Read the comments on this thread.
The person trashes Ron Paul, so I stick up for him. Then, instead of debating the issued concerning Ron Paul, this guy brings up his job of teaching legal history and continues to ask irrelevant questions about his specialization. (Asking me to recite cases from history, seemingly random cases at that)
It is very frustrating and I need help...before i hurt myself over it.
Why are you engaging in this type of discussion? Either call him out on what he's doing or decide that it's useless and don't engage.
You really think that that guy is worth your time?
To put it bluntly: he's a grown man arguing on Google+ and you think you need help?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
either call him out on what he's doing
I did. He ignored it
decide that it's useless and don't engage.
If no one 'engages' with these kinds of people their lies will become truth. All they have to do is repeat. We are the ones that need to lather and rinse.
and you think you need help.
Someone else pointing out the same thing that I was trying to do (the list of logical fallacies) would go along way for his psyche to recognize the truth behind what he was doing.
The chances of you reaching him is very slim, trust me I know how you feel, I personally know someone who is both stubborn and idiotic, and the worst part about it is that he's someone who others think is smart, but there's realistically nothing you can do.
There are three things you can do: The first is to aggressively pursue his own values, being annoying, rhetorical, and emotional, aggressively asking him why it is that he wants to cause suffering and other things which are against his value preferences, hoping that you can reach him by crushing him under the weight of his own values.
The second option you have is to just back out, make what you're saying clear and save yourself the trouble.
The third is really just engage endlessly, hope a miracle happens and he changes.
Don't worry, most people on the internet are intransigent and stupid, one more not being cleansed of their idiocy.
It's important to prioritize when it comes to convincing people. Were any of the people you were responding to important or influential? If you were to convince the person you're arguing with, how many would that person be able to convince in turn, that is the question one should ask. As Neodoxy pointed out, there are millions of idiots online, if you were to attempt to convince each of them individually you would spend your entire life online only to change a couple dozen minds. Persuading important and influential people is how we win the battle of ideas.
Like I said in my last post, if no one confronts those millions of idiots who say libelous things about Ron Paul, then casual observers will read them, since there is no refutation, and move on thinking whatever nonsense was said is true. The main person in that thread claimed to be an Associate Professor. So, that person has a direct influence on the minds of other people.
Persuading important and influential people is how we win the battle of ideas.
This is only one method. And at what capacity? You do not really think that it is unimportant what the averge joe thinks, do you?
Believe it or not, but the everyday average person has influence over the public psyche as well.
"Like I said in my last post, if no one confronts those millions of idiots who say libelous things about Ron Paul, then casual observers will read them, since there is no refutation, and move on thinking whatever nonsense was said is true. The main person in that thread claimed to be an Associate Professor. So, that person has a direct influence on the minds of other people."
And there is no way to debate the millions of idiots. There is absolutely nothing that you can do after a point, you're looking for an answer to a question for which there is no answer, some people cannot be convinced, if there was some rock solid way to convert everyone to our position then the world would be a libertarian paradise right now. The better thing to do is to try to find people who are ready to be convinced.
If you are worried about people seeing the thread then call him out on his bullshit for all to see, lay out your terms eloquently and explain why he is not addressing your arguments. After this point anyone who will look at the thread can see that you are correct and that he is not, after this point there is nothing that you can do, and you need to accept that. This person does not seem to be willing to be convinced. With this said, don't make the matter bigger than it is, this person will have a major effect on a handful of people. Even if he is a college professor he does not wield that great an influence unless he is a very special and influential one. I know that most of my teachers and professors only had a passing influence on me. It's usually the whole, not just a part or two.
You need to accept the limitations of your capabilities.
It is true that simply ignoring slanderous nonsense will result in most people simply accepting what is said, making a very well thought out post is what I would recommend, possibly a few well thought out posts if the thread/comment section has a lot of replies. Other than a few well thought out posts, it becomes a waste of time, unless the person is actually worth convincing.
Take for example the thread linked to in your OP. In the thread you directly address a specific person who is wrong, the person in turn replies, the exchange starts to go down hill with him insisting that you must appeal to his obscure and irrelevant specialty, claiming that if you don't then you aren't well informed. A single well thought out post, which covers the underlying concerns of the people involved would have been more effective.
The guy may have been a assistant professor, but what was your impression of him? Did he seem likable? Did he seem very persuasive? My impression was that he was one of those people who just likes to argue, a combative person, such a person isn't likely to be likable, meaning people who interact with him likely won't put much value in what he says. Sure they will listen to him lecture, they will take notes, they will do what it takes to pass the exams but the stuff he says likely won't stick in the long run.
