Linguistic geeking

[danaeris]

Question:

Is it possible to make a statement one does not mean without it being intended as a put-down, insult, or as ridicule of something (even a gentle put down)?

Is it possible to make a statement one does not mean without it being interpreted as scornful, contemptuous, etc.? Edit: I'm talking about the case where you make statement A with the immediate goal of proving or showing the opposite of A. So, not being silly, or Devil's Advocate, or anything like that.

I challenge you to find me examples of statements the speaker or author did not mean, used to make a point, which in no way put down anyone or anything.

---

Whenever I see this particular form used in a discussion or argument, I feel that the person using it is being hostile, mean.

I think in part it is because it addresses the audience, rather than the person whose ideas or behaviour are being refuted. It is much more respectful to say to someone what you think of their ideas, rather than to present it to the audience at large in such a way that what you think of their ideas is never said, but clearly conveyed and going through everyone's minds.

Comments

[futabachan.livejournal.com]

Is it possible to make a statement one does not mean without it being intended as a put-down, insult, or as ridicule of something (even a gentle put down)?

Is it possible to make a statement one does not mean without it being interpreted as scornful, contemptuous, etc.?

Yes.

[qedrakmar.livejournal.com]

I see at least one possible exception in absurdity, which is often completely irrelevant, such as answering a serious question with "I like to be poked in the eyeball". This then begs the question of: Is it an insult to be deliberately obtuse?

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

When trying to refine my thoughts, I will often engage in debate with friends. Oftentimes, as we agree, one of us will have to play the role of Devil's Advocate.

When playing such a role, I will often make statements which I don't mean, and which I heartily disagree with. These are never intended (or interpreted) as put-downs or the like.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

OK, good example. Sadly, the example is not in the category of types of utterances I'm trying to pin down... I'm having trouble describing what I'm talking about though, so that's entirely my fault and not yours.

When playing Devil's Advocate, you are making statement A in order to prove A in earnest, because you really are trying to see if there is merit, or show the merit in the other side, even though you may not agree with it.

I'm talking about the case where you make statement A with the immediate goal of proving !A.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I see your point, yes.

Another example, although I fear this may still not be what you're looking for, can be found in the scientific community.

It is often essential, when disproving a theory, to start with that theory as my hypothesis, and then show that it cannot be true (as otherwise, there could still be arguments that both notions (my new theory, and somebody else's old theory) can co-exist.

So for example, in trying to disprove that X=Q, I may start by stating my hypothesis of 'X=Q' (or alternatively 'Let X=Q') and then going to on show that it does not work.

Again, I'm not sure if mathematical formulae are what you're going for (you seem to more want to talk about internet debates - but then again, the existance of civility in internet debates is up to some debate itself), but I hope that that helps.

But at the begining, I d

[aberrantvirtue.livejournal.com]

I hate to ask this, but could you make up a hypothetical example?

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Here's a non hypothetical example, which I've discussed at length with joedecker (the discussion was entirely friendly).

http://www.livejournal.com/users/danaeris/821929.html?thread=2760873#t2760873

Then again, the last phrase in this example, which is not at all contradictory (ie., he isn't saying something he doesn't believe to prove the opposite of what he's saying), gave me the same oogy feeling:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/danaeris/808575.html?thread=2705791#t2705791

I think it is the use of veiled statements that bothers me. I think I feel that implying something rather than coming out and saying it is inherently combative.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

I didn't personally see anything wrong with joedecker's statement. Then again, I didn't see anything contradictory in it either.

Rather, I read in a phrase to the beginning. That of "Well, if we need to be afraid of visiting countries where people can be detained without trial" (which I read in based on the link) "Then I guess I should be afraid to visit Canada"

He was answering to a hypothetical. Yes, it wasn't a helpful answer to it (as that other countries are doing wrong is completely irrelevant as to the rightness or wrongness of the US's activities) but it wasn't something that he didn't nessecarially believe for the hypothetical.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Actually, if that's what you thought, then you thought wrong. He does NOT believe that Americans should be scared to visit Canada, nor does he believe that Canadians should be scared to visit the US.

So, he was arguing against the very thing he suggested.

Anyway, I didn't want to bring the specific example into this because I knew people would bring in the context rather than look at the linguistic construct.

So the question remains, and so far has not been answered to my satisfaction.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

I think you misunderstood my last comment completely.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Okay, let me sum up.

He made a statement he didn't believe, that you knew he didn't believe, in order to prove a point. He didn't belabour the point, or make it any more personal than it was at the outset. He just stated it.

If he had belaboured the point, or followed it any further, I'd agree with you. In fact, I've done something similar to that myself, recently (that teaching debate I was ranting about) with the intention of being confrontational. I did, indeed, continue to argue the point in the next round of comments, making the confrontational nature of the comment obvious.

So, I would be inclined to see the first example of this as benign, and any subsequent attempts to drive home the point as confrontational.

For what it's worth, I didn't see that comment as negative in any way, in the context in which it was used.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

Augh. Now I'm even more confused. Based on those examples what you're asking for seems not to be what I thought it was but I still don't know what it is.

[yiab.livejournal.com]

Is it possible to make a statement one does not mean without it being intended as a put-down, insult, or as ridicule of something (even a gentle put down)?

i think the main question i have here is whether or not it's really the intent you're asking about.
i understand that most people consider the inclusion of a statement of this sort in an argument to be insulting, which is exactly the reason i only include these statements in an argument accidentally - i never mean them to posess the sort of negative implications they are usually taken to have, so i try not to use them. occasionally, however, i do end up using one of these statements and every time i have to wind up explaining that it wasn't meant to be deprecating or an attack.

so yes, it is certainly possible to make this kind of a statement without that kind of intent. that isn't sufficient reason in my mind to legitimize the making of the statement, however, since it's interpretation is almost universally viewed as negative (and communication being a socially constructed entity it's engagement must take into account the other's interpretations).

of course, it's entirely possible that since i am a student of logic i am more used to all legitimate forms of argument being devoid of emotional content.

which, of course, brings me to point out that the mathematical reductio ad absurdum is exactly the case where you make statement A with the immediate intent of proving ~A, but it is also the quintissential example of "playing devil's advocate" as you describe in an above comment. so perhaps i am simply confused.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Hm, perhaps my definition of playing Devil's Advocate is different than yours. What I can Devil's Advocate is when someone is trying to figure something out, and in order to make sure they are getting a balanced perspective on it, or help them sort out their views, I argue in favour of something I don't believe in. My goal, in that situation, is not at all to prove the opposite of what I'm saying, even though I do not necessarily believe what I am saying.

Anyhow, you assert that using reductio ad absurdum is viewed universally in a negative light, even though it isn't always meant in a negative fashion.

And I guess that's what I'm trying to say -- that reductio ad absurdum arguments are inherently a hostile medium of communication, even if they aren't meant that way. But if you take examples such as Joes, you'll get any number of people who don't see it as hostile. I'm trying to understand why I think it is inherently hostile, and you think everyone thinks it is hostile, so that I can explain it to those people who don't see it.