Friday, December 09, 2005

ויכוח

Having been ill and rather demotivated by my boss saying something like "Thank you very much for your 8 page paper with colour illustrations sharing your creative ideas but you should have blah blah blah instead...oh is that exact thing on page 7? I didn't read it, I bought an iPod", I had some time to be despondent and ponder on the mysteries of life.

One such mystery of life is why Aviad is so good at winning arguments.

In the great traditions of Derrida and perhaps Wittgenstein, I decided to deconstruct Aviad's argument techniques to see if I could get closer to understanding The Great Master.

Here is a hypothetical argument, in which Aviad claims that black is white. I've tried to analyse it.

Aviad: Here is a white cake.

Me: It's black.

ARGUMENT TECHNIQUE NUMBER 1: "POLISH GUILT"
Aviad: You don't like it...I'm sorry...I carried this white cake for 3797864 miles back from the shop...just for you. Because I love you. No, no. My arm is not that sore...really...it's only broken in three places...it doesn't matter about the pain...I want you to enjoy yourself...you don't like the white cake...

Me: It's black

ARGUMENT TECHNIQUE NUMBER 2:"BOMBARDMENT WITH FACTS HASTILY GLEANED FROM ANSWERS.COM"
Aviad: The cake exhibits the achromatic color value of minimum lightness or maximum darkness; the colour of objects that absorb nearly all light of all visible wavelengths; one extreme of the neutral gray series, the opposite being white. Although strictly a response to zero stimulation of the retina, the perception of black appears to depend on contrast with surrounding colour stimuli. And not the achromatic colour of maximum lightness; the colour of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths; the complement or antagonist of black, the other extreme of the neutral gray series. Although typically a response to maximum stimulation of the retina, the perception of white appears always to depend on contrast.

Me: It's black

ARGUMENT TECHNIQUE NUMBER 3: "CUTE LITTLE BOY"
Aviad: (Making eyes big and brown and dewy, like a fluffy baby red panda) I'm sorry baby...I forgot...

Me: It's sort of a light black.

Aviad missed his vocation and should be a lawyer. Why he is studying the intestines of coral I have no idea.

tags:[ ] [ ]

2 Comments:

At 12/10/2005 12:01:00 AM, Blogger Omer said...

I keep losing to Aviad in arguments (even those I'm supposed to be winning) because if he's 50% sure of something, he'll present it as if it's 110% true, and it matters not if evidence tells us otherwise. Oh, and he never admits to being wrong - only that we could check later who's right.

I remember one time not long ago when I told him something I read in an article and he spent 10 minutes arguing with me that it's all false. It took me those 10 minutes to get to where he said 'Ok, I might have heard wrong.'
Ung.

 
At 12/10/2005 12:03:00 AM, Blogger Joah said...

Welcome to Argument Technique Number 2!

I guess Number 3 ("Cute little boy") does not work with you.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home