

We are not sheep - yummyfajitas
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1029#more-1029

======
SamAtt
Let me rephrase his strategy here: If someone comes to you with an emotional
argument antagonize them and eventually they'll start acting rational.

I'm sorry but not only do I think this is a bad idea I'm hereby calling
b#llsh#t on the author. There's no way he made sheep noises at a guy who is
emotional about gun control and from that changed the guy's mind.

~~~
caffeine
You're right, Sam. I am struck by the fact that the guntoter did much the
opposite of what this entry's title suggests.

Essentially, it's a post about trollishly winning an argument on IRC by
bleeting like a sheep.

A cautionary tale: people utterly convinced of their ideas will stoop to the
level of beasts to avoid sensibly answering criticism.

------
knowtheory
The problem with this, is that ESR may have cowed the guy into submission, but
i now think that ESR is an asshole, _and_ that he's not right.

I remain entirely unconvinced as to the correctness of his position. In fact,
i am unclear what the full scope and description of his argument is, because
he spends so much time trying to convince us that people who disagree with him
are not rational.

Way to fail at argument.

In some cases it may be fine/appropriate to needle your interlocutors with
non-logical appeals, but doing so does not win your argument. It shuts down
the argument.

ESRs interaction there is particularly frustrating, since his actual argument
contains no content. Going to a gun club is not a rebuttal to an argument,
it's an attempt to indoctrinate others through means other than logic.

Firing a gun, and learning about gun safety isn't going to change my mind that
an populace armed with firearms is a solution for... anything really. Besides,
if we really wanted to start an armed resistance, or a guerrilla movement, we
don't need guns. Al Qaeda didn't cause 9/11 with handguns, and Timothy McVey
didn't blow up the Oklahoma City building with bullets.

~~~
ellyagg
> Firing a gun, and learning about gun safety isn't going to change my mind
> that an populace armed with firearms is a solution for... anything really.

You mean aside from the scads of strong evidence such as the frequent mass
shootings by terrorists in Israel until citizens were allowed to carry
concealed weapons?

~~~
knowtheory
I don't seem to recall the end to the intifada. :P

Arming everyone doesn't solve problems. It just guarantees someone is going to
die. You can say "better them than me", but again, that's not a solution.

Carrying a gun may make you feel safer, but that's all it does. Some people
tried to make the claim that the Virginia Tech massacre could have been
avoided if students were armed on campus. Except that the shooter, who clearly
did not value his own survival, caught everyone off guard.

Unless you are always armed, and always vigilant someone is going to get the
drop on you. Fire arms are not going to make you safer. There are always
random acts of violence.

Also, don't forget that the "good guys" with guns aren't infallible. They
accidentally shoot bystanders or even other good guys by accident too (see the
NY plainclothes policeman who was killed last week).

~~~
knowtheory
Hmm, looks like the intifada did technically peter out[1], but that hasn't
stopped palestinian violent resistance.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada#End_of_the_Inti...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada#End_of_the_Intifada)

------
pohl
From my reading, the author's epiphany was to shift the debate away from
substance towards a contest along the linear social dominance hierarchy by
trying to out-alpha his opponent, making him his beta bitch. How shocking that
this came from the gun-fetish demographic.

(And I say that as a supporter of the 2nd amendment.)

I feel that this technique is orthogonal to the topic of the debate. A more
dominant and rhetorically skilled opponent might have similarly stopped the
debate in its tracks by insisting that the author loved guns because he was a
chicken.

Then, regardless of the response, reply with "Bock bock bock b'cak!"

This is the author's moment of enlightenment? I don't want people like this on
my side of the gun debate.

------
robotrout
Logos Ethos Pathos

It's not all about the logos, folks. Not knowing that is going to bite you for
the rest of your life.

If somebody is venting to you about gun control, abortion, global warming,
wolf reintroduction, or whether size matters, they are not going to respond to
logic. A minute or two of conversation will tell you if they can be reached
that way. Figure that out, and save yourself an ulcer.

This fact is actually one that even a hacker should be able to grasp, as it
rests purely in your realm.

------
tptacek
My favorite part of his technique is that he starts from the premise that
arguments like "criminals will use your guns against you" and "the weapons
available to citizens are insufficient to repel the police" are "factually and
historically ignorant babble". It's a good thing we had people like him
"short-stopping communist counter-coups in the Baltic states".

------
anigbrowl
Actually, my impression after reading the piece, is that his response is 'we
are sheep with guns'.

I've met two types of gun enthusiasts: the ones that like hunting o other
sport shooting and are basically nerds who like throwing around statistics and
how-to tips, and the ones that believe a Mad Max dystopia is coming _any day
now_ , or are possibly convinced it's already here, who strike me as a bunch
of paranoid lunatics.

A gun is a perfectly valid home defense option, but the dystopian crowd always
seem to be waiting for some kind of reverse rapture in which they'll finally
get to show how well-prepared they are. They remind me of the martial-arts
types that talk endlessly about what would happen if they were ever to get
into a fight, but don't feel comfortable riding public transport.

------
prodigal_erik
"Oh, you wanted an argument? That's next door. This is abuse."

I have to admit the title did not promise a way to _use logic_ to reply to
emotional arguments, as most of us were apparently hoping.

------
yummyfajitas
In the interest of gathering more data points, has anyone attempted to use
this technique computing debates?

I'm thinking of discussions concerning sexps and significant whitespace in
particular.

~~~
swombat
You mean, heavy use of ad hominem attacks followed by a return to the topic?
Yes, I'm sure we've all done that.

And I'm sure we all have plenty of experience showing that insulting your
interlocutor is not a successful means to convince them of anything
whatsoever.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Exactly what I mean. While it certainly is not useful in a rational debate, it
could be useful (under some circumstances) to short circuit an irrational one.

I'm interested, since many debates are (unfortunately) irrational.

------
Confusion
There isn't an 'emotional argument masquerading as logic' anywhere in the
article or the comments. Unless the suggestion is that every argument is an
attempt at logic, in which case 'logical argument' is a tautology.

From the article: _I think, now, that gun owners need to be replying more
often to hoplophobes simply by echoing their “Baaa! Baaa! Baaaa!” back at
them. Because only that reaches the actual fundamentals of the thinly-
rationalized anti-firearms prejudice we so often encounter._

Yeah, because your assumption that those with an anti-firearms stance are by
definition 'hoplophobe' and 'prejudiced' isn't a close-minded, arrogant,
_emotional_ position at all. The 'fear' argument is easily turned around: you
only think you need a gun, because you are afraid of what could happend if you
didn't have one.

The proper response to the presented 'arguments' are:

Q: _“Why do you guys think you need firearms?”_

A: That's not an argument

Q: _“Criminals will just take them from you and use them against you.”_

A: Criminals have their own guns and don't need ours. There is no evidence
that the risk you name outweighs the benefits of owning a gun.

Q: _“They’re useless for anything but killing.”_

A: Umm, that's the point: they can be used to kill people before they kill
you.

Q: _“You can’t seriously think they’re a deterrent against overreaching
governments, the cops will just come for you you first.”_

A: If almost everyone has a gun, the cops can't come for 'you' first.

Not only does he present stupid arguments, he is also incapable of defusing
these stupid arguments and has to resort to imitating sheep. And this is
supposed to be a hacker guru, someone worth imitating. God help us all...

~~~
sofal
For all we know, he may have given all of the same answers you did. Have you
ever tried to give intelligent responses to someone who has already decided
you are wrong? This is what is meant by an "emotional argument masquerading as
logic". Somebody asks seemingly logical questions with the sole intent to bait
and knock down the responses no matter how logical and well thought-out they
are. The author of the article eventually recognized that this was just a
pissing match and tried a different approach which worked better in that
particular isolated case. From your "proper response" I have to believe that
you would have fallen for the bait.

~~~
Confusion
If the guy was baiting, then I concur with SamAtt:

 _There's no way he made sheep noises at a guy who is emotional about gun
control and from that changed the guy's mind._

------
sho
The problem with this technique is that everyone thinks they're right. You
would be amazed and appalled to learn how opponents of, say, evolution think
that they are the knowledgable few and you are the "sheep" who has been
brainwashed by the scientific "man".

There is little to be gained from this kind of _mano-a-mano_ debate, IMO, and
much to be lost in terms of time and emotional energy. The intelligent person
of programmatic means would be wise to consider how better he might make use
of his time, for example in constructing appropriate systems to enable larger
scale, and more effective, destruction and undermining of the ignorance in the
world.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'd amend your statement. There is little _information_ to be gained from this
kind of debate. You can, however, gain position, status or resources from this
kind of debate.

In the real world, it is often necessary to deal with irrational actors. I
don't think it is a bad idea to learn how to hack people's irrationality for
your own ends. It is evil to short circuit _rational_ debate, but if the
debate is already irrational, why not learn how to win it?

~~~
staticshock
I agree. And, in subtle ways, even rational arguments are often won with
appeals to emotion. Learning how to use emotion in an argument is a very
powerful tool.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I think that by definition, a rational argument cannot be won with appeals to
emotion.

The only exception I can think of is revealing to a person that their
perceived utility function is different from their actual utility function.
(E.g., how happy does owning diamond necklace actually make you?) But in that
case, appealing to emotion is more about revealing new information (about
emotions) than overriding rational thought.

------
ahoyhere
Baa baa baa.

I mean:

This guy needs to grow the hell up and read a book on rhetoric.

Appalling.

EDIT: Oh, it's ESR! That explains a lot.

