Philosophical Vegan Forum

Just a bit of background: When I joined this forum, I was a bit surprised that there were debate sub-forums, especially an atheist vs. theist debate sub-forum. I used to follow a lot of the latter sort of online debates, but I stopped years ago and apparently unconsciously came to think of them as something like passé rather than just something that I no longer took part in.

I'm wondering if any of you find yourselves utterly fed up with online debate in general? Not just having had enough of it, no longer interested or too busy, but battle-worn, hopeless, misanthropic, bitter, etc.? The negative effects I'm thinking of include slogging through half-baked, barely coherent ideas, dealing with defensiveness and anger, reading the same fallacies over and over again, people pretending to engage just to troll, refusing to concede points on which they've been proven wrong, etc.

Then there are the more mundane, less controllable aspects, such as conversations/threads ending abruptly (no endpoint/sense of accomplishment) and misunderstandings between different personality types. Lately I have been thinking about the sorts of social interactions that occur in civilized societies (especially the many brief, shallow encounters with strangers we have on a regular basis, such as online) and how very different and even unnatural they seem in comparison to the social structures that predominated during most of human history (tribes and small villages).

Nowadays, I tend to wish that I had never even heard of online debate, sometimes even online forums.

linux_vegan wrote:refusing to concede points on which they've been proven wrong, etc.

First, you need to be open minded enough to consider the possibility that it's you who is wrong sometimes, and that others are not conceding points to you simply because they are right, and you have neither proved anything, nor provided a valid argument.

The thing I love most about debate is that I get to correct my views, and be shown when I'm wrong.
I don't necessarily care if the other person corrects his or her views; it's my knowledge, and the gaining of it, that I have control of.
There's no better feeling, if you'll be humble enough to accept it, than having your ass handed to you in a debate and totally changing your world view (or part of it) as a result. It's exciting and liberating and just the essence of living.

If other people refuse to benefit from debate, that's their problem.

This doesn't happen to me as often anymore because historically, when I have been wrong, I actually correct myself. The best way to not be wrong is to just be wrong a whole bunch and run your mouth, and then accept correction when you get shown to be wrong.

Of course, there's also a sad side to that, in that debate gets easier. I almost always "win" debates now, which really just means I lost time and didn't gain anything (or gained very little). The only way to really lose in a debate is to not learn anything, which is why I try to vary my tactics, and come at things from different directions, and always challenge myself with additional research while debating. It's getting harder and harder, though.

You're not there yet. You have so much to learn, and a rich array of experiences in discourse if you're open to them.

As soon as you start letting debate educate you, and stop seeing it as a battle you have to win for some kind of holy crusade, you will be able to appreciate it much more.
I'm even educated in debates with Christians; I learn more about what they believe, and their world views. I'll even humor the notion that the bible is divinely inspired, because it drives me down an entirely different road along which I can learn.

linux_vegan wrote:Then there are the more mundane, less controllable aspects, such as conversations/threads ending abruptly (no endpoint/sense of accomplishment) and misunderstandings between different personality types.

There are only two personality types you need to worry about: Rational and not. If somebody is not rational, there's no point in it (unless you might be able to learn something). If both parties are rational, and the debate continues, eventually one party (or both) will shift in position, and there will be agreement.

Abrupt endings are inevitable sometimes. I've seen quite a few people flee debates because they can't take the heat. It's just something you get used to.

linux_vegan wrote:how very different and even unnatural they seem in comparison to the social structures that predominated during most of human history (tribes and small villages).

Those social structures were founded upon dogma and social bonding, not reason.
Of course, they are cognitively simpler, but not more desirable. Humans do more, better, when they do it together, and in order to yield those results from a group of people larger than a couple hundred and keep them from killing each other when interpersonal relationships break down, we need to use reason to resolve our conflicts.

Discourse is possibly the most important thing in the world, since it's at the root of human cooperation and resolution.

linux_vegan wrote:Nowadays, I tend to wish that I had never even heard of online debate, sometimes even online forums.

Some atheists wish they were Christians too. There is a certain bliss in ignorance, in choosing not to know or learn or engage. It's peaceful, but that doesn't make it right.

Do some soul searching, and try to figure out what kind of person you are.

This article is on topic and quite pertinent http://veganstrategist.org/2015/02/19/on-being-right-versus-winning/

garrethdsouza wrote:This article is on topic and quite pertinent http://veganstrategist.org/2015/02/19/o ... s-winning/

I'm not sure how that's on-topic. There isn't much about the social or psychological effects of being a serial debater, and the concept of winning by changing behavior scarcely seems applicable to typical online exchanges, which are brief, anonymous, and more focused on ideas. On the other hand, in that way it touches on what I brought up regarding different social structures, or, perhaps more accurately, different social arenas (online vs. offline, personal vs. impersonal).

brimstoneSalad wrote:
You're not there yet. You have so much to learn, and a rich array of experiences in discourse if you're open to them.

Do some soul searching, and try to figure out what kind of person you are.

I don't know what you mean by these statements, but they seem incredibly arrogant things to say because you don't know me nearly enough to say where I am, imply how much self-reflection I've done, or how much I stand to learn (which is partially dependent on whom I engage). Extensive self-reflection is precisely how I came to the conclusion that I'd probably be better off having never heard of online debates. Presuming you meant this some other way, you've illustrated my point about the importance of communication between different personality types. Maybe "different styles of expression" would be a more accurate term.

linux_vegan wrote: I don't know what you mean by these statements, but they seem incredibly arrogant things to say because you don't know me nearly enough to say where I am

I know you still have a lot to learn -- on organic agriculture, for example -- and if you close yourself off from debate, it's overwhelmingly likely that you'll just end up in an echo chamber without anybody to challenge your views or correct your mistakes.

Many Christians go a lifetime without any real challenge to their views or correction. Abstaining from discussion entirely is about the worse thing you can do from a perspective of intellectual honesty.

linux_vegan wrote:which is partially dependent on whom I engage

Generally speaking, you stand to learn something from almost anybody you have a disagreement with; you just have to consider carefully what that is.

linux_vegan wrote:Extensive self-reflection is precisely how I came to the conclusion that I'd probably be better off having never heard of online debates.

If you're the kind of person who has anxiety about confrontation, that may superficially seem to be the case. But to that end, you just need to learn more about human psychology (to which you are not immune). It's usually better to confront sources of anxiety and learn to deal with them rather than running from them.

It's something you should consider.

linux_vegan wrote:Maybe "different styles of expression" would be a more accurate term.

Sure, but that really just comes down to education.

I can learn how better to express myself to people like you to teach you.
You can learn how better to listen and open mindedly consider argument -- and try to not take so much offense at things.

I'm not very good at coddling people, and using kid gloves on those who may be overly emotional. It's fair to say I'm not the most patient person.
I could try to learn to be better at that, but I'm not sure to what end.

On the other hand, some people need to learn to toughen up a bit, and grow a thicker skin -- which is the psychologically healthier thing to do.
Also, and very crucially, to divorce the things one happens to believe in as a matter of world view from self identity. If you identify "organic" as part of who you are as a person, it can be very difficult or impossible to be rational about it. The same thing, really, with "vegan".

I happen to eat a vegan diet, and do the best I can to avoid animal products elsewhere. As such, I am "vegan", but I'm not married to any ideology. I just try to be a good person, whatever reason shows me that means.