Ishpeck's Rules of Argumentation

If you intend to argue with Ishy, you're going to have to lay down some ground rules. Here are some propositions.

1 If your argument calls for human behavior to change, you're admitting defeat
2 If you reject arguments because you think you've heard them before, you're admitting defeat
3 If the only data supporting your argument comes from a federal employee, you're admitting defeat
4 If you can't be bothered to cite a non-Wiki source, you're admitting defeat
5 If you reject an argument because the person making it is either a liberal or conservative, you're admitting defeat
6 If your only response to an argument is "you're crazy," you're admitting defeat.
7 If your only response to an argument is "you're an ideologue," you're admitting defeat.
8 If you reject an argument because it does not appear to involve a solution, you're admitting defeat.
9 If you ever mention Nationalist-socialist Germany, Satan, or Ayn Rand you're admitting defeat.
10 If your argument presumes wisdom in any "Founder" of the United States, you're admitting defeat.

1 If your argument calls for human behavior to change, you're admitting defeat

Yes, the whole world certainly would be better if we all shared your values. This is true no matter what those values are. It's also irrelevant because people don't share values.

2 If you reject arguments because you think you've heard them before, you're admitting defeat

Just because a buffoon like Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann has used some catch-phrases in their rhetoric doesn't mean that they reflect the views of all people who might say the same thing. Take a little bit of time to understand the true arguments being made before you pass judgment on them.

3 If the only data supporting your argument comes from a federal employee, you're admitting defeat

Lots of numbers pass thru' the halls of Congress. Can you tell which of them are data and which of them are values judgments based on that data? If you can distinguish them then you're probably informed enough to explain your argument more thoroughly than a hap-hazard "because the feds said so!"

4 If you can't be bothered to cite a non-Wiki source, you're admitting defeat

If you look things up in Wiki, that's fine. But Wiki demands sources and so should you. If the wiki conclusions are true, it's probably because the external links in the wiki page are also true. It costs you nothing to read the sources and gains you the benefit of having actually done a little bit of actual reading on the subject.

5 If you reject an argument because the person making it is either a liberal or conservative, you're admitting defeat

All politicians will lie to get their way. You're not getting us anywhere by pointing that out. Some lies can also have some truth in them. If you're interested in what's true then you will judge all statements by their actual truthfulness and not whether they're useful to any political view.

6 If your only response to an argument is "you're crazy," you're admitting defeat.

You may actually be arguing with a crazy person. That doesn't change whether they're telling the truth. If you're actually interested in the truth, you should measure the truthfulness of their statements rather than their sanity.

7 If your only response to an argument is "you're an ideologue," you're admitting defeat.

You may actually be arguing with a political zealot. That doesn't change whether they're telling the truth. If you're actually interested in the truth, you should measure the truthfulness of their statements rather than their ideologies.

8 If you reject an argument because it does not appear to involve a solution, you're admitting defeat.

You may not like the truth. You may want to change the truth. But if you can't change the truth, it doesn't mean that it's any less true. Just because somebody who observes the truth can't change the truth to please you doesn't mean they're wrong.

9 If you ever mention Nationalist-socialist Germany, Satan, or Ayn Rand you're admitting defeat.

Yes, yes. We know that Nazis and Rand were evil minions of Lucifer. Making comparisons to them does nothing to advance the discussion. It's just an attempt to divert attempts at uncovering the truth.

10 If your argument presumes wisdom in any "Founder" of the United States, you're admitting defeat.

The flip-side of the Nazi arguments: Just because you assume that another person agreed with you doesn't make your argument true. Attempts to evoke the holy names of American founders is a diversion from the attempt to uncover the truth.