Arguing with suicide bombers Hrush
Human beings love to engage each other in debate, it’s just part of our genetic makeup. And, most of the time, engaging in debate and discussion is a very useful and productive activity. Discussions prove useful as long as the parties involved in the discussion remain open minded and rational.
Staying open minded, by definition, implies that if someone is logically able to convince you that what you are saying is incorrect, you are willing and able to change your mind in order to agree with them. Staying rational throughout the discussion implies that you are willing to consider opposing viewpoints objectively, leaving your biases aside.
For the most part, it is worth spending time discussing and debating things. There is, however, a specific type of person with whom it is generally useless to discuss anything–someone who is neither open minded nor rational.
Arguing with this particular kind of person, is about as fruitful as arguing with a suicide bomber. Now, I’ve never personally had a debate with a real suicide bomber, but I imagine that suicide bombers of all shapes and sizes are neither open minded nor rational.
It makes no sense, whatsoever, to spend your time debating things with a suicide bomber, because you will never change their mind.
The problem with suicide bomber types is that they are completely impervious to data, logic, evidence, anecdote or any other device by which you may choose to persuade a reasonable human being; nothing you say will change their mind. For suicide bomber types, their own conviction alone is enough to make something absolutely true.
Here’s how to recognise a suicide bomber in the middle of a debate:
- Passionate, to the point of being rabid, about whatever they believe in
- Willing to get all kinds of heated in pushing their point of view
- Offers very little in terms of data and evidence to back up their opinion
- Brushes aside all logical counterpoints to their arguments as irrelevant
- Keeps taking things out of context to point out your fallacies
- Draws completely illogical conclusions from what you say to detract from the main discussion
- Treats any opposition as a personal attack
- The reason they’re right and you’re wrong is that “You are not enlightened enough to understand”
- Starts spitting while speaking (with some, you may even notice foam build-up around the corners of the mouth)
The next time you’re in a heated debate with someone, consider whether they display some of the characteristics listed above. If you find you’re arguing with a suicide bomber, cut your losses and run–best to be very far away when the bomb goes off.
now that’s a nice way to conclude your twitter debate. RUN.
wow. did u serve weed to DFJ and KPCB to get funding? coz they must have been smoking up, to fund someone with such little patience like you.
oh, and did i forget – you are a douchebag.
LOL
rajiv–actually @rakesh314 (on Twitter) is hardly the kind of person we’ve described above, he’s usually well reasoned, articulate and rational.
And, yes, name calling makes for a particularly strong argument and is a sign of great maturity.
Nice cover up. OFCOURSE you weren’t referring to @rakesh314. It just so happens that you argue it out with him in the morning and then write this post in the afternoon. No relation whatsover. Ofcourse.
And I didn’t even talk about your maturity levels YET. This is your official avataar. If THIS retaliatory behavior is your level of maturity on your OFFICIAL channel of communication, I shudder to think what it would be in your personal media.
Lastly, Maturity is not just about name calling. Name calling is immature, no doubt. But not half as immature as couching your disgust in nicely worded blogs. And this is not the first time you have done it.
Your hero worship of Steve Jobs is limited to pathetic people skills, is it?
rajiv — Actually, the "suicide bomber" post has been in my head for some time. There’s people I’ve talked to at least 3 weeks ago about it. But I won’t expect you to change your mind, so I think it’s best for me to take the advice in the last paragraph of the post.
All the best Hrush Sir. I know you are much better than Steve Jobs. This Rajiv guy works in my office. He is just jealous of you.
hmmmmm. interesting blog hrush. will back you up on the the fact that this has been in your mind for some time. Have to add, though, that some of those characteristics sound remarkably self-descriptive. food for thought maybe……
I’d rename this archetype the echo-bomber dude good luck.
What did I miss ??
Hrush,
Thanks for clarifying that this is not in response to our debate on twitter. It’s hard to believe it’s not, but I’ll trust you here. If it is, Rajiv is right that this is a new low for this blog, but again, I hope it isn’t. FWIW, I like this blog occasionally, and don’t want to see it deteriorate.
So, while we are on the topic, here are a few more points I think will make a great addition to that list, from my observations:
* actually launches a personal attack on the person at any time during the argument, usually on the person’s lack of logic (not necessarily a suicide bomber, many kids do this as well. Unless you want to have kiddie arguments, keep away.)
* changes topic of discussion before a logical conclusion has been reached in the previous one, and then insists that the topic has changed and that they now talk about the new topic (I’ve seen so many do this – used primarily as an escape hatch)
* uses quotations, not really to put a point across, but done as a variation of the first point. (The thought sometimes being: "Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur", or "Anything said in Latin sounds profound")
I’m not sure if being passionate itself is wrong. There can’t be a good argument if both sides aren’t passionate. I agree with you though that unless either side can justify their passion, it’s easy to say that they are passionate to the point of being rabid. Usually though, the moment a point has been made, agreement and resolution follows. If agreement hasn’t followed, clearly the point hasn’t been made.
And then, one of the points I’ve made above follows quickly.