An Argument for Argument

B

ased on my window into the world, (aka my Facebook news feed and buzzfeed), I've noticed over the past couple of years that it has become quite in vogue to berate one group or another for things like . . . well, basically anything that has someone upset. Vaccine arguments are one of my favorite perpetrators. As a man, I notice that my particular group gets picked on quite a lot too. Some of it may be deserved, and much of it seeks to make the world a better place. Some of it is quite well done. But here’s the thing: the arguments are too often not arguments. They’re often just point-proving rants. The problem is that it misses the idea of what argument about: people sharing ideas and understanding them together.

Argument is not a fight. Argument is not about me being right and you being wrong. It is supposed to be deliberative, thoughtful, self-analyzing and searching.

But too often what we get is “A thing has happened and it is evidence that my whole group is downtrodden and beaten up because of it. Pillage the other group that caused this! Get the Pitchforks! To the pillory!” The result is that the world becomes a little bit worse with each article like this. Hurt and anger are flamed and half-cooked ideas are spread about like a toddler making brownie batter.

So before you hit your next bit of click-bait that starts with a title like “Stop shaming for this thing,” or “They’re taking away our rights,” take a gander at these ground rules for deliberative argument. Test the article against these principles. I find that when I apply them in conversation and in thinking I tend to come out ahead. I also tend to find when someone is violating these ground rules willy-nilly, that there is probably reason for questioning their argument and their conclusions.

Perhaps later on I’ll do up an example using some hot topic that’s in my feed.

The Rules of the Game

Ground Rule 1: You're Wrong.

Be ready to accept you’re wrong. I’ll do the same -- I often am. You bring something to the table (in article form, I will do my best to bring other’s arguments in) and I’ll bring something to the table too. We’ve probably both got a point. We’re probably both mistaken here and there. We both probably have a terribly inaccurate picture of the other side. Prepare for that to change. Hope for that to change.

The Rule: Add to the “shared pool of meaning” first. Explain your point, back up your point, don’t try to prove your point. Be willing to add another’s point to your understanding.

Ground Rule 2: Argue about the same thing
You see, when I say “modesty” or “sexuality” or even “chocolate shake” I mean something, almost certainly, very different from what you think when you say those words. I take all my experiences with those words and it’s associated ideas and wrap them up in a package. Religion, lectures, dress codes, tasty treats, anger, unfairness, the thrill of extra oreos, etc and blend them all together. That’s the meaning that I have. I naturally tend to assume you have the same blender full of tasty meaning. But you couldn't possibly have all that same meaning. The opposite tends to be true as well -- you probably think I know or share your meaning mash-up. You’re probably just as wrong as me on that one.

You see, to me a chocolate shake is a drink. To my girlfriend, it is a thick cup of soft serve with mix-ins. When she and I discuss milk shakes, we have to be pretty explicit or you end up talking about two separate things. So it goes with more serious topics.

Be wary of arguments that use terms to mean one thing and then switch it to another meaning. Also be wary of arguments that don't give clues to what their terms mean.

By the way, if the word ends in “-ism” you can practically guarantee everyone thinks it means something different.

The Rule: I will try to explain what I mean when I use important terms. You will do your best to understand what meaning I am trying to convey. In turn, I will do my best to understand other potential understandings of the term. Don't switch the meaning part way through.

Ground Rule 3: Language is imperfect

“All” and “Every” is rarely accurately used and is often just something you say to emphasize your point. I’m probably going to say things like, “everyone likes treats” or “we’re all interesting people” neither of which are guaranteed true statements. But unless you’re being pedantic beyond all reason or you just like to be a pain, you know that I’m trying to explain a reasonably generic, reasonably true starting point and also define the group I’m talking about. I could make a loophole, “We’re all interesting people, except for Garrett who is as dull as dishwater, except for those who like dishwater…” Don’t try and take advantage of the difference between what they clearly were trying to express and the foibles in their words. Don't let others make arguments that do it.

The Rule: Don’t be pedantic. It makes things long and unreadable.

