one of the hardest things to get across is how arguments connect to each other, and taken together, show a worldview that is more important to actually understand than any of the arguments actually being made.

especially in the current context of discussion forums, we've become a accustomed to a fragmented discourse, where "the right to have an opinion" is held as the excuse for argument for its own sake, no matter how inane or inconsistent. forums get boring if no one's arguing - people seem to have forgotten how to actually interact creatively and cooperatively - and "devil's advocacy" provides a convenient readymade excuse for just about any position.

but in the real world, opinions aren't a menu of disaggregated items which can be randomly selected, one from column A and two from column B. they connect... they imply each other, and they infer something more.

i often find myself arguing something strongly because i know that it means more than the point itself. and a lot of my current frustration is born in the apparent difficulty most people seem to have, in following anything but a first-order inference. where i used to spend a great deal of effort in rational persuasion, i've lately adopted the habit of simply making the assertion.

and then, when the other party in the argument goes back to dithering over the menu, i reach for the hot sauce. it doesn't make the point any more transparent to them, of course, but it at least makes the flavor of bullshit easier to tolerate.