Some of what you say is reasonable matter-of-opinion stuff, if a bit trite (catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and so on), and I think that’s fair enough. But your logical arguments, though perhaps superficially convincing to some, really don’t bear up to a bit of examination and thought.
Still important to belittle people you're exchanging with? Or is that just for my benefit?
I'm fully aware that you consider yourself superior. I'm not going to forget it, either - so you don't really have to belittle my statements.
If you want to make an impression - or you want a productive exchange - you can simply focus on rational arguments.
The rest will not help the outcome.
As some have mentioned, here you are still trying to misrepresent the argument. In an attempt to create the charge of “moralising”, you portray the matter as sitting in absolute judgment of the man, and deeming that he ought to be stripped of the ability to make a living. That is, of course, a strawman, and there is a not only a categorical difference between that and responding negatively to poor behavior, but there is also an entirely rational basis for non-cooperation in the face of bad behavior.
No, I'm trying to understand what you're saying.
Now, taken in isolation, what this shows is that it can be rational to harm the other – your best bet, moral considerations aside, is to treat the other badly.
I'm talking about minimal harm and maximum benefit. If you harm in the name of greater benefit - the total outcome is benefit, not harm. Get it?
In your example, choice is severely limited - so if whatever outcome represents minimal harm, that would be rational. Doing more harm than that, would be irrational. Obviously given the ability to determine the outcome.
As in, we can't blame people for doing harm when it's beyond their ability to predict. So, the question of rationality becomes irrelevant in such cases.
Now, the question of what constitutes bad behavior in our context is a different matter, and we can discuss, but what I’m trying to show you is that “punishing” behavior that we consider negative for ourselves or our society has entirely rational basis, even you take a consequentialist view, and (in my case) is not motivated by some nasty high-handed sense of terrible retribution.
The thing I think you're missing, is that what you consider "lesser harm" - I consider potentially "more harm" - and as such, I think you're being irrational.
This is based on the assumption that you've thought your actions - or inactions - through.
Obviously, if you haven't done that - I don't think irrationality is the problem, necessarily.
In terms of defining "bad" behavior in Cleve's case (ignoring for a moment broken assurances and so on), I would argue that abusive behavior on the internet IS of consequence, and I think that the facts support that rather obviously.
Again, I think you missed the part of my argument where I said I believed that "punishing" Cleve by not supporting him would lead to absolutely no benefit of any kind.
Once again, I'm saying that the only POTENTIAL way to do "good" or benefit here would be to support Cleve, and in turn give him recognition. That has a chance, however small, of improving his mindset and outcome in terms of future actions. I think recognition is what he craves most of all.
That's my opinion, though - nothing more.
I would be very interested for you to explain your arguments further, to justify those statements.
You have to be more specific. What don't you understand about them?
Also, what do you mean by justifying them? As in, making you agree with them? I doubt I can do that.
