International Can You STEEL-MAN Your Oppositions Position?

[oski]

I know you pimps can straw-man the eff out of your oppositions arguments, but honestly.

Look, I probably been reading here for over 20 years and to be honest, it's the same shit. It's like we've learned nothing. I have noticed some of these same accounts with 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of posts who seem so bought in, that nothing really changes, and that makes no sense to me. Look at the time spent alone.

What if you actually took the time to understand that in your both sides little world, many points from each side are actually valid. Is that even possible? Is it understandable, that the perceived right and the perceived left, both have really based arguments, and that personal bias is a major reason for the circular silliness we see day in and day out on nearly every thread? Even knowing how much in common we have with each when compared to our rulers?

Before some weird emotional post, think about whether you really are even capable of steel-manning your opponents arguments.

Go from there.

 

[Fedorgasm]

I can.

I'm a huge fan of abortions but I can totally see why others are against it.

If you believe life begins when sperm enters egg, and you believe that's the point where it gets a soul, then yeah, abortion is totally killing someone.

And I can see why people believe in souls and religion in general. It's pretty scary if you don't. More stressful too. The world doesn't make sense. It all seems so random and meaningless. Not to mention the fact that everyone at some point has a scary moment in their life where they pray out of desperation. And if they make it out of that moment alright, then it's so easy to attribute that to a higher power that helped you.

There are many reasons why I'm even jealous of religious people. They have certainty in their life. Purpose. Meaning. Comfort. Community. And their cities are generally nicer places than highly atheistic places like San Fran.

There's a pretty compelling argument to be made that you should raise your kids to be religious even if you're not. Just because you want them to be happy.

 

[jx820]

Yeah, I think there are positions that are not only easy to stealman, there are positions I agree with.

It's completely obvious to me why gun ownership is seen as critical in rural communities with a 15 minute police response time. If you live in a ranch house or a trailer at ground level with no police response it must feel a lot less secure than living on the 15th floor of a doorman building with a heavy steel door. I sure as shit wouldn't want some clownshoe in Manhattan who's never held a firearm in their life lecturing me about guns.

Moreover, after the march on the Michigan State House, and the march on Stone Mountain in Georgia I definitely wouldn't want to be lectured about how guns can't protect you from the government, because clearly armed protestors don't get the shit beat out of them by the police. Suddenly when protestors have AR-15s deescalation is key and cooler heads can prevail.

At the same time, I don't think it should be a free for all devoid of any regulation. I think we can walk and chew gum and this is only even an issue because of bad faith actors.

 

[MMAisGod]

OP with the legendary post, but we all know the world isn't ready, even if we don't know, we actually do know.

 

[Soggust]

I'm a huge fan of abortions

I know what you mean, but this is hilarious phrasing lol

 

[Rob Battisti]

I'm a huge fan of abortions

wtf!

I can see why people are so adamantly opposed to suggestion that unfettered migration is an issue. They are absolutely terrified of being seen as racist or intolerant because the left has positioned itself in a place of moral authority.

 

[luckyshot]

I could steel man all sorts of positions, but they would require me to first accept premises that I regard as flatly false.

It's not getting to the end step of an argument that's so much the problem as where you are starting.

Just by way of example, if you believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God, well, shit, yeah, all sorts of stuff follows logically from that.

But I can't steel man a particular position that is based on that view without first steel manning that view, and I think that view is just wrong.

FURTHER...

Far from being some exercise in virtue, steel manning is usually just "bothsides" nonsense. It require you to take a position that you think has WORSE evidence and present that evidence as if it was as good as the better evidence... that's just intellectual dishonesty.

Like, how or why would someone steel man a position such as "trickle down economics works" or "human caused climate change is not real" or "Sandy Hook was a hoax"?

TL;DR

Steel manning is either:

1. Presenting a logically correct argument based on a factually incorrect premise

Or

2. Presenting erroneous evidence as if it not erroneous

 

[B.Goetz]

I could steel man all sorts of positions, but they would require me to first accept premises that I regard as flatly false.

It's not getting to the end step of an argument that's so much the problem as where you are starting.

Just by way of example, if you believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God, well, shit, yeah, all sorts of stuff follows logically from that.

But I can't steel man a particular position that is based on that view without first steel manning that view, and I think that view is just wrong.

FURTHER...

Far from being some exercise in virtue, steel manning is usually just "bothsides" nonsense. It require you to take a position that you think has WORSE evidence and present that evidence as if it was as good as the better evidence... that's just intellectual dishonesty.

Like, how or why would someone steel man a position such as "trickle down economics works" or "human caused climate change is not real" or "Sandy Hook was a hoax"?

TL;DR

Steel manning is either:

1. Presenting a logically correct argument based on a factually incorrect premise

Or

2. Presenting erroneous evidence as if it not erroneous

You don't actually have to accept the premise of others' arguments. To participate, you merely need to show that you understand the premise and logic of someone else's position, and are capable of explaining it in good faith. It's a good thing, because it reduces demonisation of those with contrary views. Good thread, OP.

 

[luckyshot]

You don't actually have to accept the premise of others' arguments. To participate, you merely need to show that you understand the premise and logic of someone else's position, and are capable of explaining it in good faith. It's a good thing, because it reduces demonisation of those with contrary views. Good thread, OP.

So if someone says they are against homosexuality because the the Quaran or Bible says it's a sin... how you steel man that?

You say, OK, if I thought that was true, then I'd think that was true.

But I don't.

 

[terrapin]

I know you pimps can straw-man the eff out of your oppositions arguments, but honestly.

Look, I probably been reading here for over 20 years and to be honest, it's the same shit. It's like we've learned nothing. I have noticed some of these same accounts with 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of posts who seem so bought in, that nothing really changes, and that makes no sense to me. Look at the time spent alone.

What if you actually took the time to understand that in your both sides little world, many points from each side are actually valid. Is that even possible? Is it understandable, that the perceived right and the perceived left, both have really based arguments, and that personal bias is a major reason for the circular silliness we see day in and day out on nearly every thread? Even knowing how much in common we have with each when compared to our rulers?

Before some weird emotional post, think about whether you really are even capable of steel-manning your opponents arguments.

Go from there.

If it's a topic I care about, I naturally imagine discussions where the very best arguments against me are leveled against me. And I spend a great deal of time working out how I would answer those very difficult questions or lines of reasoning.

I don't spend much time on topics I don't care much about though.

 

[terrapin]

So if someone says they are against homosexuality because the the Quaran or Bible says it's a sin... how you steel man that?

You say, OK, if I thought that was true, then I'd think that was true.

But I don't.

It's easy to steele man that if you've heard actual arguments against homosexuality. But if you never take the time to read those arguments, you can't steele man it for yourself.

I was actually convinced of the damage of homosexuality by reading the actual arguments for myself. I was looking for a loophole against them in the Bible when I found this arguments. And since I'm not a bigot, I've gotten to know many gay men deeply and well over the years, and so I know quite a bit about what their culture is really like when they are not presenting a certain fase to the public.

 

[luckyshot]

It's easy to steele man that if you've heard actual arguments against homosexuality. But if you never take the time to read those arguments, you can't steele man it for yourself.

I was actually convinced of the damage of homosexuality by reading the actual arguments for myself. I'm and I was looking for a loophole against them in the Bible when I found this arguments. And since I'm not a bigot, I've gotten to know many gay men deeply and well over the years, and so I know quite a bit about what their culture is really like when they are not presenting a certain fase to the public.

Well, if you have some argument against homosexuality based on something other than the Bible, that's not the argument I am talking about.

I'm talking about a person who simply says, "I believe X because I believe Y is true and Y tells me X."

If you don't believe Y, how are you supposed to steel man that argument?

 

[terrapin]

Well, if you have some argument against homosexuality based on something other than the Bible, that's not the argument I am talking about.

I'm talking about a person who simply says, "I believe X because I believe Y is true and Y tells me X."

If you don't believe Y, how are you supposed to steel man that argument?

Well, if you're not interested in the biblical perspective, you're not trying to steal man the argument at all.

And ignorance is bliss in that case.


This thread is (can you steal man a person's argument)?

Can you?


But I already know that you can't because you're not even interested in trying to, which is the whole point of this thread.

 

[luckyshot]

Well, if you're not interested in the biblical perspective, you're not trying to steal man the argument at all.

And ignorance is bliss in that case.


This thread is (can you steal man a person's argument)?

Can you?


