International Can You STEEL-MAN Your Oppositions Position?

[nostradumbass]

The right don't need to, the steel man arguments of the left are already ubiquitous in MSM and

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.

Um, by NOT setting up the straw man that you just did. You had to add "because the Quran or bible says it's a sin" specifically to avoid the actual argument, which is the opposite of steel manning.

"Against homosexuality" isn't a policy to begin with, but I'll assume you mean gay marriage and gay adoption. The argument doesn't require the bible or quran, it's that the point of marriage is to provide a stable family structure should the relationship produce children, and gay relationships cannot ever produce children, so there is no reason the government would have any business endorsing them.

So the answer for you is obviously no, you cannot steel man the opposition, and neither can most other democrats because the entire party is based on controlling information flow to strawman and slander opposing arguments.

The right can pretty easily steel man opposing arguments because of their ubiquity in mainstream and popular culture, media, and education system. You really can't avoid them, while you could go your whole life in a Metropolitan area and never ever be exposed to anything close to a steel man of a conservative argument.

 

[panamaican]

Steel-manning other opinions is easy. But I rarely question the validity of most positions. I question if they result in a world I prefer.

I understand why people want more voter ID regulations. The reasoning behind the top level position is sound. What I don't agree with is the underlying premise or the implications of the position for society.

Put another way, it's easy to agree with the "what". It's not easy to agree with the "why".

And the real problem is that a lot of people are not honest about the "why". And that's where a lot of the time is spent, getting down to the truth of the "why", not the "what".

 

[WhiteMousse]

I'm seeing the responses in this thread and it seems clear that the answer is "no"

 

[Soggust]

The right don't need to, the steel man arguments of the left are already ubiquitous in MSM and
Um, by NOT setting up the straw man that you just did. You had to add "because the Quran or bible says it's a sin" specifically to avoid the actual argument, which is the opposite of steel manning.

"Against homosexuality" isn't a policy to begin with, but I'll assume you mean gay marriage and gay adoption. The argument doesn't require the bible or quran, it's that the point of marriage is to provide a stable family structure should the relationship produce children, and gay relationships cannot ever produce children, so there is no reason the government would have any business endorsing them.

So the answer for you is obviously no, you cannot steel man the opposition, and neither can most other democrats because the entire party is based on controlling information flow to strawman and slander opposing arguments.

The right can pretty easily steel man opposing arguments because of their ubiquity in mainstream and popular culture, media, and education system. You really can't avoid them, while you could go your whole life in a Metropolitan area and never ever be exposed to anything close to a steel man of a conservative argument.

I think "steel manning" is simply making the most convincing counter argument to your own position. That is inherently subjective, so this will be different to everyone.

So, while you might believe this is the best argument "against homosexuality" (really good point about that not being an actual policy), I don't think that's necessarily the "steel man" for everyone.

I think the better way to look at steel manning is to just constantly attack your own opinions and takes instead of promoting the opposing sides', because then you aren't coming from a place of having to make assumptions but rather from a place of criticizing based upon what you already believe to be true.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Hmm... that's interesting. I don't think it's exactly what steel manning someone's position is, though.

It's steel-manning the position rather than the individual you're talking to, who is likely pretty clueless.

Like, if someone believes X because of Y, I don't think steel-manning their position is to say, "If they believe X, it should be because of Z."

No, but like I said, if they believe we should do X, it's asking what is the best argument for X. I think it's a good step because a lot of posters are just poorly repeating arguments they've heard on Breitbart or Twitter or something. So even if they haven't digested the reasoning behind the position they're advancing, it's useful to know what it really is if your interest is in knowing what's right (as opposed to confirming that you're talking to a moron--which can be fun, I admit).

Steel manning their position would be to give the most detailed and charitable version of Y that you can, to the point that your interlocuter would be satisfied that you had fully and accurately represented their position.

I think that's right if you're talking to someone you respect. If it's just a WR chud, they're never going to be satisfied because the words they type are really just the equivalent of a dog barking at someone on its territory.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm seeing the responses in this thread and it seems clear that the answer is "no"

Some bad ones, and hopefully some good ones.

 

[terrapin]

Not a worthy argument because of the simple factual correctness of what I said?