When I say that it's more important to convince the important and influential people I mean people that other people listen to, people that other people like, charismatic people. When a charismatic person says something people listen, what he/she says is likely to stick, even when the charismatic person may be wrong. (Obama is a good example of this actually. Too bad he is on the side of evil.) Other examples are preachers, well known bloggers who are likable, etc. etc. You get the picture. It's not that the average joe doesn't matter, the thing is the average joe won't influence as many people.
you're looking for an answer to a question for which there is no answer
I didn't ask any questions...
The point is to make available, where you see invalid arguments being presented, another option so people can read them. Not to debate everyone, but to debate people in hopes that observers can decide correctly. If we didn't do this, then people would spread lies unopposed. THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT.
lay out your terms eloquently and explain why he is not addressing your arguments.
Which is what I did....................................................................................
Shut the fuck up. You people and your high horses (assumptions). You pile on incorrect assumptions about my motivations and say shit like this (that serioiusly has infuriated me), you are essentially doing the same thing as the guy who i was debating.
"to debate people in hopes that observers can decide correctly. If we didn't do this, then people would spread lies unopposed. "
That is my motivation, not to persuade every idiot out there.
I know that most of my teachers and professors only had a passing influence on me. It's usually the whole, not just a part or two.
And we can both probably safely assume that anyone posting here thinks about things (anything) more than those who do not...your induction is not really applicable.
Even if he is a college professor he does not wield that great an influence unless he is a very special and influential one.
Does he communicate ideas to people in a more important way than...say, you?
My impression was that he was one of those people who just likes to argue, a combative person, such a person isn't likely to be likable, meaning people who interact with him likely won't put much value in what he says.
You say this, but have absolutely no idea...
I regret making this post as it was as bad as the thread the post is about.
If I have no idea then please enlighten me? I've put a lot of thought into psychology, rhetoric, and other things that influence persuasion I would still be interested in any insights you might have however.
"It is very frustrating and I need help..."
Forgive me for thinking that this has a question in it.
"THAT IS MY FUCKING POINT."
"Which is what I did...................................................................................."
"Shut the fuck up. You people and your high horses (assumptions)."
"I regret making this post as it was as bad as the thread the post is about."
(a) I don't care....
(b) my comment was meant ot indicate that you can say all you want about that person, but you have no idea about their mental state.
"I regret making this post as it was as bad as the thread the post is about." Then why in the world did you post it? IF I would have forseen the mischaracterization of my own point, i would not have. You realize what "regret" means, right? If it was forseeable, then it likely wouldn't even be a concept. "It is very frustrating and I need help..." Forgive me for thinking that this has a question in it. I don't see a "?" do you? (<--- There's one!) I meant help in posting on that thread, not psychological help from the (incredibly pretentious; I know it is me too) mises community. And, I apologize for that last post. I have spent all day trying to figure out "tunngle" (unsuccessfully, i might add), debate with that SOB on Gplus, figure out what method I can use most effectively to reduce heat in my computer (the summer heat has pushed temps in my comp to about 45 centigrade at idle and when I played Red Orchestra my core was 72...heat that is simply unacceptable, I didn't have enough Vodka Sauce for my fucking dinner, the people above me sounded like they were sweeping up pennies for a few hours earlier, and the pool opened today, so while I tried to do all of this I got to listen to some wonderful ghetto rap music. It has been a "pain in the ass" day at every turn. "The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19 | Post Points: 5
"It is very frustrating and I need help..." Forgive me for thinking that this has a question in it.
I don't see a "?" do you? (<--- There's one!) I meant help in posting on that thread, not psychological help from the (incredibly pretentious; I know it is me too) mises community.
And, I apologize for that last post.
I have spent all day trying to figure out "tunngle" (unsuccessfully, i might add), debate with that SOB on Gplus, figure out what method I can use most effectively to reduce heat in my computer (the summer heat has pushed temps in my comp to about 45 centigrade at idle and when I played Red Orchestra my core was 72...heat that is simply unacceptable, I didn't have enough Vodka Sauce for my fucking dinner, the people above me sounded like they were sweeping up pennies for a few hours earlier, and the pool opened today, so while I tried to do all of this I got to listen to some wonderful ghetto rap music. It has been a "pain in the ass" day at every turn.
I don't need to know the assistant professor's mental state in order to give my impression of him. You seem to be interested in correcting people when they are wrong about something. If I am in fact clueless then wouldn't the rational thing to do is to point out how my advice is bad? (So that others won't take my advice.)
