Is this a faithful recreation of the version of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement with 2 additional bottom levels?
that pyramid makes it look like debate is build on a foundation of violence
Accurate. Before talking, monke solved disagreement with personal touch.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of arguing. You can’t refute the central point unless you have a stable source of violence.
that pyramid makes it look like debate is build on a foundation of violence
A point to raise with Paul Graham (or whoever first depicted it as a “pyramid” graphic), for his appearing like debate is built on a foundation of name-calling.
Who doesn’t like to start debates with a little fisty cuffs to warm-up?
This is a really great resource, thanks for sharing it!
I feel that online arguments always start at the Contradiction layer and always sharply go down short of the violence part.
I ask, because, I’m not sure if the 2nd from bottom level was called “suppression”, nor am I sure (at all) what was the elaboration in the “violence” layer. … But I hope I’ve at least remained faithful to the spirit of it. Eager to hear any corrections. Or even, if anyone finds the original extended version, that would be great to compare to.
I just did this today in another thread. Currently at name calling, hopefully stops there.
Hope better, higher.
Hopefully you can raise it to centrally refuting the point.
Or at least to counterargument, above mere contradiction.
Mods - please ban this
/s just to be safe
