- Nov 10, 2013
- 1,689
- 569
- 113
- Faith
- Other Faith
- Country
- United States
Where does one draw the line between skill and deception?
In a card game, a skilled player can easily win most, if not all; hands. The loser will inevitably accuse the winner of cheating. The fact is that the game is stacked against the dullard. It may not be fair, but is it cheating?
Could the same hold true with argumentation? A skilled sophist can run circles around the imbecile, but is this wrong, or unethical? Why? What if the imbecile is looking to improve his skills or, perhaps more accurately; to develop them?
If one doesn't understand the argument, is the best course to just censor discussion? What if bystanders are offended? What if they are simply unable to even articulate why they're offended? Is this feeling of general offense sufficient enough to warrant the complete cessation of discussion? If so, why?
If one see's the true path, should they be forced to walk a false path because others don't think it fair to take what they characterize as a "shortcut"? If they are unable to see the true path, are they not already deceived?
Thinking becomes a problem when one doesn't know how to think critically. When one is presented with "facts", which are then thrown into new and innovative situations they are unable to adapt to those new situations without pronouncing judgements based on what they've been told. For example: Given that marriage is a good thing, and divorce is a bad thing, when divorce occurs, marriage is its antidote. Jesus denies this nonsense by plainly stating the exact opposite; divorce is allowed for those who aren't cut out for marriage (e.g. "the hard-hearted"), this does not negate the fact that they were married, and therefore for them to remarry is adultery.
The deceived cannot allow the shortest distance between two points, they must create or allow for longer paths.
One card counter could put a Casino out of business, therefore the Casino must "even" the "odd" by adding decks of cards to the game. Even with this evening of the playing field, the card counters must bounce from Casino to Casino changing disguises in order to not draw attention to themselves. Here a deception is perpetrated in order to conceal a skill. The Casino knows that there is no deception in counting cards. They know that they will be out of business if this is allowed to continue, therefore they do not allow card counters to play.
In argumentation or debate the stakes are just as high for to lose the discussion is to lose face; to lose one's perceived reputation; to lose their good name. The only glaring difference is that closing the discussion would be equivalent to closing the Casino. Casinos can see that keeping the doors open is more important than losing some money once in a while.
Were it so in discussion and debate, the truth would be more important rather than concealing the ignorance of others.
In a card game, a skilled player can easily win most, if not all; hands. The loser will inevitably accuse the winner of cheating. The fact is that the game is stacked against the dullard. It may not be fair, but is it cheating?
Could the same hold true with argumentation? A skilled sophist can run circles around the imbecile, but is this wrong, or unethical? Why? What if the imbecile is looking to improve his skills or, perhaps more accurately; to develop them?
If one doesn't understand the argument, is the best course to just censor discussion? What if bystanders are offended? What if they are simply unable to even articulate why they're offended? Is this feeling of general offense sufficient enough to warrant the complete cessation of discussion? If so, why?
If one see's the true path, should they be forced to walk a false path because others don't think it fair to take what they characterize as a "shortcut"? If they are unable to see the true path, are they not already deceived?
Thinking becomes a problem when one doesn't know how to think critically. When one is presented with "facts", which are then thrown into new and innovative situations they are unable to adapt to those new situations without pronouncing judgements based on what they've been told. For example: Given that marriage is a good thing, and divorce is a bad thing, when divorce occurs, marriage is its antidote. Jesus denies this nonsense by plainly stating the exact opposite; divorce is allowed for those who aren't cut out for marriage (e.g. "the hard-hearted"), this does not negate the fact that they were married, and therefore for them to remarry is adultery.
The deceived cannot allow the shortest distance between two points, they must create or allow for longer paths.
One card counter could put a Casino out of business, therefore the Casino must "even" the "odd" by adding decks of cards to the game. Even with this evening of the playing field, the card counters must bounce from Casino to Casino changing disguises in order to not draw attention to themselves. Here a deception is perpetrated in order to conceal a skill. The Casino knows that there is no deception in counting cards. They know that they will be out of business if this is allowed to continue, therefore they do not allow card counters to play.
In argumentation or debate the stakes are just as high for to lose the discussion is to lose face; to lose one's perceived reputation; to lose their good name. The only glaring difference is that closing the discussion would be equivalent to closing the Casino. Casinos can see that keeping the doors open is more important than losing some money once in a while.
Were it so in discussion and debate, the truth would be more important rather than concealing the ignorance of others.
