# I pit brazil84 for: his rules of debate; "quote me"; bailing out. (Nothing new under the sun)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [July 29, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687 "2011-07-29T01:30:22Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/41 "2011-07-29T16:06:12Z")
> [@stpauler](#):
>
> If people are constantly misinterpreting what you’re saying, do you think the problem is with them or the way you’re communicating?
I think the problem is with them. It’s not like everyone I engage with strawmans me.
But ultimately, it doesn’t really matter. If my posts are so incoherent that I cannot communicate my views to a particular person, then it’s kind of pointless to engage anyway.
---
### Author:  [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/42 "2011-07-29T16:22:05Z")
So your proposition is that it’s pointless to engage with you.
---
### Author:  [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/43 "2011-07-29T16:24:42Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> I think the problem is with them. It’s not like everyone I engage with strawmans me.
>
> But ultimately, it doesn’t really matter. If my posts are so incoherent that I cannot communicate my views to a particular person, then it’s kind of pointless to engage anyway.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I can’t really agree with this idea. A number of times I’ve seen accidental misunderstanding and it’s not because of bad communication or because someone is being lazy, it can be because of any number of things. The speaker may well understand the point he’s trying to make and, so, may simply miss an ambiguity in his statement because he already know exactly how to interpret it. That is, how the speaker of certain words and how an impartial observer might interpret them aren’t necessarily going to be the same. Similarly, the receiver has some expectations about what message he’s getting and it will be interpretted in that context.
I think assigning blame for a miscommunication does not appreciate the fact that communication is a two person process. Failure to admit that one might present a message with multiple reasonable interpretations seems disingenuous to me. This is why I think repeating someone’s argument in their own words helps, because if the other person restates it, and you also receive it as being the same as your point, then you know they received your message as intended. But that they might restate it incorrectly could simply be a mistake and can easily be corrected.
Now, of course, if one is corrected on a point, one ought to accept it, but then there’s the ambiguity of whether that correction is also a reasonable interpretation. If it is, it ought to be accepted. However, if it’s not, then it comes across as weaseling. If one simply accepts any reinterpretation, even unreasonable ones, then one is constantly arguing against potentially mobile goal posts and can never make headway. But if one accepts no corrections, a good discussion can get derailed from something that is minor.
In short, it requires reasonableness, good faith, and balance on the part of all involved. Frankly, I think this statement illustrates a lack of reasonableness on that point. Misinterpretting your posts is not the same as saying your posts are incoherent. Of course, you should only engage with people you want to engage with, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to assign the blame for misinterpretting your posts squarely on those who misinterpret you.
---
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/44 "2011-07-29T16:55:50Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> I find this dubious, but okay.
> Perhaps my point was misunderstood and I will now attempt clarify it - your original words have led someone to a conclusion that you feel is not an accurate summation of your views. Asking them to requote you won’t make any difference, or at least I don’t see how it is supposed to lead them to a conclusion other than the one they’ve already drawn.
I would say asking them to requote me does make a difference. It gives them the opportunity to take a second, more careful look at my words to see if their interpretation is justified.
> [@](#):
>
> Then you’re cheating yourself of many an opportunity to expand your understanding of the issue under discussion. That someone might not “get” your position the first time does not automatically prove laziness or hostility on their part.
This is why I usually give people a chance to take a second look. Which I did in this case. And yes, it’s possible that it was just a misunderstanding and by pointing out his misunderstanding in the form of a challenge, I put him on the defensive so he was unwilling to lose face by admitting his mistake. It’s possible that he has lots of intelligent things to say which I will now miss out on. But based on my experience, I doubt it.
> [@](#):
>
> The point being that neither of us is going to improve our knowledge if one person readily decides (and possibly is even looking for a _reason_ to decide) that the other person is not debating “properly” and should be cut off, or “banned”.
There isn’t enough time to read everything everyone says about stuff. You have to pick and choose. Probably by banning various posters, this message board loses a lot of intelligent comments.
---
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/45 "2011-07-29T16:57:49Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#):
>
> So your proposition is that it’s pointless to engage with you.
For people who do not understand me, yes of course.
---
### Author:  [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/46 "2011-07-29T17:12:44Z")
But who could, truly, understand the unique genius that is anonymous internet asshole **brazil84**?
---
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/47 "2011-07-29T17:22:03Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#):
>
> A number of times I’ve seen accidental misunderstanding and it’s not because of bad communication or because someone is being lazy, it can be because of any number of things.
I agree, and I have been on both sides of these kinds of misunderstandings. Of course, when somebody conveniently exaggerates one’s position, I become skeptical of their good faith. However, I usually give people a chance to support or retract their claim about my position, which I did in this case.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/48 "2011-07-29T17:33:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> I would say asking them to requote me does make a difference. It gives them the opportunity to take a second, more careful look at my words to see if their interpretation is justified.
So what if they take a second look and decide that, yes, their interpretation is indeed justified? You probably could save some time by writing a clarification right off the bat, addressing the specific misinterprations you’ve perceived.
> [@](#):
>
> This is why I usually give people a chance to take a second look. Which I did in this case. And yes, it’s possible that it was just a misunderstanding and by pointing out his misunderstanding in the form of a challenge, I put him on the defensive so he was unwilling to lose face by admitting his mistake.
Why is it necessary (or desirable) to put somebody on the defensive? There’s no “debate scoreboard” here, nor are any of us campaigning in an election of any kind.
I would understand if you wanted to _mock_ him, for your own amusement. That’s most of what _ **I** _ do around here, after all.
Besides, you don’t have to “give people a chance to take a second look”, as though this represents some sort of generous effort on your part - your earlier statements are in the record, to be casually reviewed by anyone who wants to, with no participation on your part required.
> [@](#):
>
> It’s possible that he has lots of intelligent things to say which I will now miss out on. But based on my experience, I doubt it.
Well, for the sake of rapidly “banning” the losers, your approach strikes me as one guaranteed to alienate the intelligent, as well. If your goal happens to be to communicate only with people who always agree with you and thus never feel any pressure to modify your views, I can’t think of a better approach.
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/49 "2011-07-29T17:36:46Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> For people who do not understand me, yes of course.
I understand you totally. You’re an ignorant jerk who is so pathetic he has to resort to a delusional set of rules so you can maintain the fiction that you’re always right.
I’d say you’re an open book, but you’re more of a limerick scrawled on a gas station men’s room wall.
---
### Author:  [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/50 "2011-07-29T18:10:00Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#):
>
> Wow, that little list of people he’s “banned” formally written up is pretty odd.
Being the only one to respond to your own blog is odd. This guy lives a sad little life.
---
### Author:  [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/51 "2011-07-29T18:14:40Z")
One day he may slip up, break a rule, and ban himself.
---
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/52 "2011-07-29T19:56:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> So what if they take a second look and decide that, yes, their interpretation is indeed justified?
Then I will consider their justification. If it is reasonable, I will let go of the issue. Otherwise, goodbye.
> [@](#):
>
> Why is it necessary (or desirable) to put somebody on the defensive? There’s no “debate scoreboard” here, nor are any of us campaigning in an election of any kind.
I enjoy it. There are two reasons I debate with people: First, to learn, and second because I enjoy the competitive aspect of it.
> [@](#):
>
> Besides, you don’t have to “give people a chance to take a second look”, as though this represents some sort of generous effort on your part - your earlier statements are in the record, to be casually reviewed by anyone who wants to, with no participation on your part required.
I’m not sure what your point is here. I prefer to debate fairly, which usually means giving people a chance. But I am also competitive so I do it in an aggressive way.
> [@](#):
>
> Well, for the sake of rapidly “banning” the losers, your approach strikes me as one guaranteed to alienate the intelligent, as well. If your goal happens to be to communicate only with people who always agree with you and thus never feel any pressure to modify your views, I can’t think of a better approach.
What difference does it make if I alienate people? This is not a social club. On the internet, there are always intelligent people willing to argue with me in an honest way. Besides, there are many places where I post and debate and enforce my “rules” and there isn’t this sort of negative reaction. (I’m not going to name them but I’m sure you could find them.)
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/53 "2011-07-29T20:10:02Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> Then I will consider their justification. If it is reasonable, I will let go of the issue. Otherwise, goodbye.
But you’re not really asking for the justification, as I read it.
