Clumsy Arguing

[iouswuoibev]

I am not good at arguing. I was arguing with my mother today, because I wanted to cancel my benefits because they are amoral. She bombarded me with a load of nonesense about "dog-eat-dog" and if I want a capitalist society I should go live in Mexico (I don't know anything about Mexico, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a valid argument). I didn't know where to begin!

I want to know if anyone has a directly applicable method for being better at persuasion. Although I managed to state my basic premises for why I didn't believe in benefits (I don't believe in taxation, because it is obtained through the use of force), I wasn't able to say anything persuasive or recall the fundamentals of why it is wrong. I study Ayn Rand's work and many online articles, but the extent to which I study only seems to help me remember what was said (literally). It's like recalling lines of a textbook for an exam.

While I can evaluate what I've read and understand why it is right, I can't seem to integrate them into my mind, and make them my own thoughts - so I can put my thoughts into my own words instead of just recalling words I've read. I can't adapt to the conversation, I can only crudely reiterate the few tenets that I'm able to recall. I feel like I understand when I am reading, but I don't memorize my understanding. It is becoming very annoying.

Any suggestions?

[iouswuoibev]

Okay, I've just tried to come up with some responses I might have had in the conversation... this stuff is what I came up with on my own, they are my own words. But I need help in finishing some of these sentences.

Dog-eat-dog is a false concept because...

Mexico is a poor country, not because it is capitalist, but because the government fails to achieve its duty to protect individual rights. (Is this correct? Like I said, I don't know anything about Mexico).

If I am forced to give up my money to society, then... (I'm stuck, what could go here? Remember the sentence can't be too long, it needs to sound natural and befitting of conversation... we type differently to how we talk!).

[AshRyan]

Mexico doesn't remotely resemble a capitalist country. It has been a semi-socialist hole forever.

And I don't know you're exact circumstances, but are you sure that it is immoral for you to receive your benefits? After all, if you don't advocate either them or the taxation that pays for them, I'd say you're one of the few people who is entitled to get as much of your money (that has been taken from you through taxes) back.

As far as advice for good argument strategies in speech, Aristotle's Rhetoric isn't a bad place to start.

[iouswuoibev]

I'd say you're one of the few people who is entitled to get as much of your money (that has been taken from you through taxes) back.

I didn't think of looking at it that way. I am getting disability benefits at the moment and 'in theory' can not work. In reality though, I can work, it is just a *lot* more difficult for me than a normal person. The only things I purchase are with the benefit money, so, I think it's more the case that I'm spending other people's money than my own.

As far as advice for good argument strategies in speech, Aristotle's Rhetoric isn't a bad place to start.

Thanks for that. I think my problem is rooted in the lack of ability to condense my meaning into as few sentences as possible, quickly enough and without losing any meaning. Also there is a problem that is fundemental to objectivism in that a lot of premises need to be explained, clearly, so that the other party doesn't go filling in the gaps with their own false premises. E.g. in order to explain why tax is wrong, I have to start with explaining that man's mind is his means of survival, and then carry that through to the conclusion that tax is wrong (which is a lot of talking!).

[AshRyan]

...Also there is a problem that is fundemental to objectivism in that a lot of premises need to be explained, clearly, so that the other party doesn't go filling in the gaps with their own false premises. E.g. in order to explain why tax is wrong, I have to start with explaining that man's mind is his means of survival, and then carry that through to the conclusion that tax is wrong (which is a lot of talking!).

Yes, I think that can be a problem. The solution to that is that I generally just don't bother arguing with someone when I think it would require a lot of extra explaining like that unless I have some reason to think that it would be worth my time to do so (for instance, if the person I'm arguing with seems fundamentally rational and I think I might actually have a chance of convincing him of my position).

[stephen_speicher]

I am not good at arguing. I was arguing with my mother today, because I wanted to cancel my benefits because they are amoral. She bombarded me with a load of nonesense about "dog-eat-dog" and if I want a capitalist society ...

