Why silence is often the best response to a verbal attack

Senan wrote:
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:

as counterpoint, my opinion is that this is an example of a situation where silence will only allow the real problem to continue

if everyone just agrees to giving the silent treatment, then eventually the issue MIGHT go away - or it might stick around forever and never even realize the effects it has, and therefore never make any efforts to change

which would mean that the person who is carrying that problem will keep doing so, which is not good for them

and everywhere they go the rest of the world will still have to deal with the problem, which is not good for the rest of the world

it might "go away" from "us" but it wont really go away in the broader sociological sense

it just keeps on being a problem, potentially forever

but if the issues are stated in overt terms, without excessive hostility, and the opportunity is presented for growth, and the offer of acceptance in order to allow that growth to happen is made, it is POSSIBLE that the adjustment process may begin

which would be good for everyone

in that case everyone would benefit, not just here but also in the broader world

Senan wrote: 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:

You don't know how many time I considered this. But I could never decide if it would help or hinder the situation, ha ha ha!

Senan wrote: 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:

:laugh:

Miss_Leah wrote: 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.

An opinion has no merit because of the fact that an opinion is unfounded in reason. An opinion cannot be used to support its own argument, and is also known as the fallacy of circular reasoning. Also, refrain from ad hominem personal attack when there's absence of reason. Escalating unnecessary, and irrelevant force; is the same as raising your voice, or physical attack; are the same branch of injustice when someone has an opinion (status quo) desired to impose but devoid of any grounds of reason. This dialogue belongs on a different thread, and the topic of the current thread is being murdered by persistent and willful disregard to put reasoning on the table to substantiate a claim. So please present reasoning to demonstrate a point has value to contribute to the discussion.

Miss_Leah wrote: 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.

To sustain one's happiness based on fallacy and wrongness is status quo bias for injustice

Senan wrote: 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:

Wrong because/and of the subjectivist fallacy, which proves entitlement to opinion doesn't exist, and is irrelevant to whether an opinion is true. We are entitled to freedom to speak reason only.

Entropist wrote: An opinion has no merit because of the fact that an opinion is unfounded in reason.

not true: many opinions are founded on very good reasons

and youre making absolutist claims, which almost always turn out to be personal opinions founded on personal bias

Entropist wrote: Also, refrain from ad hominem personal attack when there's absence of reason.

its not a personal attack if it is both true and relevant to the discussion

for instance, if i tell someone that they are being obtuse, and that this behavior is compromising the progress of the conversation, its not an attack

its a simple description of what is happening

Entropist wrote: Escalating unnecessary, and irrelevant force; is the same as raising your voice, or physical attack; are the same branch of injustice when someone has an opinion (status quo) desired to impose but devoid of any grounds of reason.

you should read your feedback

Entropist wrote: This dialogue belongs on a different thread, and the topic of the current thread is being murdered by persistent and willful disregard to put reasoning on the table to substantiate a claim.

thats the pot calling the kettle black

dialogue is a two-way street, and not only are you disrupting the otherwise smooth flow of dialogue by being obtuse and dismissive, but you have willfully refused to substantiate anything that youve said, here and in other topics lol

speaking only for myself, i keep asking you to explain what you mean and you keep refusing

OB1Shinobi wrote: please clarify the meaning of this post

Entropist wrote: Democracy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

please explain in clear language what exactly you were trying to say here

and here

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?

others have also asked you to please explain what the heck youre talking about in other threads, but you refuse to do so

you still havent explained why you made this post:

Entropist wrote: Democracy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

it was very likely a misuse of the ad populum fallacy, or else it was just an irrelevant and pointless thing to say

but until you explain exactly what you meant by saying it, you have no grounds to expect this

Entropist wrote: So please present reasoning to demonstrate a point has value to contribute to the discussion.

please explain yourself in regards to the previous statements or stop asking others to prove their own claims

Entropist wrote: To sustain one's happiness based on fallacy and wrongness is status quo bias for injustice

youre committing the "that black-ass kettle fallacy" again

you are not using the fallacies correctly, you are making absolutist claims, you are not acknowledging the logical positions of others, and you are offering faulty logic in your own positions

so you yourself are sustaining your own happiness based on fallacy and wrongness

Entropist wrote: Wrong because/and of the subjectivist fallacy, which proves entitlement to opinion doesn't exist, and is irrelevant to whether an opinion is true.

youre misusing the subjectivist fallacy

the subjectivist fallacy does not mean that subjective opinions have no merit

it means that you cannot use a subjective opinion in contradiction to objective evidence, such as to say "smoking is good FOR ME because i like it"

from http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/subjectivist/

"The subjectivist fallacy is committed when someone resists the conclusion of an argument ... by treating the conclusion as subjective when it is in fact objective"

from https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/171/Subjectivist_Fallacy

"Claiming something is true for one person, but not for someone else when, in fact, it is true for everyone (objective) as demonstrated by empirical evidence."

as you can see, (?) youre not using this fallacy correctly (either)

matter of fact, it seems that you are claiming that silence is NEVER the appropriate response to a verbal attack, and trying to justify that by demanding that you are the only person in this conversation who is capable of using logic effectively

so you are committing more fallacies than anyone else in the conversation lol

mostly youre committing the "call you a fallacy" - or the fallacy of calling something a fallacy because you dont understand what they are saying, and you dont understand how the fallacies work,, and then accusing others of being illogical when they tell you that youre wrong

Entropist wrote: We are entitled to freedom to speak reason only.

freedoms and entitlements are matters of local laws and customs, period: they legal matters by definition, and are not required to be logical or make sense

ENTITLEMENT
the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/entitlements

FREEDOM
the quality or state of being free
a political right
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

so we are free and entitled to speak (ALMOST) however we want (in my country)

if our statements dont add up, then other people are free to explain to us why we arent making any sense

and if we happen to be especially obtuse and dismissive, we are completely free to completely ignore every single thing that everyone who talks to us, tells us repeatedly :whistle:

Entropist wrote: Wrong because/and of the subjectivist fallacy, which proves entitlement to opinion doesn't exist, and is irrelevant to whether an opinion is true. We are entitled to freedom to speak reason only.

1. Your understanding of the subjectivist fallacy is flawed.

2. Here in America, I'm entitled to speak whatever I please whether it is reasonable or not (assuming it does not create an immediate danger to others) and other Americans are entitled to agree with me, disagree with me, or ignore me. The current political rhetoric being spewed by every candidate in our current presidential election is a great example of this. :blink:

3. It occurs to me just now that your choice of screen name is very telling... Entropy - lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder. Hmmmm... :dry:

Senan wrote: 3. It occurs to me just now that your choice of screen name is very telling... Entropy - lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder. Hmmmm... :dry:

this whole misadventure is really someones idea of a test to see how the forum will respond lol

or its exactly what it looks like it is (just imagine him saying "fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy")

---

I can honestly say I have never considered the possibility of an appearance by an ape with an AK47 in our Temple. The Force works in mysterious ways. Thanks for the laugh, OB1 :laugh:

Sometimes s....t happens...all we can do is walk around it or step right in it...

Not everything happens for a reason....chaos is a confusing mistress