But I already know that you can't because you're not even interested in trying to, which is the whole point of this thread.

It's not that I'm not interested in the Bibl8cal perspective. I grew up in a religious household, went to religious schools, all that. I've just reached the conclusion that it is not true in any sort of literal way. So, once again, how am I supposed to steel man an argument that is based on the literal truth or inerrency of scripture?

 

[terrapin]

It's not that I'm not interested in the Bibl8cal perspective. I grew up in a religious household, went to religious schools, all that. I've just reached the conclusion that it is not true in any sort of literal way. So, once again, how am I supposed to steel man an argument that is based on the literal truth or inerrency of scripture?

I really doubt that you have heard a sophisticated biblical argument.

Why don't you just give a point by point argument for the sophisticated view of it and I'll tell you if it passes any muster at all or if you're just full of s***.

 

[luckyshot]

I really doubt that you have heard a sophisticated biblical argument.

Why don't you just give a point by point argument for the sophisticated view of it and I'll tell you if it passes any muster at all or if you're just full of s***.

I have listed to hours and hours of debates featuring people like Bart Ehrman, William Lane Craig, etc. In all these debates, I find the skeptical positions more convincing.

For example, I guess a "sophisticated view" of the argument that the gospels are historically reliable would point out that we have more copies of the gospels than any other ancient text.

However, this argument would be easily countered by the fact that almost all of these copies are written well into the Christian period, hundreds of years after the events they are said to describe.

 

[terrapin]

I have listed to hoyrs and hours of debates featuring people like Bart Ehrman, William Lane Craig, etc. In all these debates, I fur the skeptical positions more convincing.

Why don't you steal man their argument then improve it?

Otherwise I will know what I already think. I know which is that you're totally full of s*** and have no idea what the arguments are.

I'm not trying to be mean here man but I think the arguments are at an absolute lock. I think they are necessary arguments once you really know them.

I do not think they are a lock if you want to force other people to behave that way. But for Christians and what the Christian worldview is and the end goal of sainthood homosexuality is a profound and utter block to attaining that end.

And the end that Christianity wants to take people to is objectively better than the end that the left wants to take people to.

So let's hear your point-by-point steel man of their argument and I'll see if you have even heard real arguments about it.

 

[luckyshot]

Why don't you steal man their argument then improve it?

Otherwise I will know what I already think. I know which is that you're totally full of s*** and have no idea what the arguments are.

I'm not trying to be mean here man but I think the arguments are at an absolute lock. I think they are necessary arguments once you really know them.

I do not think they are a lock if you want to force other people to behave that way. But for Christians and what the Christian worldview is and the end goal of sainthood homosexuality is a profound and utter block to attaining that end.

And the end that Christianity wants to take people to is objectively better than the end that the left wants to take people to.

So let's hear your point-by-point steel man of their argument and I'll see if you have even heard real arguments about it.

See above. You responded while I was editing my previous post.

 

[terrapin]

See above. You responded while I was editing my previous post.

No, this does not even remotely addressed the sophisticated argument. So the point is the truth of the situation is that you have no idea what a sophisticated argument is. And having no idea at all. You can't steal man their side.

And that's just fine. You don't have to. It's totally okay but the fact is you can't.

You have literally the most base basic beginners understanding of Christian theology for certain.

 

[luckyshot]

No, this does not even remotely addressed the sophisticated argument. So the point is the truth of the situation is that you have no idea what a sophisticated argument is. And having no idea at all. You can't steal man their side.

And that's just fine. You don't have to. It's totally okay but the fact is you can't.

You have literally the most base basic beginners understanding of Christian theology for certain.

What "sophisticated Biblical argument against homosexuality" are YOU talking about? The Biblical arguments I have heard against homosexuality hinge on verses like :

Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

And

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

So, okay, if I believe Leviticus is divinely inspired, I believe it. If I don't, I don't.

Either way, that's not a "sophisticated argument."

I can go down the points of the Roman Catholic catechism for you in detail. I know all about how the Old Testament supposedly predicts the New (which I don't believe). I know the Gospels inside and out, and it is my conclusion (which is also the conclusion of the Jesus seminar) that we can be confident in the historical accuracy of about about 5% of them.

My suspicion is that you have heard some arguments that impressed you, and you have not heard the holes in them, so you think they are more sophisticated than they are.