Ground Rule 4: You can’t change the fact pattern

If we establish that vanilla ice cream is our base for chocolate shakes, then it remains that way throughout the argument. You can’t later say that shakes are bad because they have chocolate ice cream. Here’s a more real-world example: you can’t establish out that you can use sexy attire to seduce someone then claim that the other person shouldn't be affected by sexy clothing. (Yes, that's a very incomplete argument, but in a vacuum I think you understand the example. - see rule 3.) That’s a change in fact pattern and it’s not allowed. When you see this you can be confident that the argument is flawed and possibly invalid.

The Rule: Fact patterns need to be consistent. If they change, you have to start the whole argument over again using the new fact pattern. Your previous arguments must now be re-proven. (The same goes for changing definition of terms in rule 2.)

Ground Rule 5: Objectivity and disinterest
Three people are looking at a glass. The optimist says it’s half full. The pessimist says it’s half empty. The engineer says it is completely full, 50% water and 50% air. The engineer is what rhetoricians call “dispassionate” or “disinterested”. He is stating it the way it is, not colored by his personal feelings on the matter.

This is really, really hard to do, especially when you feel -- you know you’re right. But here’s the reality of making an argument: the person who “knows” they’re right is the least persuasive and the least compelling. Extreme positions are very unpersuasive. Why? Because if you’re not willing to listen to and adjust your ideas based on my experience, why would anyone else give you that courtesy? If you’re capable of moderating your own stance, you’ll be able to add other’s information to your argument and make it better. As a nice side benefit, they are far more likely to do the same.

The Rule: Try to put your desired outcome aside while advocating your point. It makes your point stronger and helps others understand your ideas.

You’re now preped to make an argument and see how other arguments stack up. To Facebook!
*The comments section is (not) reserved for people demonstrating my points by sadly ironic example.

Sometimes an explanation only makes things worse

I was looking through some photos from my trip around Asia this past summer and there are some gems in here too good not to share. This won't be a post about the trip in general - if you want to read about tiger snuggling, rafting the River Kwai, or being (kinda) in North Korea, well, that's another blog post.

Let's set the tone:

Let me be clear, I have absolutely no idea why a hummer is driving two giant, half-naked robot women things around Tokyo. But not knowing is part of the fun.

The great Mexican resort town of Seoul, Korea: 

So close ... but no. I'm just not sure it's legit.

Look at the ice cream. Now look at the tag line. Some McDonald's exec thinks he's hilarious.

(He is hilarious)

Maybe a Japanese treat is more your style:

Mmmmm....Calorie block.

Not into the Calorie Mate? How about nice California roll?

Everyone thinks the Great Wall of China Looks like this:

But it actually looks more like this:

But really, it looks like this. Yum.

Beijing is a jogger's paradise.

Malaysia has good safety tips:

And you can almost always remember the name of the place you're going to:

What, I don't get it. Why is that funny?

Or get someone to give you directions. 

Can you please tell me where to find i-n-s-line thing-dancer-bracket-squiggle?

(Thankfully taxis all over the world know to stop for white people who look confused.) 

At hotes I wonder about how eager they are to give you wifi access

But even the worst of hotel stays can be made better with some genuine Korean Karaoke!

And as my friends found, you can sleep nearly anywhere.

Just watch your step

(Land Mines)

Keep your gas mask ready

And always remember to try and blend in:

Three Reasons Why the TSA is Wrong

If you've gone through TSA's new screening procedures you're likely to have an opinion on them. Some people don't think it's a big deal. Some are concerned about their health, and for others it's an issue of privacy. I was compelled to do a full body scan and a pat down before the new regulations were in place, and I have my opinions on these techniques. In short, I'm not a happy camper with the TSA. We've got some real issues here. These activities can be argued (and I am about to argue) to be in violation of many constitutional rights. Many have argued that they are totally ineffective, nothing more than a veritable dog and pony show to make people feel safer. Still further are arguments that they are rather Orwellian procedures. I'd like to take a few minutes and tackle some of these arguments head on.