No one can steel man an argument before they've heard it. Like I said, your argument is weird and unorthodox. It is not an argument for Biblically literal Christianity.

Now that I have heard your argument, I COULD steel man it, but doing so would involve presenting erroneous information (such as the idea that Christianity predictably leads to enlightenment or moral improvement) as if it were not erroneous, as I said in my first post in this You're an educated person and you were raised Catholic.

So why is that a "worthwhile" exercise?


Interesting points. I am familiar with the beef between the "philosophers" and the "sophists," and, yeah, I generally side with the idea that you should not present the weaker idea as if it were the stronger-- even if the Heritage Society will pay you a lot of money to do so.

You are an educated person and raised Catholic. This leads me to believe that you're gaslighting when you say my argument isn't biblical.

My argument is based on Paul's arguments which are the only arguments you can use to argue against homosexuality if you're a Christian. You can reference the Old testament but only if there's support in the new or in the extra biblical literature which you should know as a Catholic shares an equal role to Scripture in biblical interpretation.

I'm sure you're not pretending here to argue for Sola Scripture as that would be an anti-christian argument and any educated Catholic would know that.

So Paul says that homosexuality is lust, people turning to lust, and then having a perversion in that lust that leads to debauchery.

Obviously that's the exact argument I made against the male homosexual. And I think aside from the naive, we all know it's true by and large as a general rule with a portion of outstanding exceptions. But those kinds of rules aren't meant to address the exceptions. They're meant to keep a whole society away from sexual debauchery and moving towards that... they're meant to keep the sexual instinct in check and oriented towards a higher good in service to humanity instead of self.

You didn't address the rest of my argument about homosexuality being proven to be socially conditionable by Roman and Greece and why that would make a ban reasonable in the eyes of Christianity who is trying to produce discipline and the capacity for delayed pleasure and an ability to focus on love for all of humanity undistracted by sexual addiction or addictions to money etc.

My position is spoken simply but it is sophisticated and perfectly in alignment with Catholic and Christian theology. More importantly, and something you seem to not understand. It is consistent with the extra biblical literature from the early church which comprises the bulk of how we see and interpret scripture.

But I will take you at your word that you can and will now steelman the sophisticated Christian understanding for why homosexuality is banned rather than the garbage tropes the left usually posts out around bigotry and such.

Our conversation started with you asking how you could possibly straw man such a position and now I know you can.

There are Christian principles I like to see enacted by my government. I like to see us taking care of the poor, the sick, the homeless, the needy, the least among us. I like to see them protecting the weak against bullies and corporations that do evil

However, I do not see my government as an arbiter of moral values. There has to be some gray area there and I'm sure my thinking is somewhat inconsistent in certain areas, but for the most part I can be immune to a society that doesn't have strong moral values because I have to grow them within myself, but I'm not immune to poisoned waterways and corporate bullies.

It is for this reason that I often agree with the right on social issues but never find myself an agreement with them politically.

 

[AZ103]

I think "steel manning" is simply making the most convincing counter argument to your own position. That is inherently subjective, so this will be different to everyone.

So, while you might believe this is the best argument "against homosexuality" (really good point about that not being an actual policy), I don't think that's necessarily the "steel man" for everyone.

I think the better way to look at steel manning is to just constantly attack your own opinions and takes instead of promoting the opposing sides', because then you aren't coming from a place of having to make assumptions but rather from a place of criticizing based upon what you already believe to be true.

This is very very close. Its making the most convincing argument you can with information given by someone you do not agree with. You basically reaffirm what they have said and place it into the most coherent argument possible. As i stated before this is a great tool. Because you now should be in agreement about what they beleive and have their strongest possible argument on the table. Now you are ready to debate their position honestly and topple it at its strongest. Almost no warroomers are capable of this skill.

 

[nostradumbass]

I think "steel manning" is simply making the most convincing counter argument to your own position. That is inherently subjective, so this will be different to everyone.

So, while you might believe this is the best argument "against homosexuality" (really good point about that not being an actual policy), I don't think that's necessarily the "steel man" for everyone.

I think the better way to look at steel manning is to just constantly attack your own opinions and takes instead of promoting the opposing sides', because then you aren't coming from a place of having to make assumptions but rather from a place of criticizing based upon what you already believe to be true.

