I just generated a new concept which I will call "conformative statements". It is a form of argumentation which I've been observing for some time already, but whose function I managed to pin point only now. Before going to its definition, let me back track a bit.
I've had this recurring conversation with a number of friends of mine about the preference of indoor versus outdoor (rock)climbing. Usually the argument I hear is "indoor climbing is terrible", to which I emphatically disagree and I'm always tempted to start throwing my counter-arguments, which my friends undoubtedly have heard all too often already.
Now consider an alternative argument from my friend: "I hate indoor climbing". My reaction would be very different. I would be / I am emphatic, feel almost a bit sorry (because my friend is unable enjoy something I happen to enjoy the way I do). But it is an argument we both can agree on. He does not like indoor climbing. I agree.
So why do I get ever so slightly upset by the former argument; "indoor climbing is terrible". Why is it different from "I hate indoor climbing"? As you might guess, the former is what I call a conformative statement. It is a statement that begs for conformance, it contains the presupposition that I will agree. Since I admit to having difficulties in conforming to things whose motivations are not clear for me, I immediately get an uneasy feeling when someone uses a conformative argument on me.
If someone would say a generally accepted truth or value, such as "genocide is bad", then I have no trouble conforming. However, I do not see why anyone should accept conformance with values whose motivations are not clear. Worse, in this particular example, I do accept that my friend does not like indoor climbing, but I happen to think that it is a weakness, not an inherent feature. He would not be less happy, if he were able to enjoy indoor climbing. His conformative statement thus not only begs for conformance, but which would also be detrimental to my happiness should I happen to conform.
I've had this recurring conversation with a number of friends of mine about the preference of indoor versus outdoor (rock)climbing. Usually the argument I hear is "indoor climbing is terrible", to which I emphatically disagree and I'm always tempted to start throwing my counter-arguments, which my friends undoubtedly have heard all too often already.
Now consider an alternative argument from my friend: "I hate indoor climbing". My reaction would be very different. I would be / I am emphatic, feel almost a bit sorry (because my friend is unable enjoy something I happen to enjoy the way I do). But it is an argument we both can agree on. He does not like indoor climbing. I agree.
So why do I get ever so slightly upset by the former argument; "indoor climbing is terrible". Why is it different from "I hate indoor climbing"? As you might guess, the former is what I call a conformative statement. It is a statement that begs for conformance, it contains the presupposition that I will agree. Since I admit to having difficulties in conforming to things whose motivations are not clear for me, I immediately get an uneasy feeling when someone uses a conformative argument on me.
If someone would say a generally accepted truth or value, such as "genocide is bad", then I have no trouble conforming. However, I do not see why anyone should accept conformance with values whose motivations are not clear. Worse, in this particular example, I do accept that my friend does not like indoor climbing, but I happen to think that it is a weakness, not an inherent feature. He would not be less happy, if he were able to enjoy indoor climbing. His conformative statement thus not only begs for conformance, but which would also be detrimental to my happiness should I happen to conform.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti