thought.
There are lots of times when people are focusing on changing other people's minds instead of looking for justifications to change their own. But when that is not happening, it is never a waste of time to argue any position IMO.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I've definitely found that this board challenges my impressions and interpretations of facts and information. Every serious point made against my opinion either helps me either refine or reevaluate those opinions. I've had my mind changed several times on this board.
The problem is the people who aren't open to other interpretations, which is why I commented asking the OP if he himself was open or just repeating opposing rhetoric.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Is it better to reaffirm how smart you are? Or is it better to learn something new?
I highly doubt that he throws that at you as a "tactic" per se. Look at it from his point of view.
He saw you born, changed your diapers 5000-8000 times, watched as you learned your letters, cried over booboos, and announced ideas you learned in elementary school as if you had discovered them yourself.
Now in your 20s, when you start arguing your deep insights into politics with a tone of a full equal, or even talking down to him as if your current knowledge base makes you wiser or more qualified, of course his natural reaction is going to be:
"Why the hell would you think you actually KNOW the answer? I've seen you change your mind on these kinds of important issue 5 times on this over the past 5 years, just like I did when I was your age. If you really know the definitive answer to these things, why do you keep changing your mind?"
He knows what it was like to be 20 or 30. Do you know what it's like to be 50? Look back at the young bucks in high school, who think they're hot ****. As a guy in his 20s, don't you look back at those 16 year olds and say "Man, if you only knew how naive you are. Listen to MEEEEE..."
Its this stupid concept that many people have that "NOW I'M AT THE PINNACLE OF PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS... at the PEAK OF HISTORY" (rather than some random point in the middle, and at victim of my own youth)
It's a little bit like people who think that mankind is on some kind of continuous ethical/political/moral climb, and that the wisdom of older people from earlier generations are invalidated because they had different prejudices than young adults of today, that we consider old fashioned.
Many of the more civilized Asian cultures respect their elders and their knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and those people who don't treat their elders with respect are just TRASH. Sure those elders may be senile, prejudiced, or wrong-thinking in their ways, but on many ways, you have a lot to learn from older people.
Really, just look at your own life: Do you honestly think you are no wiser than you were 5 years ago? 5 years before that? 15 years ago? 20? So how can you talk with a guy 20 years older than you, and refuse to even CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT HIS EXPERIENCE MEANS SOMETHING? Your tone and argumentation should reflext some respect for that experience, openly acknowledge what you DON'T know and haven't experienced, and work from there, with introducing your relatively untested arguments.
It reminds me of my dad arguing politics and against some more ultra-liberal ideas: "Have you ever actually experienced communism? Or lived under a totalitarian regime? You have no idea why I casually dismiss such systems as horrible."
I think you are misunderstanding my stance when we come to this arguement. I'm not dismissing experience as useless or invalid simply pointing out that it doesn't invalidate research and also pointing out that research can actually provide a better perspective on a topic due to no emotional connection.
At no point did I or do I believe I have all the answers or know everything. I don't even have an issue with disagreeing to him and each of us having our own views. My issue is this belief that his experience negates any and all work I put into researching the history and present of the topic we are discussing.
He's done this with various topics not just politics and big business. He gets into this "I stated my side and yours is irrelevent because your younger" mode whenever we actually start getting into the heart of the debate.
In general I enjoy debate and I know I can always learn more by talking to people with more experience. I hate that he gets into this stance but at the same time feel I can in general take something semi-positive away from the discussion.
You are taking your father's rather aggressive posture on that "experience trumps everything" as if he's asserting an absolute axiom. That would only be the case if he dropped that bomb,and turned his back on you.
He is just taking a very strong position on that stance. Remember when you assert your own relatively young, untested opinion rather assertively, you are putting pressure on his position, which he may not be able to articulate as well as you can, but because of his experience and wisdom, and having been in your shoes, he "knows" he is right.
If you don't acknowledge or on some level concede your fallibility in the face of his experience, then what argument is there to have? Because you can spout a few stats, or research or whatever (all of which is non-definitive) and he has no "research" to argue back with, then you're basically saying that your ability to tapdance while juggling data puts you on top of the argument. So he plays to his own strength.
Not saying that's the only way to look at things, but it is definitely one of the valid ways to look at this little dance.
You wish to define the "groundrules of debate" with your dad in a way that simply favors you on every level, then when he doesn't want to play by your rules, you whine here.
This is where you are wrong. I'm not telling him he can't use experience, or that his experience is wrong. I'm telling him that his experience doesn't not negate the research and evidence I am able to present. I'm not trying to hinder or limit his ability to debate I'm trying to get him to understand that his experience doesn't "trump" everything else.
