The Fallacy of "'reasonable'ness"

[Space Patroller]

Too often we hear the cry "can't you be reasonable?"

For example when I am discussing some economic plasn with someone and I get the inkling that it centers around redistributionism and I ask, if somewhere this scheme includes redistribution and the answer comes back "yes" I say "Fageddabouddit; Ain't gonna happen". I get castigated for not listining or not being "reasoable" to which I say "Look redistribution doesn't work [then eleaborate on what it has done]. Isn't it stupid to do what hasn't worked or caused destricution and expect something different?"

In early 2006, 18 years after Global Warmingism was brought to the fore. RealWeather Radio, an arm of AccuWeather. was asked about this myth and said with clarity and certainty that it was a buncha bull and went into the PSO and all that.

Now, the eco's, having still failed to pass scientific muster, not that they ever gave a Rigelian rat's rear about science, which they spend most of their effort and time attacking, are bitching that we won't be "reasonable" and come to some point of agreement.

Well, true is true and false is false and that's a metaphyscal line in the sand: i.e. I'm not ganna call a pile of dung a plate of chocolate pudding just to placate someone who's a few days short of a week.

To graps why, imagine that you and I have a dispute. You say that 2+2=4, I say it's 6 and you're having none of it. Then I say "Can't you be reasoable and split the difference to 5?"

If you have a brain you'll say "No, 5 is just as false as 6 and "reasonaaable" means guided by reason, not entertaining things that I know to be cocamamie. Reason integrates the facts of reality into a cohernent whole and 2+2=5 and 2+2=6 are both as false as 2+2=4 is true" Beyond that, Once I get you to ratify the falsehood by one, I've got you for all of it. You could not object to 2+2=10. You've already fallen off the wall and shattered.

The purpose of this fallacy is to castigate you for not being an epistemological wet noodle, not to arrive at truth or honest agreement.

[Randroid]

I agree with you on all points. One little bit of constructive criticism, though:

to which I say "Look redistribution doesn't work [then eleaborate on what it has done]. Isn't it stupid to do what hasn't worked or caused destricution and expect something different?"

If you argue that way, the collectivist will invariably say that it only doesn't work because it hasn't been done right yet. You could try pointing out that redistribution is ultimately the initiation of force, and therefore morally wrong (in addition to being ineffective).

[whYNOT]

Sure enough the call to 'be reasonable' is nearly always the call to compromise. Seldom has a word been so corrupted and cheapened as 'reasonable.'

There are also sub-texts to this as in- you be reasonable (compromising) and then I will too - and we can arrive at a nice,equitable solution that 2+2=4.7 and we can both go away happy.

People hate conflict it seems; or at the very least, they hate even the gentlest rational opposition to their convictions.

The call to be reasonable, is actually a demand that you must not think about their ideas, and never judge, just give them the affirmation that they crave from you.

I have come across only a few people who share my excitement about discovering the undiluted truth; mostly they do just want to 'get along, and love one another.'

Geez, what a shame. For this alone, I came to the conclusion that "hell is other people".

[Space Patroller]

I agree with you on all points. One little bit of constructive criticism, though:

If you argue that way, the collectivist will invariably say that it only doesn't work because it hasn't been done right yet. You could try pointing out that redistribution is ultimately the initiation of force, and therefore morally wrong (in addition to being ineffective).

Do you think the collectivist will care about the initiation of force against individuals? It is, after all, a collectivist

At least this way, I can obliterate the chimera of usefulness. Besides, it's usually a part of a larger discussion and I don't want to get distracted by, for that debate, a side issue, and since we're both adults then the adversary has settled his mind on the larger issue. Besides, having pointed out the failure and stupidity doesn't rule out the moral argument since both are true But this was an example from real life on more than one occasion used to point out a certain type of behavior.

[Space Patroller]

I have come across only a few people who share my excitement about discovering the undiluted truth;

Geez, what a shame. For this alone, I came to the conclusion that "hell is other people".

How sad for them. I almost feel pity. What of the child that they were, and that still lives in them, that was excited at a new discovery? It's one thing, in a mixed system to "do what you gotta do" but to reach the stage that you describe? It's like being a quadraplegic mute.

[Randroid]

Do you think the collectivist will care about the initiation of force against individuals? It is, after all, a collectivist

It depends. If they are the kind of collectivist that will unashamedly wear a red star or the Hammer-and-Sickle or Che Guevara's ugly mug, they will applaud and even call for the initiation of force. The average concerned, "socially aware", "enlightened" citizen or Birkenstock-wearing granola-muncher is quite likely to say that being mean to people is, like, totally bad, m'kaay?

I think one should choose one's approach depending on who one is arguing against and who one is trying to win over. Ideally, they should not be the same person.