Yes, I think that's partially true, but isn't what @luckyshot was doing. He used a strawman as the reason he couldn't steelman.

I can only speak for myself, but my own opinion isn't anything close to the reason he gave for not being able to steel man. Mine is a matter of where the argument is and what they're asking for. I don't even think marriage is now or ever was "who you love" in the sphincter or otherwise. It's a non reproductive relationship, for the same reason I don't care whether women over 50 get married or remarried.

 

[luckyshot]

I don't even think marriage is now or ever was "who you love" in the sphincter or otherwise.

Weird.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is very very close. Its making the most convincing argument you can with information given by someone you do not agree with. You basically reaffirm what they have said and place it into the most coherent argument possible. As i stated before this is a great tool. Because you now should be in agreement about what they beleive and have their strongest possible argument on the table. Now you are ready to debate their position honestly and topple it at its strongest. Almost no warroomers are capable of this skill.

Are you? Can you explain liberal economic or immigration policy?

 

[nostradumbass]

Weird.

See, you can't because you only ever argue using hive mind buzzwords and talking point.

Like I said, the answer for you is no, you are not intellectually capable of steel manning anything

 

[AZ103]

Are you? Can you explain liberal economic or immigration policy?

I am. And i do it often. Can i steel man those subjects for an entire sect of the population? Probably not. Can i take a well written post on a subject where i dont agree and steel man the idea before turning on it and giving my side and what i beleive is the right side yes. Its especially easy in the warroom where people say disgusting and or idiotic things without fear. They lay out a simple and often nasty reasoning but i can lay it out logically before proving them wrong. This place is not the height of intelligence.

 

[luckyshot]

See, you can't because you only ever argue using hive mind buzzwords and talking point.

Like I said, the answer for you is no, you are not intellectually capable of steel manning anything

Calm your sphincter.

 

[Andy Capp]

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

I was thinking the exact same thing. Like, a fan as in it's a spectator sport now? lol

 

[Soggust]

This is very very close. Its making the most convincing argument you can with information given by someone you do not agree with. You basically reaffirm what they have said and place it into the most coherent argument possible. As i stated before this is a great tool. Because you now should be in agreement about what they beleive and have their strongest possible argument on the table. Now you are ready to debate their position honestly and topple it at its strongest. Almost no warroomers are capable of this skill.

Good point. Upon rereading, I think I kind of mistook "opposing side" in the OP.

I instinctively think of "opposing side" as "every position that disagrees with mine", but in rereading the OP's reference, it seems to be intended more so as "the opposing debater's argument" which is a lot more specific and narrower to the discussion at hand.

Therefore, in this case, you're right - we aren't talking about steel manning against our own position, which is imo the right way to look at it, but rather we are very specifically talking about steel manning the other side's specific argument.

Not sure I love that perspective in general, but I did want to clarify I understand that you are right in hindsight.

 

[AZ103]

Good point. Upon rereading, I think I kind of mistook "opposing side" in the OP.

I instinctively think of "opposing side" as "every position that disagrees with mine", but in rereading the OP's reference, it seems to be intended more so as "the opposing debater's argument" which is a lot more specific and narrower to the discussion at hand.

Therefore, in this case, you're right - we aren't talking about steel manning against our own position, which is imo the right way to look at it, but rather we are very specifically talking about steel manning the other side's specific argument.

Not sure I love that perspective in general, but I did want to clarify I understand that you are right in hindsight.

Steel manning the other side is a fools errand. Youd have to write a book because the "other side" consists of millions of people who all came to the same or similar conclusions in a multitude of ways. Attempting to steel man the entire argument from the other side leaves you open to a lot of "gotcha" and "what about this". Steel manning an individual perspective is much easier. Knock em down one at a time.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I am. And i do it often. Can i steel man those subjects for an entire sect of the population? Probably not. Can i take a well written post on a subject where i dont agree and steel man the idea before turning on it and giving my side and what i beleive is the right side yes. Its especially easy in the warroom where people say disgusting and or idiotic things without fear. They lay out a simple and often nasty reasoning but i can lay it out logically before proving them wrong. This place is not the height of intelligence.

I certainly don't disagree with the end of this. I have not seen you show generosity to and a good-faith effort to understand non-Republican views, but I'll watch for it going forward.