common_law comments on The Hostile Arguer - LessWrong

32 Post author: Error 27 November 2014 12:30AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (76)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: common_law 27 November 2014 11:07:57PM 4 points [-]

You should question your unstated but fundamental premise: one should avoid arguments with "hostile arguers."

A person who argues to convince rather than to understand harms himself, but from his interlocutor's standpoint, dealing with his arguments can be just as challenging and enlightening as arguing with someone more "intellectually honest."

Whether an argument is worthwhile depends primarily on the competence of the arguments presented, which isn't strongly related to the sincerity of the arguer.

Comment author: ike 28 November 2014 03:43:49AM 5 points [-]

Well, as the post is mainly dealing with hostile arguers that have ultimate power over you, that seems justified. Play around with looking for "challenging and enlightening" arguments when it's not so dangerous.

Comment author: CronoDAS 10 December 2014 06:50:14AM 1 point [-]

Another reason one might want to engage with a "hostile arguer" is to convince a third party - any opponent in a live debate before an audience is almost certain to act as a hostile arguer.