1. You: [statement]
2. They: [observation on your statement]
3. You: Go back and read my statement again.
4. They: We did, and make the same observation.
My suggestion is that step 3 be:
1. You: [clarification of earlier statement specifically addressing perceived errors in the observation]
> [@](#):
>
> I enjoy it. There are two reasons I debate with people: First, to learn, and second because I enjoy the competitive aspect of it.
That doesn’t really answer my question of why to try putting them on the defensive. Personally, I find it more challenging and interesting when they’re trying to put _me_ on the defensive, but of course we all have our own tastes.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m not sure what your point is here. I prefer to debate fairly, which usually means giving people a chance. But I am also competitive so I do it in an aggressive way.
But you said specifically (and I trust quoting you exactly is in keeping with the nature of this discussion) that “This is why I usually give people a chance to take a second look.” You’re giving them a chance to review (i.e. to take a second look at) your earlier statements? Your statements are on public display. Chances to review them are not yours to give or take. I suppose you could say something along the lines of “I won’t respond to your objection at this time to give you a chance to reconsider it” which strikes me as a slightly less presumptuous to go about it.
> [@](#):
>
> What difference does it make if I alienate people? This is not a social club. On the internet, there are always intelligent people willing to argue with me in an honest way. Besides, there are many places where I post and debate and enforce my “rules” and there isn’t this sort of negative reaction. (I’m not going to name them but I’m sure you could find them.)
I won’t be looking, but thanks and good luck. I did my best.
---
### Author:  [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/54 "2011-07-29T20:38:31Z")
I would argue with…someone…(I haven’t really read enough of the thread to figure out who I disagree with) but I just checked my ATP budget for the day, and found out I don’t have enough energy to finish this sente
---
### Author:  [@SherwoodAnderson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SherwoodAnderson)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/55 "2011-07-29T20:42:08Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> I agree, and I have been on both sides of these kinds of misunderstandings. Of course, when somebody conveniently exaggerates one’s position, I become skeptical of their good faith. **However, I usually give people a chance to support or retract their claim about my position, which I did in this case.**
You’re in fact misrepresenting (by omission) the offer you presented me.
Your offer was to support (by way of “quote me.”) or retract **and** apologize. But apologizing entails a tacit admission of bad faith and intention to straw-man you.
So, let’s assume for the sake of argument, **brazil84** , that my intention was in fact not to misrepresent your argument but to summarize it as I understood it. What is a reasonable way for me to proceed here, faced with your challenge?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/56 "2011-07-29T21:09:33Z")
I’ll cheerfully admit that Sherwood has more succinctly asked the question I had in mind but did not articulate well.
---
### Author:  [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/57 "2011-07-29T21:18:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> But you’re not really asking for the justification, as I read it.
I think the request is implicit when I ask the person to show me where I supposedly made the claim in question and to quote me.
> [@](#):
>
> Chances to review them are not yours to give or take.
I’m not sure I see your point here. I gave **Sherwood Anderson** a chance to support or retract his statement before banning him, agreed?
> [@](#):
>
> I won’t be looking, but thanks and good luck. I did my best.
You too.
---
### Author:  [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/58 "2011-07-29T21:23:06Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> Then I will consider their justification. If it is reasonable, I will let go of the issue. Otherwise, goodbye.
Liar. You don’t ever consider anything that might have to do with you being unclear or ambiguous. Never once have I seen you ever say “I was unclear, let me clarify.” All you ever do is post bullshit and then blame other people for your own shortcomings and inabilities.
---
### Author:  [@SherwoodAnderson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SherwoodAnderson)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/59 "2011-07-29T21:23:14Z")
> [@brazil84](#):
>
> I gave **Sherwood Anderson** a chance to support or retract his statement before banning him, agreed?
Butting in here, sorry.
No. The offer was support or retract **and** apologize.
---
### Author:  [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)
#### Post date: [July 29, 2011, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687/60 "2011-07-29T21:23:41Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Besides, you don’t have to “give people a chance to take a second look”, as though this represents some sort of generous effort on your part - your earlier statements are in the record, to be casually reviewed by anyone who wants to, with no participation on your part required.
The real conceit here is not that he is being generous, but that his posts are worth reading twice.
(ETA: Actually, this doesn’t even need to be an insult —how many posts by anybody really are worth reading twice?)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-brazil84-for-his-rules-of-debate-quote-me-bailing-out-nothing-new-under-the-sun/590687.md?page=4)