I recall from your "Introduction" posts that you were young (19 years-old), you loved computer programming, and you were disabled and collecting benefits. Why do you consider the benefits to be amoral? (I assume you mean "immoral." "amoral" means neither moral nor immoral.)

[source]

I had the same problem with argumenting my position in a conversation. I solved it partially by re-reading the parts of Ayn Rand's works which I did not understand fully or which I failed to argue well enough in a conversation. I am also discouraged from explaining everything "ab ovo," so I usually just cut to the final conclusion, if I don't care whether my collocutor understands me or not. If he shows interest in why I think so, I try explaining by going only one step deeper into reasoning behind that conclusion. And then maybe further down into fundamentals. This approach usually gives me time to think about what I'm going to say and to come up with the most important reasons why I think that way. And if I remember a better reason than the one I'm currently saying, I don't hesitate to add it immediately into the sentence I'm saying, or into the next.

[knuckles]

Do not reject any money the government gives you.

At the same time, try to figure out how you can earn money to sustain yourself.

[Bowzer]

I want to know if anyone has a directly applicable method for being better at persuasion.

The single best thing that you can do is to make your ideas clear to yourself. To be convicing you have to make your ideas real to others; you have to lead them--at least partly--down the inductive path that you yourself traversed. Give simple examples of why you believe that something is true and make your argument in simple terms.

It isn't very convincing when you listen to someone rattle off a deductive proof that they have memorized, even if the argument is true. To the extent that one offers blank premises to others as an argument, others will--and should--stop listening to what you have to say (I'm not saying that you're doing this).

I also think that a firm knowledge of grammer and the dictionary are crucial to both others' and your own understanding of ideas.

[iouswuoibev]

I recall from your "Introduction" posts that you were young (19 years-old), you loved computer programming, and you were disabled and collecting benefits. Why do you consider the benefits to be amoral? (I assume you mean "immoral." "amoral" means neither moral nor immoral.)

Why do you consider the benefits to be amoral? (I assume you mean "immoral." "amoral" means neither moral nor immoral.)

My reasoning is that it is stolen money, and I couldn't accept stolen money... is this taking it too far?

[iouswuoibev]

The single best thing that you can do is to make your ideas clear to yourself. To be convicing you have to make your ideas real to others; you have to lead them--at least partly--down the inductive path that you yourself traversed. Give simple examples of why you believe that something is true and make your argument in simple terms.

It isn't very convincing when you listen to someone rattle off a deductive proof that they have memorized, even if the argument is true. To the extent that one offers blank premises to others as an argument, others will--and should--stop listening to what you have to say (I'm not saying that you're doing this).

I also think that a firm knowledge of grammer and the dictionary are crucial to both others' and your own understanding of ideas.

These are all good points. I certainly don't have a problem grasping words. I've noticed that I am much better at debating when typing online (because I have time to think), and I sound like a stuttering fool when talking in real life. I'm wondering if using the internet all the time has put me out of practice in talking for real.

[iouswuoibev]

What brought it all home to me was when, after we finished talking, I didn't have much to say other than that I disagreed. We just sat there in silence and she gave me ample oppertunity to respond. I knew there were many things to be said for what she brought up, and I had just previously been reading about that here: http://www.solohq.com/Objectivism101/Misbe...tionsMain.shtml

But I still couldn't think of a single thing to say.

I thought I read somewhere on this forum a description of why dog-eat-dog doesn't apply in a true capitalist society, but I did a search and couldn't find anything. I think it was that statement especially that caught me off guard.

[stephen_speicher]

My reasoning is that it is stolen money, and I couldn't accept stolen money... is this taking it too far?

I think so. Don't you walk on the streets that were built with that same money?

That money was taken from you and from your family, and taking "benefits" is a form of restitution. You are not responsible for this socialist sytem that you were born into, and you are not one who is advocating it.

[stephen_speicher]

But I still couldn't think of a single thing to say. 

I thought I read somewhere on this forum a description of why dog-eat-dog doesn't apply in a true capitalist society, but I did a search and couldn't find anything. I think it was that statement especially that caught me off guard.

