Argument

My girl posted a thing on Facebook today that reads:  You can lead a human to knowledge but you can't make him think, with the picture of a horse standing to the side.  If's funny, it's non-partisan and arguably doesn't invite any particular response.  It could be taken in any number of ways, including political, ethnic, sporting, educational, etc.

One of Karen's friends from high school posted the following in response to the original post:

That's why one percent of the people are rich and the other 99 percent don't think.

Not being entirely sure what was meant by that, but knowing that (a) I'm not rich but (b) I think, I found the statement a little broad, so I posted:

I think it's a pretty broad generalization to say that because 1% of the people are rich, the other 99% don't think.  There is no direct correlation between riches and thinking, although it can be argued that thoughtful people make more money.  Heirs, dumb luck, gamblers, athletes whose collective IQ's are in the double digits -- I can point to plenty of dumb or lucky people who are rich through no thoughtfulness.  On the flip side, there are plenty of thoughtful people who are middle class or even lower class, economically.

If I say so myself, that's hardly an antagonistic reply, although I certainly disagree with the original post strongly.  It certainly leaves the door open to a counter, perhaps even some statistics that show the fallacy of my argument.  In no way was it offensive; calling a statement broad is by no means insulting; courts do it all the time when addressing legislation that infringes on private rights.  Whatever I was expecting as a reply, I didn't think this was going to be it:

XXXXXX get a life I have free speech so shut the f*** up.

Well.

First of all, I think the reply was disproportionate.  I never said the original poster didn't have the right to post what he wanted to post, no matter how stupid.  I simply challenged the assertions he made and for that I was told not to infringe his right to free speech and to shut up.

There are, second, lessons to be learned from this exchange:

1.  If an argument is to be had, use proper grammar and punctuation. Technically, he should have written:

XXXXXX get a life.  I'm entitled to free speech, so shut the f**** up.

The lack of proper grammar and punctuation tends to muddle the message and detracts from the message. I've never thought of free speech as a possession as much as it's a right to be exercised.

Third, don't swear.  If there's a linguistic equivalent to Godwin's Law, it's swearing.  The first person who swears has basically lost his cool and odds are will lose the argument.

Fourth, don't tell someone else to do something as if one is the parent.  I know for me, being told what to do by someone in my age group simply adds to my perception that that person is my inferior.  I can't remember the last time I actually abided by someone's instruction to do something in an argument.  It's one thing to suggest to an opponent to check out a fact, to read an article or to watch a video or film.  It's quite another to tell someone to shut up, to sit down or to perform an unnatural and physically impossible act.

Fifth, don't leave gaping holes in the argument being asserted that provides an opening to counterattack.  To wit:

Get a life?  That's a pithy retort.  You post an inanity like that and expect it to go unchallenged? And who do you think you are to order me to do anything? What's funny is that the same right to free speech that you hoist for yourself you would deny to me.  You mistakenly think I'm the government infringing on your First Amendment rights, because the First Amendment doesn't apply to private citizens.  So, I renew my statement:  Your initial post is overly broad (another legal concept:  you can look it up) and therefore must fail scrutiny.

One cannot assert a right that is common to every American citizen and then try to deny the same right to the opponent.    Which leads to the sixth suggestion -- make sure what is being discussed is familiar.  In our example, my interlocutor would have me respect his right to post something while at the same time he tried to deny me my right to do the same thing.  He also can't assert the First Amendment because, as I'm not a government or governmental employee, it has no applicability to the issue at hand.

So in thirteen short words, one of which was my name, my opponent screwed the pooch.  Not surprisingly, the coward hasn't returned to argue. Perhaps he's busy, perhaps he's looking up words in the dictionary still, although my last post was about an hour ago.  He may well return, in which case the battle will be renewed. Somehow, I doubt it.  Because I think that whatever else he may not have learned from our little exchange, he may have learned what is perhaps the most invaluable lesson:

Don't bring a knife to a nuclear war.

(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles