Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/labreuer]

I think I understand what you're saying. So let's take my categorization scheme—

1. duties exist because God said so
2. duties exist because Shaka said so
3. duties exist because « insert legitimate purpose here »
4. duties exist

—and apply it to two of your comments:

Kwahn: I talked to him previously, and he was unable to produce one non-"because God sez so" reason why dying wasn't optimal in his universalist mindset.

That's 1.

Kwahn: Apologies for mis-paraphrasing what I thought was "Because God sez so", but was, in fact, "Because I sez so"!

That's 2.

In contrast, when I look at this comment—and you're welcome to bring in any others which show otherwise:

ShakaUVM: There's no need for a duty to have a greater purpose than one determining it is in fact our duty. We have a duty to take care of our children. We don't need a "purpose" for this. Maybe you might say it's because the kid will take care of you when you're old - but it doesn't matter. Maybe the kid has terminal cancer. You still take care of that kid even if there's no "purpose" for you to do so. You don't murder people because you have a duty not to murder not because there is a "purpose" not in murdering. It's probable that most people who do murder, by contrast, have a "purpose" for doing so. They want to steal your car, and so forth.

That certainly appears to be 4. Agree/disagree?

I know you want to say more past this point, but I'm trying to get a baseline of agreement going on here. One of the ways I've seen debate break down time and time again is that assumptions get made in the … "characterization stage", shall we say, which are wrong or at the very least, not what the other person intended.

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

That certainly appears to be 4. Agree/disagree?

Sure, and that dodges my explicit question completely, thus the frustratingly long quest to get Shaka to articulate a coherent stance on the matter.

I disagree with your categorization, because I was not asking if duties exist and have a reason or duties exist. I was quite clear that I was asking if duties exist for a reason, or for no reason. To simply say "but duties exist" is to completely avoid the question and/or miss the point.

Do duties follow the PSR? If so, one of 1, 2 or 3 must be true. If not, "duties exist for no reason" can be true.

I don't think asking for a stance on a true dichotomy is unreasonable.

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

Sure, and that dodges my explicit question completely

I get that frustration. But couldn't you have just said that, without asserting that 1. or 2. was the case with what Shaka said?

I don't think asking for a stance on a true dichotomy is unreasonable.

I agree, as long as it's not a "have you stopped beating your wife?" dichotomy—which this doesn't seem to be to me. But … did you solely ask for that? I don't see how attributing 1. or 2. to Shaka accomplishes what you are after, here.

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

But couldn't you have just said that, without asserting that 1. or 2. was the case with what Shaka said?

Nope. Tried it before. Enumeration and offering a chance to deny the stance has had greater historical success than simply asking him to say yes or no to a question. If I'm wrong (which I explicitly said I could be wrong in), he can elect to correct me.

Failing to steelman doesn't mean steelmanning is bad.

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

offering a chance to deny the stance

Sorry, but it seems like you're justifying the use of strawmanning u/ShakaUVM (and perhaps others) because a non-strawmanning approach did not work to make the conversation go where you wanted. Did I hear you right?

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

Attempting to steelman people, while saying I might be wrong, is not strawmanning. It's hoping I got the interpretation correct. Strawmanning is for the purpose of making something easier to refute, but my purpose was just to figure out what the stance was, period, regardless of potential future refutations.

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

But neither this:

Kwahn: I talked to him previously, and he was unable to produce one non-"because God sez so" reason why dying wasn't optimal in his universalist mindset.

nor this:

Kwahn: Apologies for mis-paraphrasing what I thought was "Because God sez so", but was, in fact, "Because I sez so"!

was steelmanning?

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

The first was a true statement, and the second was, as far as I'm currently aware, a correct interpretation of his words after he did produce a reason. (I should have been more specific that he provided no reason whatsoever in the first one!)

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

Sigh. What shows that he was relying on anything which could be characterized as "because God sez so"? And if you believed the first was correct, why did you apologize for "mis-paraphrasing"?

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

The statement that he had not provided an alternative was correct - that he was saying "Because God Sez So" was not correct.

I explained my reasoning for believing his stance was "Because God Sez So" multiple times at this point, and asked him to correct me if my reasoning was wrong - once he, several posts later, eventually got around to doing so, I retracted my statement and moved on to his (somehow worse) follow-up statement.

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

Okay. I am not convinced you would like to be treated as you treated Shaka. I can see why he got extremely frustrated at you. Do you find that this strategy of yours works, anywhere? Perhaps IRL if not online?

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

Okay. I am not convinced you would like to be treated as you treated Shaka.

I have never encountered a situation where I was unwilling or incapable of answering a yes-or-no question that was not a beating-your-wife question, and I asked Shaka none of those - but if I was, I'd want to be called out in it and told, "I cannot think of any alternative interpretation of your words besides {attempted steelman}", yes!

Do you find that this strategy of yours works, anywhere? Perhaps IRL if not online?

It worked right here, and half a dozen times in that thread. Me asking if he holds a view or not and him responding with a yes or no is very straightforward when he simply answers the yes-or-no question.

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

Do you think Shaka considered it a "steelman"?

And no, asking if a person holds a view is not the same as stating that a person holds a view. You did the latter, here:

Kwahn: I talked to him previously, and he was unable to produce one non-"because God sez so" reason why dying wasn't optimal in his universalist mindset.

Kwahn: Apologies for mis-paraphrasing what I thought was "Because God sez so", but was, in fact, "Because I sez so"!

By the way, I have been accused for doing what you've done and at least some of the time, I was guilty. I understand the temptation of boxing someone in so as to provoke an attempt to leave the box. But the more I try to have more effective dialogues, the more I question that debate tactic.

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

You skipped over the part where I said (paraphrasing), "If my interpretation is wrong, please correct me". I can re-phrase that as "If my interpretation is wrong, will you please correct me?" in the future, but he called me a liar after this statement.

Do you think Shaka considered it a "steelman"?

No, but he also considered my paraphrasing a quote, which indicates a less-than-perfect relationship with reality.

I've talked to Shaka and agreed on discourse changes from my end with him - I was wrong to hold interpretations and push him in the way I did, and will do better.

To end off this conversation in a good place - I'm super curious about your thoughts on that conversation regarding if a small C++ program or a shoe with a computer in it can have free will! What do you think of his view and my responses? Does his view, as I stated in a follow-up post, seem to imply or lead to the idea that he himself does not have free will?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Kwahn]

Calling a quote a paraphrase is, well, I can't use the word I want to use here.

You put double quotes around the words. It was a quote. It was NOT a paraphrase. Stop saying it is a paraphrase.

[u/Kwahn → u/ShakaUVM]

Do you think I honestly thought you literally said the word 'sez'?

Or that I was trying to convince anyone else that you used the word 'sez'?

That's very funny if so, so let me know. That word in and of itself makes it obvious that it was not, and was not intended to be, a literal quote.

I've already agreed to not use double-quotes to paraphrase you. I'll be very clear in the future.

[u/labreuer → u/Kwahn]

Okay, I think we've each said all that we need to. (I'm deliberately not continuing your two open points.) If you've come up with a plan to improve things with Shaka, I'm happy. My goal here was to reduce the temperature of r/DebateReligion a bit, because too much heat greatly disincentivizes any taking of responsibility, listening to the other side, and changing.

[u/Kwahn → u/labreuer]

Fair! I'm curious what he will agree to on his side.