One: Constitutional Issues

First, the very real Constitutional issue and the right to travel. I realize that there are really two constitutional questions here.
1) Do you have the right to travel as a US citizen and where, if anywhere, could the government abridge that right?
2) Does air travel fall within the purview of that right if it exists?

I'm going to address both at once, although honestly I think the second one is kind of silly. Nevertheless, I've heard it enough times that I feel like I have to contend with it.

I've read several comments and quotes from around the internets that suggest that travel isn't a right. Phrases like "You don't have to get on a plane" abound. There's this article that quotes a man as saying, "'Travel is not a birth-given right. It’s a choice. And it’s up to our government to make sure we’re safe while we do it.' He called Opt Out Day 'the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.'"

First off, let me correct this misconception now. If you're not a criminal convicted of a crime (or legitimately held under due process) you have the right to travel. Period. For details, keep reading.

But let's begin with the economic argument: Flying isn't just for fun, it is a critical part of our interstate and international commerce. The right to conduct interstate commerce is upheld over and over in a surfeit of circumstances by the Supreme Court. Still, you could argue that you don't have to use air travel to conduct your interstate commerce. True, you don't have to unless you live in America in the 21st century where air travel is a very important part of business. To suggest you don't have to travel is to suggest that you don't have to compete with other businesses using commonplace travel methods. As Art Carden argues in his OpEd in Forbes, "The TSA stands between me and those with whom I would like to trade, and I am not allowed to without their blessing."


Next up, let's consider that travel is considered by the Supreme Court to be a right.

And not just any right, but one that has been called, " virtually unconditional" (see quotes below).

357 U.S. 116 (1958) KENT v. DULLES(481)
Justice Douglas writes in the Court's opinion, "The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." In a nutshell he says that unless you are a criminal and have done something wrong the U.S. government does not have right to restrict you from any kind of travel.

Of course he gave an example of an exception to this liberty. Douglas writes that there are situations where the Government believed there was, "the gravest imminent danger to the public safety" which made legitimate curtailing some American's liberty to travel. However, he is specifically referring to the US sending Japanese Americans to internment camps during World War II. Oh, yeah, that thing.

If you're wondering if I just drew a parallel between full body scanners, pat downs and incarcerating American citizens, you're right. I did.

Let me drive this point home with one more quote from Kent v. Dulles

"Where activities or enjoyment, natural and often necessary to the well-being of an American citizen, such as travel, are involved, we will construe narrowly all delegated powers that curtail or dilute them. . . . We hesitate to find in this broad generalized power an authority to trench so heavily on the rights of the citizen."

Not only does this speak strongly to the limits to which the government can curtail travel, it says that it is a very narrow range on how travel can be curtailed. This case is specifically about a passport, but it clearly applies to any instrument related to making travel possible.



If you still think that travel can be restricted by the feds (or states for that matter - thank you 14th amendment) consider these:

In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966): the court said regarding travel that, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized."

Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart on travel: "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." (Check out http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html for some light reading on things you probably didn't realize about the Constitution.)


Two: MacGyver Could Blow That Plane Up With a Slinky in his Rectum
-or-
That Isn't Going to Stop Anything
-or-
TSA: the story of Pyrrhic victories


This is the section I'm most concerned with writing. As a kid I had a religious leader who worked for "the company" in a previous life. He wasn't a spook per se, but he did tell me about his job as some sort of doomsday situation comer-upper-with guy. Basically he sat in a room and thought of ways people could attack the U.S. and probably succeed. Turns out, that isn't a hard job if you play the, "how would someone try to take out this aircraft" game. I'll list a few really easy to spot weaknesses that exist that neither scanners or pat-downs won't catch:

Powdered binary explosives. They'll pass through the x-ray machine just fine. And no one cares about your body powder.

Detonators: You probably think explosives look like a lump of play dough with a switchboard full of wires hanging out of it. Well, you've seen too many movies. They call those "Hollywood Wires" for a reason. It's fake. All a detonator needs to be is something that can ignite easily and set off the main explosive. For military grade stuff like C4 or comp B, etc, you need a bigger charge. They are designed to be highly stable, and don't blow up easily. A SEAL team doesn't want something that goes boom if a stray bullet hits it. So what do you need? A hunk of wire with a chemical that gets really hot on it. "You mean like a match head" you say? Well, yeah, that stuff.

"Couldn't you make that crap at home easily and just coat it on a safety pin, headphones, or any of a thousand objects that are totally fine on a plane?" you ask. Well, no, unless you have access to Google. Oh, you do have Google? Well, crap, then you probably should be under observation by the ATF about now. You've got Google and probably access to everything you need to make the detonators!

Biological Agents: do you know how small coach is? Jet Blue has extra leg room, but seriously, you think it takes more than a couple CCs of some agent in a hairspray can to totally 'eff up a plane of people? Did you forget that Anthrax comes in powder form? "Well, yeah, but how would you spread it on a plane," you ask. Come on, really? You don't think someone who wants to take that kind of a risk couldn't get it past security? Do you really think they couldn't figure out a even kind of effective way of being a promulgator of death?

Chemical agents: see above.

The point is a drunk toddler could get passed our new security measures. And frankly, after being checked out by a TSA agent, I can't blame him for drinking.

Of course, if you can't disguise it and pass it through an x-ray machine, there's always your anus. Which, I believe will be the TSA's new motto for Christmas: "Clean Anus, Safe Flight." I got three letters for all you medical types out there: DRE. (No, it's not a rap reference.)

"But Nate," you ask flustered by my callous attitude towards security, "haven't plots been stopped." Yes! Yes they have. By hard working intelligence officers and analysts. By cargo screeners. By people on the plane.

What if we took some more logical steps like spent more on cargo screening or trained people on the proper use of profiling as Malcolm Gladwell explains here. (Ya know, racial profiling doesn't really work, but profiling can be a useful tool if you do it right.)


Three: The Moral Question: Do Guiding Principles Allow This?

I've always been a big believer that morals aren't just a philosophical or religious guide, but the results of practical application yielding good results. Somewhere along the way someone said, "Hey, I'm a lot happier if I really love, care for and am faithful to my spouse." After a while the idea probably resonated with a few people, and we got a moral. It works for a lot of reasons, and we don't really want to go into happiness here. (The Dalai Lama can help you with that.)

A principle or a moral describes how actions should be done when you can't predict outcomes. They're a kind of metaphysical equation. I don't know for sure where I'll end up if I drive X speed for Y time just by looking. But I can calculate that I'll be X*Y miles down the road. I'll probalby be off by a little distance because cars accelerate and decelerate, roads twist and have bumps. But I have a good idea of what will happen.

Above I discussed the Supreme Court's stance of travel as a fundamental liberty. in this case, I suggest that there are other fundamental principles at play. Unreasonable search, personal privacy, freedom from harassment, and perhaps most importantly the idea that the government serves its people and is subject to those who give it legitimacy.

As one explores these principles, it is pretty clear that most, if not all of them are being violated at some level by the TSA's screening process. Now the question I ask you to answer is where will it go? Do you have an answer? Can you predict? Unless you're Marty McFly, you don't and you can't. The best you have is the formula of these principles. That formula has served us well and still does. Of course, it is not a perfect formula. Moral systems never are. Even math and science formulas and postulates are off the mark by some measure. (Isaac Asimov suggests that we are never much more then "not as wrong" as we were before in most any idea. See The Relativity of Wrong for that philosophical debate.) However, if you violate them, you do so because you think you have a better method. Is a bureaucracy feeling you up and looking at you naked a good formula and principles to which we wish to subscribe?

This part's not for the kids: Let me give you an example of why privacy matters to so many. It may not bother you to have them looking at you naked. It bothers me because I know that someone back there will remember what that sexy 16-year-old girl looked like and will, I promise you, go home and enjoy himself to that mental image. It violates what Michael Shaara described in his novel Killer Angels, as the only Aristocracy that actually exists. It is you; it is in your head. That's what we've got, and it is my feeling that anything that violates that principle, anything that violates that moral is unwise and provides no protection.

Americans have their principles. If you can't solve a problem without trampling on them, you are not the right person for the job.

Violate our principles at your own risk, not mine.