Why silence is often the best response to a verbal attack

Entropist wrote: As a result, silence is definitely often not the best response to a verbal attack.

Remembering the thread is about situations where it might be (I think!?).

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Entropist wrote:
Silence is definitely not the best solution in these situations because silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation.

EXACTLY what "situations" are you talking about?

she described two different situations, and suggested that silence was appropriate in one but not the other

you quoted both of those situations as if they were the same

and you made a statement that reads like an absolute truism that would be true even beyond the situations that were mentioned here when you said "silence is a form of bullying by isolation and dehumanisation"

is silence ALWAYS a form of bullying?
is silence ALWAYS dehumanizing?

can you think of no single instance where someone might choose to remain silent because they honestly believe that is the wisest course of action?

or did you mean that silence CAN BE form of bullying, such as in the type/s of situation/s that Miss_Leah shared with us?

this was dodged
evaded
avoided
youre response was no response at all
silence

are you trying to bully and dehumanize me?

also, im wondering if i still have to explain why its better to develop reasonable criteria for judging people, than it is to believe that youre just not going to judge them at all

Adder wrote: Remembering the thread is about situations where it might be (I think!?).

The post title claims silence is the best response to verbal attack, but my previous reply summarised and disproved reasons why silence is not the best response to verbal attack. The question is begged, if there are situations where silence is the best response to verbal attack, because if there was then knowing the reasons is not just good reason, but supports the claim.

Entropist wrote: The post title claims silence is the best response to verbal attack, but my previous reply summarised and disproved reasons why silence is not the best response to verbal attack. The question is begged, if there are situations where silence is the best response to verbal attack, because if there was then knowing the reasons is not just good reason, but supports the claim.

The title claims that silence is *often* the best response. Which means that there are situations when it isn't.

And I gave a personal situation where silence was the best response.

Why are you so focused on arguing that silence is never the answer?

Miss_Leah wrote: The title claims that silence is *often* the best response. Which means that there are situations when it isn't.

And I gave a personal situation where silence was the best response.

Why are you so focused on arguing that silence is never the answer?

Which post number did you think had reasons that proved why silence was the best response in the given example? I ask because there wasn't any justification or rationale why silence was the best response to the example, rather the example was begged. I need to know which post number to reply to in order to substitute this response with.

Entropist wrote: Which post number did you think had reasons that proved why silence was the best response in the given example? I ask because there wasn't any justification or rationale why silence was the best response to the example, rather the example was begged. I need to know which post number to reply to in order to substitute this response with.

You do realize that this is not a debate about logical fallacies, right?

I have had the experience where silence was the best course of action for that situation. It felt it was the best course of action at the time, and I still think, in hindsight, that it was the best course of action.

Now, you, in all your majestic wisdom, may not feel the same, and may have acted differently in my particular situation. But you don't know me, my relative, our family dynamic, or our values. Experience is subjective and cannot be fit into neat little logical boxes, no matter how desperately you want them to.

This discussion is about whether silence can be an appropriate tool when faced with verbal aggression. I think it is, and so do many others. You are free to disagree, but that doesn't negate the experiences of everyone else who agrees.

Miss_Leah wrote: You do realize that this is not a debate about logical fallacies, right?

I have had the experience where silence was the best course of action for that situation. It felt it was the best course of action at the time, and I still think, in hindsight, that it was the best course of action.

Now, you, in all your majestic wisdom, may not feel the same, and may have acted differently in my particular situation. But you don't know me, my relative, our family dynamic, or our values. Experience is subjective and cannot be fit into neat little logical boxes, no matter how desperately you want them to.

This discussion is about whether silence can be an appropriate tool when faced with verbal aggression. I think it is, and so do many others. You are free to disagree, but that doesn't negate the experiences of everyone else who agrees.

Correction has good reason to be noted here that to impose our personal opinion in no way justifies the status quo bias. Opinions are unjustified, and we are only entitled to what we can reason. So when there's unfounded reason in an opinion, the opinion is therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, presuming status quo bias demonstrates circular reasoning fallacy, so yes, logical fallacies are unfortunately common in undermining one's own argument.

To prove as an exercise, let the situations where silence does offer the best response speak for itself with reason, rather than presumption or opinion that the title of the thread is guilty of. Let's use specific examples and give reason because there's only merit in reason, and it's productive to brainstorm.

Entropist wrote: there's only merit in reason.

I think this is the crux of the matter: you are unwilling to see (or incapable of seeing) merit in personal or subjective experience/opinion.

I truly recommend that you try to open your mind to the fact that humans can be messy, emotional, illogical and imperfect, but still give great insight into life, the universe, and everything. You may see yourself as above the rest with your arsenal of reason and logic, but really, you're missing out on gaining a real understanding of human discourse and the reaping the benefits of it. Plus, it makes you seem like a pretentious jerk (which you may not *actually* be).

But if you'd rather be right than happy, then by all means, carry on as usual.

Entropist wrote: To prove as an exercise, let the situations where silence does offer the best response speak for itself with reason, rather than presumption or opinion that the title of the thread is guilty of. Let's use specific examples and give reason because there's only merit in reason, and it's productive to brainstorm.

she gave you an example in one of her earlier posts

to prove as an exercise, why dont you very carefully read all of her posts in this thread until you find the example that she gave, and then come back and ask her further questions to determine if silence was really was the best response?

Entropist wrote: Opinions are unjustified, and we are only entitled to what we can reason. So when there's unfounded reason in an opinion, the opinion is therefore unreasonable.

But opinions don't need to be justified, and everyone is entitled to them. That is why they are called opinions. What we are not entitled to is agreement from everyone else that our opinions are correct. You can believe that some opinions are unreasonable and you can try to "prove" them to be illogical, but others can still choose to consider that your opinion even if you know it to be fact.

If certain Jedi believe that silence may be the best response to a verbal attack based on their own experience, no amount of your (somewhat flawed) logical nitpicking will change that. The actual experiment resulted in data that suggests silence resulted in the desired outcome. That was their experience, whether logic supports the outcome or not.

The irony of this entire dialogue is that perhaps the best way to resolve any differences of opinion or to prove the reasonable and logical legitimacy of claims made here would be silence from everyone going forward. :whistle: