“. . . everyone who still tries to resist by, for instance, refusing to adopt the principle of dissumlation as the key to survival, doubting the value of any self-fulfillment purchased at the cost of self-alienation–such a man appears to his ever-more indifferent neighbors as an eccentric, a fool, a Don Quixote, and in the end is regarded inevitably with some aversion, like everyone who behaves differently from the rest and in a way which, moreover, threatens to hold up a critical mirror before their eyes.”

–Vaclav Havel, Living in Truth

Although this site strives to create a space free from the orthodoxies that permeate and limit American discourse, it does not seek to create a space free from orthodoxy at all. As the title suggests, the goal of this site is not a discussion without rules or principle altogether, but rather one that cleaves to a single orthodoxy–the orthodoxy of reason, whose observance (hopefully) will aid our efforts to come closer to true, or at least wise, conclusions on topics of general importance.

Because we take reason seriously enough that we are only partly joking when we refer to it as an “orthodoxy,” we ask that participants here follow a set of rules designed to help avoid, for lack of a better term, the heresy of irrationality. The purpose of this site is not (as it is on most other websites) for a group of like-minded people to express their preferences or opinions. It is rather to address important issues of general importance without being limited by culturally “acceptable” topics, positions, and premises. Freed from the petty orthodoxies of culture, we hope that discussion governed only by the orthodoxy of reason will be better suited to reach the wisest and truest conclusions possible. To make sure that we continue to pursue this latter goal, we ask that you follow three rules when posting comments:

1. Your Naked Opinion or Preference is Not Worth Posting Comments should be based on something other than the purely emotional preferences of the writer. A good post states a factually supported starting place and reasons from it to a conclusion. Pure opinions (”I like . . . ” “I don’t like . . .” “I believe. . . “) should not be the basis of a post. For example, if an essay says something that you vehemently disagree with–let’s say that all illegal immigrants should be deported immediately–you are free to disagree, and to publicize your disagreement, but you must do so in a way that meaningfully responds to the facts or arguments of the article. So a good response might be: “The Atlanta Chamber of Commerce estimates that more than half of construction and food service jobs in the city are filled by illegal immigrants. If they were immediately deported, many of these business would collapse, with ruinous consequences for the city economy and the citizens employed in those industries.” A BAD response would be: “How can you say such a thing? Don’t you know that immigrants built this country? I think it’s awful that you want to kick them out.” The difference between the two responses is that the first helps everyone consider the issue better and move closer to a useful conclusion. The latter merely states a preference, which accomplishes nothing and helps no one.

2. Don’t Do Anything On This List Here is a list of common logical fallacies. Look at your comment. Look at this list. If you see anything from this list in your comment, please rethink your comment:

A. Anecdotal evidence: this occurs when you use isolated instances as proof of a general fact. For example, “I once went to Wendy’s and the service was slow” is ancedotal evidence that the Wendy’s chain has bad service.

B. False dichotomy: this occurs when you assume without reason that there are only two possibilities, e.g., “You’re with us or against us”

C. Straw man: this occurs when you mischaracterize an argument you disagree with to be weaker than it really is, knock down the “straw man” micharacterization, then claim victory over the original argument.

D. Demonization: this occurs when you start from the unjustified premise that a person or position is a moral threat. For example, assuming that evolution must be evil, and arguing from that premise without justifying it, is demonization

E. False statement: this occurs when you make a statement that is knowingly factually untrue

F. Spurious relationship: this occurs when you assign a causal relationship between two events that does not exist, e.g., “Wal-Mart sells the most DVD players when murder rates are highest. DVD players therefore cause murders.”

G. Ad hominem: this occurs when you attack the person proposing an idea rather than the merits of the idea itself

H. Appeal to emotion: this occurs when you assert your own feelings on an issue as if they affected the wisdom or truth of the issue, or when your statement appeals primarily to the emotions rather than to the reason.

I. Slippery slope: this occurs when you say that some event must inevitably lead to some other event without explanation why the transition is inevitable. For example, “Eugenics inevitably leads to genocide” is a slippery slope statement, but can be salvaged if a good argument is made for why eugenics must lead to genocide.

J. Begging the question: this occurs when you presume the truth of your conclusion, e.g., “God must exist because the Bible says He does, and God wrote it.”

3. Keep it Clean This is self-explanatory. As a general rule of civil discourse, nothing should be said for the sole purpose of shocking, offending, or insulting others. Our purpose is to refine conclusions and define appropriate courses of action–not to rant or bicker.

That’s it. Those rules define more or less the entirety of the orthodoxy we require for this site. Any other restrictions on your thought are those you have allowed to be imposed on you. Thanks for joining us, and welcome to the Last Free Marketplace of Ideas.