Attempting civilized debates with "punk" anarchists

Post Reply New Topic

When I studied philosophy, one of the things I was required to do was study logic and form syllogisms and more complex arguements that were (at least as far as my instructor could tell) perfectly rational. One of the things that I became far more aware of is that in order to make rational inferences, one must first establish a single fact or set of facts that will be accepted as axiomatically true to base those inferences upon. If the information that the inferences are based on is invalid, it follows that the inference is invalid. That doesn't necesarily mean that the conclusion the person reached isn't correct, only that they couldn't support it in a logical fashion.

Anyway, most of the people in my social circle are anarchists. As far as I'm concerned, there are two main types of anarchists. The first and most common are people who were introduced to the idea through punk rock and don't have a concrete idea of what anarchy actually is, but they know it has something to do with not liking authority.

The second type is far more likely to wear khakis and/or a neck tie. These are people who may or may not like rock music at all, but first seriously considered anarchism while reading the works of anarchist philosophers either for school or out of curiosity. These people have a much greater understanding of what anarchism actually is. The word "anarchy" literally means a lack of heirarchy; it literally means equality for all people. It has nothing to do with throwing molotovs, dressing in black or doing something crazy with your hair.

Anyway, most of the more rational people I discuss these types of things with are socialists or communists. While I don't agree with their world view, I can have a civil, intelligent discussion with these individuals without it turning into an arguement that accomplishes nothing but upsetting the people involved. While I've come across some anarchists who are level headed and rational, the "punk" ones tend not to be.

I was online this morning, discussing a rather controversial issue that's been all over the news recently with another young man who happens to fall into the "punk" category. While I always linked to FBI or BLS statistics that supported my assertions, he couldn't provide sources to back the (rather extreme) assertions he was making. When I asked him to do so, he condemned me for using government statistics, because "government lies". Apparently he wasn't fond of the idea of using peer reviewed journals either.

How am I supposed to argue with someone like that? Even when I show him pages on the websites of multiple government agencies around the world that directly contradict what he's saying and he doesn't provide a single shred of evidence to support his claims, he feels like he's somehow "de-bunked" my worldview. He didn't even have a single case-study. Even writing a simple highschool essay, you're supposed to provide sources! How is this an acceptable way to debate?

I guess my main question is this: How should I deal with these types of situations in the future?

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." -- Mark Twain

Nice opening post!

A lot of information on government websites is BS, I know that...but I also base that on various peer reviewed articles I had the chance to read while attending college, personal observation and of course some non peer reviewed things. But I don't know if someone refuses to open their mind to any other perspective regardless of evidence presented sometimes i find it best just to let them think what they want, if its not really hurting anyone or seems the best route in the situation. One time at a bus stop some crack head was telling me how he was sure the other people at the bus stop are cops, well obviously there was going to be no reasoning with this cracked out person. Sometimes its best just to let it go...save the conversations/debates about that sort of stuff for people that you find more satisfying and open minded to talk to about it.

Not really sure I have met a punk anarchist though, I've met a few punks but not any that really talked about anarchy or being an anarchist, I know one who's a satanist which is obviously not the same thing but yeah seems intelligent and more open minded than the individuals you describe.