&Omega. ONE-LINERS, INSULTS, AND REAL DISCUSSION. Kirk Nathanson, a freshman here, emailed to say that he thought my September 10 post in which I quoted an unnamed professor attacking me and then called him a "Captain Ahab" style of Quaker was not a good reply to the attack. Kirk's question deserves an answer, and since it has general implications, and is at the crux of the controversy over my web-log, I thought I'd write it here.

The question involves three ways to act in favor of a position:

  1. Insult and Intimidation. This is the crudest form: you call the person arguing for the other side an idiot, perhaps hoping he will back down on seeing the force of your emotions, perhaps just to vent your emotions, perhaps because you think that everyone will agree with you just because they know how wise and well-informed you are. It is akin to the method of violence, which is rarer in America, but common elsewhere.

    This is the method my attacker used. It is not very effective against someone like me, and its use should be discouraged. I was surprised to see a professor use it, which was one reason to post the item. Lots of simple people use it, but that's a "dog bites man" story not worth talking much about.

  2. Real Discussion. This is what Professor Volokh and I were engaged in that started all this. He disagreed strongly with my position; I disagreed mildly with his; and we both politely tried to demolish each other's arguments--- though not at great length, because we both have lots of other things to do. We each value the other's opinion, though I think we've never met (sorry if I've forgotten) and we think we can learn something from a discussion, even if we don't convince our opponent.

    Mr. Nathanson is right that in my recent web-postings I haven't returned to real discussion on the core homosexuality issues. Part of that is because a prior question, logically, is whether it is even right for me to argue for my position, as opposed to such arguments being tabu. I've done a little real discussion on that, but not a whole lot, because nobody has yet done any interesting real discussion saying I should not argue my position. (I've seen a little real discussion here and there saying I shouldn't use state property for it, but that's not interesting because it's based on a faulty premise. Indiana University has set up these "myfile" accounts specifically for faculty and students to use for things such as posting web-logs and pictures of their dogs. I'm not using my "pacioli" server account, which is where I keep most of my research and class files.) I do intend to come back to the homosexuality issue, especially because I've actually gotten some "real discussion" emails from people on both sides of the issue citing some of the evidence I didn't have time to look up for Professor Volokh. But this is the start of the semester, and my class preparation and committee work gets priority. I write some web-log items like the present one because they're easy to write, but evaluating statistical studies and going into deep moral issues takes real time. I don't intend to just cite some verses from the Bible or to say homosexuality is personally offensive to me, which are easy to do but not convincing to most people with views different from mine.

  3. One-Liners. Finally, we come to humor. This can be used as either Insults or Real Discussion. It falls in the category of Insults if it merely embarasses the opponent without making a point about the topic at hand. It falls in the category of Real Discussion if it does convey an argument from which the opponent can learn. Jokes can be like poetry: a condensed, indirect, and elegant form of communication. That's why my publisher and I were willing to pay more for the cartoon copyright permissions in my book, Readings in Games and Information, than we did for the readings themselves which comprise 98% of its pages.

In my September 10 post, I was trying to make three points. First, there are intelligent people out there who are willing to use their time to write and mail such a bizarre letter. Second, that such letters don't have much purpose except maybe to make the sender feel good, though I wonder whether he might have been happier just thinking about a different subject or getting some ice cream instead. Third, that an interest in Quakerism, non-violence, human rights, social justice, and vegetarianism does not necessarily imply a placid temperament or a commitment to human rights and social justice. Note that I did not name my attacker. That was deliberate-- my point is to use him as an example, and his name is not necessary for that.

[ permalink, http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.09.12b.htm ]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.