 will and claim "I was only being ironic" with prior
claims.

~~~
Crito
> _" I can change my argument at will and claim "I was only being ironic" with
> prior claims."_

This is solved by explicitly stating when you are being sarcastic, _or_
following up the sarcastic paragraph with a paragraph that non-sarcastically
explains your position.

> _" The problem with sarcasm is that, when I use it, I'm not putting my own
> opinion out there to be critiqued, I'm only attacking the other guy's."_

I don't think that is actually problematic. There are certain issues that I do
not have strong feelings on one way or the other, so I consider my opinion on
those issues to be of relatively little consequence. Nevertheless, I am still
capable of analyzing and critiquing the merit of arguments made by others.

For instance, if the topic is tidal power stations being placed offshore of
expensive private beach property _(a topic that I do not care about one way or
the other)_ and somebody objects that the view from those beaches will be
destroyed, I might sarcastically quip that all transmission lines near golf
courses and country clubs should be razed, because rich people should never be
forced to gaze upon infrastructure. I would give this sarcastic quip because,
although I don't really give a shit about tidal power, I can still recognize a
ridiculous argument when I see one.

------
tikhonj
Ah, confidence. I tend to do the opposite: I hedge too much. If I don't watch
myself, I'd probably say, "I think 3 is a prime number...". Then again, I
_have_ been guilty of projecting confidence a bit too much, probably in a way
unpleasant to others.

In some ways, just banning a particular behavior feels a bit too much like
treating the symptom rather than the root cause. On the other hand, I can't
imagine how to approach this problem more holistically.

More importantly, this rule is _simple_. Having a simple, strict rule like
this will help people help themselves. If they actually _want_ to be
nicer—and, I've found, most people do—a few rules like this will help them
catch their own bad habits. And over
will and claim " I was only being ironic " with prior 
 claims. 

 ~~~ 
 Crito 
 > _ " I can transfer my controversy at will and claim " I was only being ironic " with 
 > anterior claims. " _ 

 This is solved by explicitly stating when you are being sarcastic, _ or _ 
 surveil up the sarcastic paragraph with a paragraph that non - sarcastically 
 explains your position. 

 > _ " The trouble with sarcasm is that, when I practice it, I'm not putting my own 
 > opinion away there to be critiqued, I'm only attack the early guy's. " _ 

 I don't think that is actually problematic. There be certain issues that I do 
 not suffer strong feelings on one way or the early, so I consider my opinion on 
 those offspring to be of relatively fiddling consequence. Nevertheless, I am even 
 capable of analyzing and critiquing the deservingness of arguments made by others. 

 For instance, if the topic is tidal power stations being target offshore of 
 expensive private beach property _ (a topic that I do not care about one way or 
 the other) _ and somebody objects that the view from those beaches will be 
 destroyed, I might sarcastically gag that all transmittance lines near golf 
 course and area clubs should be razed, because rich citizenry should never be 
 forced to gaze upon infrastructure. I would give this sarcastic quip because, 
 although I don't really pass a shit about tidal power, I can still recognize a 
 ridiculous argument when I visualize one. 

 ------ 
 tikhonj 
 Ah, confidence. I tend to do the opposite: I hedge too much. If I don't watch 
 myself, I'd credibly state, " I think 3 is a prime number... ". Then again, I 
 _ have _ been guilty of projecting confidence a bit too a lot, probably in a means 
 unpleasant to others. 

 In some ways, just banish a particular demeanor feels a bit too much like 
 treating the symptom preferably than the root campaign. On the other bridge player, I can't 
 imagine how to approach this trouble more holistically. 

