Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Persuasion through Intimidation
Message-ID: <267@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 12:03:57 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.267
Posted: Thu Dec 13 12:03:57 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Dec-84 06:53:53 EST
References: <4750@fortune.UUCP> <1732@umcp-cs.UUCP> <326@pyuxd.UUCP> <168@masscomp.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 41
Summary: 

In article <168@masscomp.UUCP> carlton@masscomp.UUCP (Carlton Hommel) writes:
> In article <326@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
> >Instead, let's call the method an appeal to reasoned thinking.  Presenting
> >verifiable facts, allowing the listener/reader to come to the same conclusion
> >through his own reasoning power.
> 
> A wonderful idea in theory, but unworkable in practice.  Consider the high
> volume of traffic in groups like net.politics, net.abortion, net.origins, or
> net.flame.  In my 6 months of reading net.{wombat}, I have yet to see an 
> article like the following:
> 
> 	"Hey, you guys are right!  Article <326@pyuxd.UUCP> finally
>     convinced me.  Until now, I had a deep, heartfelt conviction
>     that {wombats} were godless atheists, and closeminded fanatics
>     to boot.  But now, after reading your appeals to reasoned 
>     thinking, I have seen the clear light of truth.  {Wombats}
>     don't lesnerize, eat unborn kittens, or do any of the other
>     disgusting things my parents said they did.
> 	I was wrong.  My position was based on blind unreasoning
>     stupidity.  I apologize.
> 
> I don't think the net software could stand the strain of a message like that.

In 7 or so years of net-like posting (primarily on the PLATO system), there
were a few times when I wrote messages like that.  And several more by mail.
(It's much easier to do this privately-- it's ego bruising.)

Some conversion by means of rational persuasion does occur though.  Usually not
among the active contestants, but among the observers.  Occaisionally, I get
mail telling me that I was convincing, and made a difference in belief.

Another important point: rational argument need not depend on anything related
to TRUTH.  It is sufficient to find a common basis of assumptions between the
two parties for an argument to be logically valid.  Thus, if I and some
Christianoid agree that the world is flat, and argue on that basis, we can
arrive at rational agreement.

[Mandatory flame content:]  SO THERE!
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh