[NT] How to argue like an NT

[Qre:us]

That's just it. Hypocrisy is natural and necessary. The assumption that there's something wrong with it, or that there is such a thing as inherent wrong, would be flawed. It's all a matter of perspective.

Yes, it may be hypocritical, but that doesn't make it wrong. It just means that it's not necessarily perfectly "right," either. It's just how we respond.

When is hypocricy ethical and when is it not ethical?

 

[onemoretime]

Wait a minute...

I think Nicodemus actually won this argument, if I'm reading this correctly.


His intention wasn't to show that the Unabomber was justified, but simply to show that our choice of how to deal with him did not necessarily come from a higher morality than his. Both he and society ultimately acted based on a desire to establish power over others. Thus, in a sense, we behaved very much like sociopaths on the collective scale, while he behaved like one as an individual, which is what was repugnant to us. Nicodemus wanted us to acknowledge a certain degree of hypocrisy, and we've done that.

Ya, no. Where it breaks down is that no individual has the right to interfere in someone's right to live. That has to be a collective agreement, based on the country's social contract. The "higher morality" is purely utility - humans must cooperate to live, and to allow murder would make it less likely for people to cooperate. Societies don't have desires - they simply have needs. They also have no moral imperatives - that is the province of individuals.

 

[lunalum]

Is this last few pages some sort of example? I'm not following it...

 

[Qre:us]

^ example of how NTs argue. Yes.

I'm not following it...

You lucked out. It's not very thrilling.

 

[onemoretime]

^ example of how NTs argue. Yes.



You lucked out. It's not very thrilling.

Truth.

 

[Nicodemus]

I think Nicodemus actually won this argument, if I'm reading this correctly.

He did, even though it all started with what was intended to be a joke - because he was aware of the impracticality of his 'proposition'.

Some seem not to understand, though, that 'impractical' does not equal 'nonsensical' or even 'false'.

 

[onemoretime]

He did, even though it all started with what was intended to be a joke - because he was aware of the impracticality of his 'proposition'.

Some seem not to understand, though, that 'impractical' does not equal 'nonsensical' or even 'false'.

It equals "mu". It is nothing, and has no bearing on the operation of this universe. It's the same sort of tautological pablum as "A is A." It betrays a misunderstanding of what it means to be human, and an attempt to invalidate what is before his very eyes, rather than understand it.

What is your point? That Kaczynski used force against others, and the State used force against Kaczyinski? Great, we could tell that from reading a newspaper 14 years ago. That society accepts the latter while deploring the former? Anyone could tell you that. Yet, you find this sufficient to declare hypocrisy, rather than delve into the real questions of why the two used force, and why one is legitimate and not the other. You haven't addressed the very guts of the issue. You've barely scratched the skin. For one, what does it even mean to "deserve," and what does it mean to "respect" someone? Beyond that, does the definition of "respect" change depending upon the actor? If so, why is this so? Is that reasoning legitimate? What makes reasoning legitimate in the first place? How do we know that this determination is reasoning, and not a declaration based on another means of judgment? So on, and so forth.

You only made a point if I accept your premises. As you can see, your premises are extremely questionable, and without justification for those premises, you've satisfied only yourself. It's akin to a six-year-old declaring themselves the winner of a game, and when asked why, the six-year-old answers "because I win." Tautology.

 

[onemoretime]

And for the record, THAT is how NeTi argues.

 

[funkadelik]

You only made a point if I accept your premises. As you can see, your premises are extremely questionable, and without justification for those premises, you've satisfied only yourself. It's akin to a six-year-old declaring themselves the winner of a game, and when asked why, the six-year-old answers "because I win." Tautology.

I see how this works.

INTJs go into an argument "knowing" they've won and exit it "knowing" they've won. The only thing that changes are that they're sporting a few new cells and maybe they have a more present urge to urinate.

 

[Athenian200]

When is hypocricy ethical and when is it not ethical?