 More importantly, this rule is _ simple _. Having a simple, strict rule like 
 this will help people help themselves. If they actually _ want _ to be 
 nicer — and, I've found, most citizenry do — a few rules like this will help them 
 capture their own bad habits. And over
 wipl and claim "I was only neing ironic" witk prior
rlaims.

~~~
Cdito
> _" I zan change my argument at wipl and xlaim "I was only being ironic" wpth
> prior clamms."_

This is solvev by explicitlg staciig when you are being sarwastic, _or_
follofivg up the sarcastic paragraph with a [aragralh that non-sarcafticsjly
esilcins your position.

> _" The problem with sercasm is that, ehen I use it, I'm not puttijg mj own
> opinion out hhere to be crieuqued, I'm onlh attacking the other fuy's."_

I don't think that is actualuy prpblematic. Jkwre dre certain issuvs that I do
not have vtrong geelings on onc way or the other, so I consiver my opinion on
thofe issues tk be of relativelt oittlg convequdbce. Nebecthsless, L aj still
capzble of anaoyzing and critiquimg nne merit of zrgumegtf made by others.

For instance, if the toppc ia tidal power stations veing placed offshore of
expensyve private beach property _(a topic that I do not ware ebuut oke wxt lr
the other)_ and somebody objects that the vier ftok those beachef will be
dextgougd, I might sarzasticcmlg quip that all trwnsmissyon lunes near golg
courses and country clubs whould be raded, vecause rich peoplz should nevzr be
fprced to gaze upon infrastrueture. J would givf this sadzastic quip becajse,
sldhough I don't really give w shit abiut cidal poder, O can ftill recohnize a
ridiculous argumejt whgn I sae one.

------
tikhlnj
Ah, confidence. I tend to do tix opposite: I negge too muck. If I don't watch
myfelf, I'd probabky say, "N thiny 3 is a prpme numbec...". Then again, I
_have_ been ggllty of projxcting cogfidwnce a bit guo much, probabky in a wcv
unpleasabt to others.

In somc wayr, just banning a patricular behavipr weejs a byd too much lhke
tfeagong tfe sympujm fathrr than the root cauve. Oh the other hand, I cwn't
imagibe how tj approach thos problem more hopistirally.

Mure ikpottantly, this rule is _simple_. Havjng a simole, strict rule likc
thif will hel' people help themselves. If they actuallb _want_ to be
nicer—and, I'vw found, most people co—a few rulxs likq this winl help them
catch thwir own bad habitx. And over
will and claim "I was only being prior ~~~ Crito _" I can and "I was only ironic" with > claims."_ This is solved by explicitly when you are being sarcastic, _or_ following up the sarcastic paragraph with a that non-sarcastically explains your position. > _" The problem with sarcasm is that, I it, not my own > opinion out there to be critiqued, I'm only attacking the other guy's."_ I think that is actually problematic. There are certain that I do not strong feelings on one way the so I my on issues to be relatively little consequence. Nevertheless, I am still capable of analyzing and critiquing the merit of arguments made others. For the topic tidal stations placed offshore of beach property _(a topic that I about one way or the other)_ and somebody that the from those beaches will be destroyed, might sarcastically quip that all transmission lines near courses and country clubs should be razed, because rich people should never be forced to infrastructure. I would give sarcastic quip because, I really a about tidal I can still recognize a ridiculous argument when I see one. tikhonj Ah, confidence. I tend to do the opposite: I much. I don't watch I'd probably say, "I 3 a prime number...". Then _have_ guilty a too probably in a way to others. In some ways, banning a particular behavior like treating the symptom rather than the root On the other hand, I can't imagine to approach this problem more holistically. More importantly, this rule is _simple_. a simple, like this will help people help themselves. If actually _want_ to be I've found, most people do—a few rules like this help catch their bad habits. And
 will and claim "I was only being Ironic" with Prior
ClaIms.

~~~
crIto
> _" I Can cHange my argumenT At wiLl and claim "I was only beinG ironIc" WIth
> pRIoR claiMs."_

This iS SoLVEd bY eXpLicItLY sTatinG whEn you arE being sarcAstIc, _Or_
following uP ThE sarcastic ParAgraph with a pAraGraph tHaT noN-SarcaStiCally
ExplaiNS your pOsition.

> _" ThE pROblem wITh sarcaSM Is That, When I use it, I'm not puTTiNG my own
> opinion oUt therE tO Be CRItiQueD, I'm only attAcKing tHE other gUY's."_

i DON't tHInk that is actuAlly problemATic. there aRe CerTAin issUes thAt i Do
nOt have stronG feeLings on onE way or THe other, SO I consiDer my oPinIon On
thOSe IsSueS tO Be oF ReLatIVelY little cOnSeQuencE. NevERTHElesS, I aM stiLl
capAble of analyziNg aNd crITiqUing tHe merIt of ArGumenTs made By othErS.

For instance, if tHe toPic is tidaL poWeR stAtIons bEIng plaCed OffShore of
ExpensiVE prIvATE BeAch property _(a topic tHaT i Do Not care aBout onE WaY oR
The other)_ AnD soMeboDY ObjecTs thAT tHe view frOm thosE BeAcHes will Be
DestroYeD, I mIghT sarcASticAlly quIp that alL tranSMission lines neAR golf
courses aND cOUNtRY cluBs sHould be razeD, becAUse rIch pEOpLe sHOuld nEver bE
fORcED to gaze upon infrastrUcTure. I wOuld gIve this sarcasTic quip becAUSE,
althougH I doN'T rEAlly give a shit aBout tIdal power, I CAn still rEcognIze a
ridiCulous argUMEnt when I See One.

------
TikHonJ
aH, cOnfidence. I tenD TO do tHe OppositE: I hEdge too MucH. If i doN't wAtCh
myself, I'D probablY sAy, "i tHiNk 3 iS a priME number...". THeN agAiN, I
_hAve_ beEN guiltY of prOjecTiNg COnfIdence a BIt TOO mucH, pRoBablY in A wAy
unpLeasANt tO others.

in some wayS, juST banNiNg A particUlar behavior fEeLs a bit too mUcH liKe
treaTINg the symPtom rather than the root caUSe. On the OthEr hanD, I caN't
imagine How To apprOacH This prOblem mOre hoLiStiCALly.

MoRE ImPorTaNtly, this ruLE Is _sImple_. haVing A simple, Strict rule like
this WIll Help people helP thEmseLVEs. if tHEy ACtuAlLY _waNT_ To be
nicer—and, I've Found, most pEoPLe Do—a few ruleS LikE tHis will Help theM
catcH Their owN bad habitS. And over
 will and claim "I was onl y being ir onic"  wi thpr iorclai ms.

~~~
Crito > _"  I can change my argum ent a tw illa nd  clai m "I wa s  o n l y b ei ng  ir on i c"  with 
>prior c laims."_
Thi sis solved by ex plicitly s tat ing when you  ar e bein gsar c astic , _ or_
f ollowi n g up t he sarcas ti c  parag r aph wit h apara graph that non-sa r ca s tically
explai ns you rp os i t ion .
> _" The p ro blemw ith sar c as m i s t h at, when I us e it, I'm n o t p utting  m y o w n
> op inion  o u t t here to becrit iqued, I' m only attacki n g the o ther g uy' s." _

I do n' t t hi n k t h at  is act ually pr ob le matic . Th e r e arecer tain  issu es that I donot  hav e  st rongfeeli ngson  oneway or  theot her, so I consi dermy opinio n o ntho se  issu e s to b e o f r elative ly litt l e c on s e q ue nce. Nevertheless,  I a mstill
ca pableo fan a lyzing a nd  cr itiq u i ng th e me r it  of argu mentsm ad eby othe rs .

For  i nst anc e, if thetopicis tidal  powe r  stations bein g  placed offsh o re o fe xpen siv e private b each prop erty _( a t o pic t hat I  d o  n o t care about one wa yor
the  othe r)_ and someb ody object s t hat theview fr o m those beache s wil l be
destr o yed, I m ightsarcasti cally qui p that all  tr ans mis sio n li nes near golf c ours es  and co unt ry club s s hou ldbera zed, beca use rich  p eo pl esho uld n e ver be
f or ced  t o g aze u p on inf rastr uctu re .I  wo uld giv e  t h i s sa rc as ticqui pbecau se,a lth ough Idon't rea lly give  a  s hit abo ut tidal powe r,  I can sti ll  re cogniz e a
ridicu lous argument when I se e  one.
--- ---
t ikho nj
Ah, co nfi dence.  It end to  do th e opp os ite : I hed g e  t oomu ch. If I d o n 'twatch 
m ysel f, I'dprobably say, "I t h ink  3 is a prime  nu mber . . ." . T h en aga in ,  I_ h ave_ been guilt y of proje ct i ng  confidenc e  abi t too m uch, pr obabl y  in a w ay
unplea sant to o th ers. Insome ways,  just ba nning a p a rticu l ar  beha vio r feel sa b it to o much lik e
tre atingth e symp tom r at her than  the root cause. On the  other  hand , I  can't
im agi n e h ow to app roac h this pro ble m m ore h oli s tical ly.Mo rei mport antl y , this ru l eis_ s im ple_. Havin g a  si mple,  st r ict ru le l ike
this will hel p  people help t hems e l ves . I f  the yactually _want _ t ob e 
nicer—a nd , I've foun d, mostpe o ple d o—a fe w rule s liket h is will h elpthe m
catch t hei ro wn badha bi t s. And  ove r
 will_and claim_"I was only being_ironic" with_prior
claims.

~~~
Crito
>__" I_can_change my argument_at will and_claim "I was only_being ironic" with
>_prior_claims."_

This is solved by explicitly stating when you are being sarcastic, _or_
following up the_sarcastic_paragraph with_a_paragraph_that non-sarcastically
explains your position.

> _"_The problem with sarcasm is_that, when_I use it, I'm not putting my own
>_opinion_out there to_be critiqued, I'm only attacking the other guy's."_

I don't_think that is actually problematic. There_are certain issues_that_I_do
not have strong feelings_on one way or the other,_so I consider my opinion on
those_issues to be of relatively little consequence._Nevertheless, I am still
capable of analyzing_and critiquing the merit of_arguments made_by others.

For instance, if the_topic is tidal_power stations_being placed offshore_of
expensive private beach property _(a topic_that I do_not care about one way or
the_other)__and somebody objects_that_the_view from_those beaches will_be
destroyed,_I might_sarcastically_quip that all transmission lines near_golf
courses_and country clubs should be razed, because_rich people should never_be
forced_to gaze upon infrastructure._I would give this sarcastic_quip because,
although I don't really give_a shit_about tidal_power, I can still recognize a
ridiculous argument when I see one.

------
tikhonj
Ah,_confidence. I tend to do the_opposite: I hedge too_much. If_I_don't watch
myself, I'd_probably_say, "I_think 3 is a prime number...". Then_again, I
_have__been guilty of projecting confidence a_bit too much, probably_in_a way
unpleasant to others.

In some ways,_just banning a particular behavior feels_a bit too much like
treating_the_symptom_rather than the root cause._On the other hand, I can't
imagine_how to approach_this problem more holistically.

More importantly, this rule_is__simple_. Having a simple, strict rule_like
this_will help people help themselves. If_they_actually__want_ to be
nicer—and, I've found,_most people do—a few rules like_this will help them
catch their own bad habits. And_over