Some kind of logic.

[jonesy]

Person B: Where two people fight, two people are to blame. It's that simple. If you are faced with someone that wants to hurt you, you have the obligation to solve the conflict in a non-violent way. Like Gandhi.

Person A: ...

The discussion degenerated fairly quickly after that. Person A was a bit stumped and couldn't find the words for a proper rebut.

He could have pointed out that Gandhi didn't rule out violent self-defense. He did say that it should always be the second choice, right after non-violence. If non-violence fails you need other methods of self-defense. But you should always practise better ways to make non-violence the better option.

 

[Welverin]

The discussion degenerated fairly quickly after that. Person A was a bit stumped and couldn't find the words for a proper rebut.

Well if that's accurate, there may well have been nothing that could have been said that would have made a difference.

 

[Starman]

What do you call it when someone ignores a number of facts pertaining to the argument and to give weight to their side they bring in examples that are only tangentially related to the debate?

Losing the argument.

 

[El Mahdi]

...Argumentum Verbosium...

There's no way that's real. You took that from a Harry Potter book didn't you?

 

[Joker]

Well if that's accurate, there may well have been nothing that could have been said that would have made a difference.

Poor choice of words on my part. The discussion didn't degenerate in a mean-spirited way but both partiess more or less decided on agreeing to disagree.

I have better examples of what I was talking about in the opening post but those all involve politics. And while no-one cares about Dutch politics or the people involved I still think it would cause itchy ban-hammer fingers .

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I tend to call that "The Internet".

 

[Janx]

Thanks for the quick and helpful replies. Those links have succinct descriptions of what I was trying to learn.

This thread was sparked by a discussion on the use of violence with regards to self-defense and defense of others.

Without going into specific politics the discussion is translated from Dutch and went like this:

Person A: While I abhor violence, I do feel that in some cases where an immediate solution is needed to protect one self, proportional violence is justified. It may very well be the least desirable response, it is unfortunately the only morally responsible course of action when faced with a threat to your life or the lives of those around you.

Person B: No, that's not true. Violence breeds violence and it doesn't solve anything. Look at all the people in the world suffering from violent regimes or in history that have lost their lives because of violence.

Person A: The discussion at hand is about the right to protect your physical body from harm. It has nothing to do with the plight of other people. I am dumbfounded to be honest that I have to defend this school of thought.

Person B: Where two people fight, two people are to blame. It's that simple. If you are faced with someone that wants to hurt you, you have the obligation to solve the conflict in a non-violent way. Like Gandhi.

Person A: ...

The discussion degenerated fairly quickly after that. Person A was a bit stumped and couldn't find the words for a proper rebut.


-Tymon

Scott adams just wrote about this in his blog. It's called the High Ground Maneuver
Scott Adams Blog: High Ground Maneuver 07/19/2010

basically, up the scope of the discussion. In this case, where the topic was about reluctantly using minimal violence to defend one's very life, the opponent took the high ground that all violence is wrong and raised the scope to beyond the individual's immediate scenario.

Once this happens, it's next to impossible to bring the discussion back down.

 

[MarkB]

Scott adams just wrote about this in his blog. It's called the High Ground Maneuver
Scott Adams Blog: High Ground Maneuver 07/19/2010

basically, up the scope of the discussion. In this case, where the topic was about reluctantly using minimal violence to defend one's very life, the opponent took the high ground that all violence is wrong and raised the scope to beyond the individual's immediate scenario.

Once this happens, it's next to impossible to bring the discussion back down.

Or simply "arguing at cross-purposes". Person A is saying that, in order to preserve one's life, one may occasionally have to sacrifice total pacifism. Person B is saying that, in order to preserve total pacifism, one may occasionally (well, once) have to sacrifice one's life.

 

[Bullgrit]

Person B: If you are faced with someone that wants to hurt you, you have the obligation to solve the conflict in a non-violent way.

It's amazing that natural selection hasn't caused this idea to become extinct.

Bullgrit

 

[Mark CMG]

It's amazing that natural selection hasn't caused this idea to become extinct.

Not so amazing since civilization is in part based on the concept that a minority of its members can violently defend the right of the majority to remain pacifistic. It's also analogous to the moderation concept on most message boards.