Islam vs actualized.org

[LordFall]

I agree with you on the mechanics of persuasion, @Natasha Tori Maru. If the goal is cooperative debate or changing someone's mind, sledgehammering logic creates instant polarization.

But persuasion requires a willing, good-faith participant. Sometimes grace and cooperation advance a discussion. Other times, you encounter an irreconcilable conflict with someone who brings bad-faith hostility, personal jabs, and dogmatic posturing.

When someone chooses that route on a forum dedicated to high-level intellectualism, cooperative debate is off the table. My goal isn't to convert a hostile actor; it's to establish a firm boundary and completely dismantle the credibility of their position.

I always prefer good-faith, cooperative exchange. But if someone chooses an adversarial road, I have zero problem meeting them on those terms and not backing down. That's just the reality of high-stakes dialogue.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@LordFall But the overall effect of dialogues like this can just be... offence - do you think it is the right thing to do when the effect is a negative outcome like this for the recipient?

It isn't hard to detect this in debate, and then halt. 

It might be worth questioning why we continue - just to serve ourselves?

 

[Yimpa]

I advocate for pure understanding that is rooted in holism and a lack of self-bias 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Yimpa said:

I advocate for pure understanding that is rooted in holism and a lack of self-bias 

 The thing is, the trap more commonly fallen into on these forums tends to be explanation = understanding.

Explanation is NOT understanding!!

[LordFall]

19 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@LordFall But the overall effect of dialogues like this can just be... offence - do you think it is the right thing to do when the effect is a negative outcome like this for the recipient?

It isn't hard to detect this in debate, and then halt. 

It might be worth questioning why we continue - just to serve ourselves?

 

Yes, life is made of the self and others. Sometimes others want to challenge us and backing down is not the net positive outcome. 

I think honestly it's a male competition thing. For women harmony is a higher value concept than for men. If another male challenges me I don't see a reason to not accept his challenge if I'm gonna win. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

11 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Yes, life is made of the self and others. Sometimes others want to challenge us and backing down is not the net positive outcome. 

You don't need to totally back down - just stop with inferences about people's psychological state when they tell you to stop. We shouldn't insult. We should try to engage in rhetoric free of condescension. 

11 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I think honestly it's a male competition thing. For women harmony is a higher value concept than for men. If another male challenges me I don't see a reason to not accept his challenge if I'm gonna win. 

You are explaining a possible mechanism. None of this justifies continually causing offense in an attempt to win an argument.

Is continuing appropriate when the negative outcome is apparent and the continuation seems to be serving the participant rather than producing anything constructive? 

My interpretation is you are evading the wider ethical points I am raising.

Edited 4 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[LordFall]

7 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

You don't need to totally back down - just stop with inferences about people's psychological state when they tell you to stop. We shouldn't insult. We should try to engage in rhetoric free of condescension. 

You are explaining a possible mechanism. None of this justifies continually causing offense in an attempt to win an argument.

Is continuing appropriate when the negative outcome is apparent and the continuation seems to be serving the participant rather than producing anything constructive? 

My interpretation is you are evading the wider ethical points I am raising.

Now you're gaslighting me. He didn't ask me to stop he doubled down. When people are good faithed and ask to stop the conflict and get back to productive conversation I take them up on it. 

This boils down to fight, flight, fawn or freeze. You're asking me to do the later when I will win at the first one. That is not serving me in any way whatsoever nor is it even serving this forum to tolerate bad points and passive aggressiveness from people that are wrong and not championing the values that it's based on. 

It's not ethical to let a fox eat you. 

Edited 4 hours ago by LordFall

[gengar]

Notice how he continues to blatantly lie and gaslight claiming that I am religious and muslim when I literally went as far in this thread to say that Islam has to cease to exist as a contemporary religion for society to progress to the next level. An astounding level of malice.

[LordFall]

Just now, gengar said:

Notice how he continues to blatantly lie and gaslight claiming that I am religious and muslim when I literally went as far in this thread to say that Islam has to cease to exist as a contemporary religion for society to progress to the next level. An astounding level of malice.

What a victim mindset. You're the one that turned it from a fact based conversation on Islam to your flailing out with insults. Get a grip. 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, LordFall said:

Now you're gaslighting me. He didn't ask me to stop he doubled down and I tripled down. 

This appears to me to be a non sequitur.

My point isn't that you were required to stop because the other person asked you to. I am asking whether escalating an interaction remains justified once you've recognized that it has become adversarial and unproductive. Saying "he doubled down and I tripled down" explains the escalation, but doesn't answer that question.

Are you evading?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Okay clearly this isn't going anywhere.