I don't really believe it's ever unethical. But some people see it as unethical in certain contexts, particularly when it's blatant.

Ya, no. Where it breaks down is that no individual has the right to interfere in someone's right to live. That has to be a collective agreement, based on the country's social contract. The "higher morality" is purely utility - humans must cooperate to live, and to allow murder would make it less likely for people to cooperate. Societies don't have desires - they simply have needs. They also have no moral imperatives - that is the province of individuals.

That's the perspective I would choose in real life, but it wasn't the one from which Nicodemus was making his argument. From his perspective, if something is wrong, it's wrong for the state as well as the individual. The social contract wasn't included in the assumptions he was working from. In fact, I doubt he was making a serious argument... just trying to take the perspective as far as possible to see how others responded. The reason it took so long to get to this point, is that you didn't challenge the underlying assumptions, but kept dealing with one point at a time as it came up, without seeing where he was leading you.

He was right within the context of the assumptions he was making, but the context he was operating in was extremely limited and unrealistic. Incidentally, it was very much like the Unabomber's own perspective on his actions. Which is why it was interesting for him to take that perspective.

^ example of how NTs argue. Yes.

Well, it's actually a contaminated sample. There's an NF in it.

 

[onemoretime]

That's the perspective I would choose in real life, but it wasn't the one from which Nicodemus was making his argument. From his perspective, if something is wrong, it's wrong for the state as well as the individual. The social contract wasn't included in the assumptions he was working from. In fact, I doubt he was making a serious argument... just trying to take the perspective as far as possible to see how others responded. The reason it took so long to get to this point, is that you didn't challenge the underlying assumptions, but kept dealing with one point at a time as it came up, without seeing where he was leading you.

Or he just made a dumb statement that for whatever reason, he felt like he needed to defend. See:

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

^ my conclusion as well.

 

[Nicodemus]

Or he just made a dumb statement that for whatever reason, he felt like he needed to defend.

Wrong. But I see there is no need for me to defend it myself. Other people have recognized it as well.

 

[lunalum]

Okay I'll try tackling this The Luna TiNeFi way...

What was Nicodemus's proposition, and how is it a tautology? (Ti fuel)

Furthermore, this situation is only a bit hypocritical because Kaczynski killed members of society before society went and implemented force on him. It's a little bit like 'finger for an eye,' but some sort of action needs to be taken to keep people devoid of human decency from doing that kind of stuff. My idea is an island to put all the crazies do-wrongers at and keep us safe and let them figure out how to have a happy life. (My attempt at Ne-ing this, but it's been kind of malfunctioning lately )

And also, we should respect life because we tend to value our own lives. Without at least this basic respect, humanity is doomed. (simplistic Fi is simplistic)

 

[lunalum]

Well, it's actually a contaminated sample. There's an NF in it.

OK, you get to be an honorary NT and continue to be part of this example... for now

 

[Athenian200]

Or he just made a dumb statement that for whatever reason, he felt like he needed to defend. See:

Basically, yes, you got trolled. LOL.

 

[Nicodemus]

Basically, yes, you got trolled. LOL.

It was not dumb and it was very defendable.

 

[Athenian200]

It was not dumb and it was very defendable.

No, it wasn't dumb or indefensible... in fact, it was a pretty clever perspective to take, because it was similar to the Unabomber's own perspective. From his own perspective, you can't fault him for his actions. Which does raise interesting questions.

That doesn't mean there was no element of trolling in it, though it was insightful. The best ones are often intelligent. He just chose to see it as dumb because it wasn't applicable to reality as it exists for most people.

I really meant to refer to the picture of the troll face, and his assumption that he had been trolled.

 

[Nicodemus]

I like you.

 

[Stigmata]

Continually dissect various logical inconsistencies from the original argument until you reach the point at which you can reduce it to nothing more than a hollow shell, then proceed to deliver the argumentation killing blow of a semantics stalemate.