Edit: Sorry you had such a bad day. I admire the fact that you feel so passionately about spreading truth, my advice wasn't meant to be discouraging, it was meant to better assist in helping you to accomplish your goal. However if you aren't interested in my advice and/or were offended then I apologize for wasting your time.
I don't need to know the assistant professor's mental state in order to give my impression of him.
Okay...but your perspective is not the same as his students. Your assumption would indiacte that you think his students will see him as you do, but you are not taking into account the fact that most people do not act or speak the same way on the internet that they do at their place of employment. That is why your statement is useless; because you have no idea what the students think. There are plenty of people who "do not seem likeable" but are married. Look at Karl Marx...
Karl Marx was married? :O Maybe there's hope for me after all. :)
My impression may have been wrong. He may come across as charming while he is at work, given my experience with people, most people who are argumentative don't come across as charming even when they try to be. I admit I may be off the mark regarding the assistant professor, we shall never know.
Not that I've done a whole lot of research on this guy, but if he got his M.A. in 2011 (noted on his blog), how does he score his PhD then the coveted post of Assistant Professor in 1 year? Pretty sure that this guy is just in year 1 of his PhD, that he hasn't come close to completing his coursework (usually 2-21/2 years for history), hasn't even started reading for his comprehensive examinations (my comp reading list had just north of 250 books on it) and his PhD prospectus is little more than a fart in the wind.
During an argument people appeal to authority for a reason: they're weak on the front that you're attacking and are hoping to bluff you off.
If you really insist on trying to gain ground with a mental rock then just go the badass stoic route; remove all tone from your words, just calmly state your points, and take the high ground of civil discourse. Continue the debate on your terms, not whatever emotional bs you could potentially drag yourself down to. Eventually others will realize he's just stubbornly talking to himself and refuses to communicate, but your words will still stand on their own. That's really the most you can do with some of these antisocial types who are stuck on the mental broken record that is their own ego.
Just re-read through the comments and, combining that with his blog: he's a 1st year TA--miles away from an Assistant Professor (and miles away from teaching Legal History--at most reputable History Depts you need to have finished your PhD comps before you can teach a class).
Cortes is right: high ground.
I was actaully called stoic by my old boss. Having little to no emotions is as much a gift as a curse. And I'll keep the high ground thing in mind next time, however, I haven't had my firey green medicine in nearly two weeks. I'm white knuckling it here.
So, I correctly called him on that almost right away then? I tend to think that an actual professor would be confident enough that he/she wouldn't have to state their credentials to a stranger on the internet.
Thanks!
I got into an economics debate here. Does the minimum wage necessarily destroy jobs?
There are some interesting posts and it is not a bunch of detractors. What do you make of the arguments used? I have done my best to stay objective and rationalize with the people posting.
Any thoughts would be appreciated!
About Australia:
While I'm not sure how they arrive at the $15.51 minimum wage number, I doubt it is adjusted to purchasing power. They may have one of the highest minimum wages in the world, but they also have an extremely high price index (65% higher than the U.S.), which is probably related. So that $15.51/hr. can buy significantly less than $15.51/hr. in U.S. This is also why Australia's nominal GDP/capita numbers look really high ($65,477 vs. $48,387 in the U.S.), while their PPP GDP/capita numbers (the more accurate comparative number) are less impressive ($40,234 vs. $48,387 in the U.S.) I'm not saying whether these numbers are a completely accurate measure of economic well-being, but it does explain the ability of Australia to maintain such an apparently high minimum wage.
And if you don't like using Wikipedia as a source:
Price index numbers
Nominal GDP/capita
PPP GDP/capita
To put Australian wages in perspective, I can tell you with certainty that 5 years ago a 20 year old working at McDonald's (not me), made $20 an hour - well above even today's 'minimum wage'. I'm not sure how this compares to American wages, though.
Aristippus:To put Australian wages in perspective, I can tell you with certainty that 5 years ago a 20 year old working at McDonald's (not me), made $20 an hour - well above even today's 'minimum wage'. I'm not sure how this compares to American wages, though.
Generally, low-skilled workers at McDonald's will make barely above the state minimum wage in the U.S. (usually $7.25-$9).
The way we think of $20/hr. in the U.S. is very different from $20/hr. in Australia or anywhere else with different purchasing power. But, even taking that into consideration, I think low-skilled workers make relatively less in the U.S. than in other high-income countries, but the vast majority of employment opportunities offer much more here. But comparing economic data accurately across nations is always going to take some work given differences in demographics, tax structures, etc.