"Trying to get him to understand"? What a patronizing attitude to the man who taught you how to not crap your pants.
I think he understands you quite well. You are defining the terms of the discussion
You're telling me that I'm wrong, and I'm sure I'm right. You seem convinced you're right, and I get the impression you're only superficially reading what I write. This very thread you've chosen to frame the problem in a way that favors you, rather than recognizing it for what it is. You've decided he is simply closed minded, and you pay lip service to respecting his superior experience, when all you're doing is saying "I acknowledge you're experienced, but I don't think it negates anything I say."
"Evidence" you cite on most topics may or may not be of high quality. But because he does not have the ability to engage you on that particular level, you wish to keep things on that level. He is TELLING you just as you are TELLING him.
So, because I want research and evidence to be respected on par with experience in a debate I'm close minded? Just want to make sure I'm hearing this right because frankly what you're saying is coming across like you're just trying to get under my skin.
If you think what I believed as a 5 year old has any relevancy to my current day ideals and beliefs or ability to debate you would be wrong. It doesn't matter if he knew me when I believed in Santa Claus, what matters is the current issue at hand and pointing out that fact that research and evidence are accepted as being just as valuable as experience is hardly arrogant or out of line.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I have repeatedly stated that I want evidence and research to be respected as valid in a debate as much as the experience he brings to the table. Right now you are twisting it completely out of context to try and make a point, and not really succeeding.
Hardly patronizing. Yes he is intelligent and experience that doesn't mean he understands everything or is willing to see it without prodding. It took me nearly walking out of his house for good to get him to sit down, listen and understand that calling someone a liar, even in a joking fashion, is increadibly disrespectful. Something he thought was funny when he sat down and was willing to listen to where I came from he walked away with a different understanding that allowed both of us to have a better relationship. I'm glad you think you know my dad but I'm talking about a man who has admitted to being set in his ways and openly refuses that without someone or something strongly pushing him while presenting him with facts he can't argue with he won't change. So yes when I say I'm trying to get him to understand I have a very valid place to come from based both in personal experience and his own admissions. Patronizing has nothing to do with it.
Also again you bring up irrelevent childhood matters that have nothing to do with the current discussion.
Again you're twisting what I have said. I never once said he didn't have anything relevent I stated that I want the work I put into researching and finding evidence for a topic to be respected for what it is. I don't want it dismissed, in some cases before I'm even able to bring it to the front, simply because of his experience.
I wish to keep the field of debate open to evidence presented through both research, and experience. I don't want anyone crippled in the debate so that only one side is heard or understood, but rather both sides openly expanded upon and understood so that both people can grow from the discussion.
In your OP you are strictly characterizing your dad as the closed minded bad guy, and you as the victim.
You can protest as much as you like that you are respecting him and only looking to be respected back, but your OP question doesn't reflect that at all.
You claim you are asking whether "this same tired and frustrating argument" "holds water", but you know that it doesn't "hold water" when the question is framed in the biased way you've framed it.
Captain Morgan saw it on POST NUMBER ONE, and I see the exact same thing. You are each straining for advantage by setting the ground rules in ways that favor yourselves, and my further exposition on it, and my discussions on WHY your father takes his position actually was conceding that he was doing it out of defensiveness, and actually favored you.
You're in total denial if you're going to continue to frame this as a "my dad always falls back on the same tired and frustrating argument" where he is the bad guy and you are the victim.
We're only hearing YOUR side of the story, yet still somehow we've both come to the conclusion that both you and dad are guilty parties in this conflict.
It doesn't? When you see difference sources of information that can be just as valid, and in some cases more valid, that another are you not giving it respect on a equal level? In terms of the question I phrased it with the potential for someone to state or defend it while finishing with my own personal view of what I see in it.
As for my characterization of his arguement as "tired and frustrating" I personally feel it applies when the same thing happens in the majority of the debates we have as soon as something that contradicts or opposes his point of view is brought up and supported with evidence of some kind.
"Takes two to tango" I don't hold any ideals of being completely "innocent" on this matter, I'm well aware of my stubbornness, again however when the work I put into my half of the debate and it is constantly dismissed based on experience without really even being discussed I feel "frustration and tired" are very appropriate means of describing it.
I suggested trying an alternate approach and looking at it from his PoV and try to offer more respect and you basically just argue that youve done all you can.
I don't believe you. I believe you can do better. And yeah, I think I takes two to tango, and this back & forth between you is about more than just getting him to respect a few of your arguments.
"He who asserts must prove." is the golden rule of debate.
It is also possible to have a correctly built argument which has a flawed or incorrect premise.
Another good rule is to not bother expanding rhetoric with people who don't abide by the rules and jump off into epic fail fallacy land.
Big Thanks to Xeno for sig art <3.