You really should read Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which is an inexpensive paperback available from the usual online sources and from many of the larger book stores.

But, I seem to recall this has been recommended to you before. Hasn't it?

[MisterSwig]

I want to know if anyone has a directly applicable method for being better at persuasion.

Have you studied logic? Part of being persuasive is the ability to detect fallacies in your opponent's (and your own) arguments. You can argue for your own view until you are blue in the face, but if you cannot convince your opponent that they have made an error in their reasoning, then what is the use?

[iouswuoibev]

You really should read Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which is an inexpensive paperback available from the usual online sources and from many of the larger book stores.

But, I seem to recall this has been recommended to you before. Hasn't it?

I own all of Rands non-fiction (I think). Just not finished reading it all.

[Yes]

I am not good at arguing. I was arguing with my mother today, because I wanted to cancel my benefits because they are amoral. ......

Any suggestions?

Until you are old enough to go off on your own, your household has to be considered the exclusive domain of your parents. In your rebellious spirit, try NOT to get to the point where a parent sends you to your room in punishment.

As a youth you have many advantages over an old fart like myself (I'm 55). You have a future ahead of you with many opportunities. It behooves you to maintain the moral supprt of your parents by achieving as much as you can in school, and doing those chores assigned to you. If you grew up in Mexico, life would be a whole lot different, as many of them live for the sake of survival, and opportunities are limited thus..

By all means indulge yourself in objectivist readings, but do not use these as a basis for rebellion against your parents! Instead, let these contribute to your own maturity and development.

[AshRyan]

...By  all means indulge yourself in objectivist readings, but do not use these as a basis for rebellion against your parents!  Instead, let these contribute to your own maturity and development.

Excellent advice.

[Capitalism Forever]

My reasoning is that it is stolen money, and I couldn't accept stolen money...

It's OK to take back money that has been stolen from you.

[Pericles(MBA)]

Good points were made about money that was stolen from your family. I'm sure members of your family have paid a lot in Social Security taxes....

The main thing about the government handing out benefits is that they want you to be hooked on them. Concentrate on becoming self-sufficient so that you don't need the government money, just as you are working on becoming independent from your family.

There is a personality type among government aid employees and some religious people, that will try to make you think you are helpless and dependent.

You are obviously intelligent if you read Ayn Rand. Don't fall for the traps of the disability movement and get caught up in the victimhood of disabled culture, and you should be all right.

Good luck on your computer programming. I know there are a few programmers in this forum so you are in good company.

[iouswuoibev]

Good points were made about money that was stolen from your family.  I'm sure members of your family have paid a lot in Social Security taxes....

The main thing about the government handing out benefits is that they want you to be hooked on them.  Concentrate on becoming self-sufficient so that you don't need the government money, just as you are working on becoming independent from your family.

There is a personality type among government aid employees and some religious people, that will try to make you think you are helpless and dependent.

You are obviously intelligent if you read Ayn Rand. Don't fall for the traps of the disability movement and get caught up in the victimhood of disabled culture, and you should be all right. 

I just want to put a word in here: that reading Ayn Rand doesn't necessarilly make you intelligent. This is shown by the number of people who reject her work. But I recognise that her philosophy is true and I will continue to study it. I think as far as programming goes, I am intelligent, but when it comes to things like debating and other activities that involve conflict with others, my ability is 'inhibited'. I think I have a problem with low self-esteem (as opposed to not having the logical ability to see the holes in someone elses reasoning), especially in the face of another individual. I am working on changing my thoughts and emotions accordingly, but I still have a way to go in improving my self-esteem.

Good luck on your computer programming.  I know there are a few programmers in this forum so you are in good company.

Thank you for your encouraging words. I am resolute when it comes to my work and I have an unwavering belief in my ability to realise my goals. When I complete my project it will be the first time in my life that I will have achieved one of my own ambitions. Any mention/curiousity/encouragement about my work from another individual bolsters my motivation and is appreciated.