If you thought you had the “logic” to “show another up” and “put them in their place” would you use it?
How much does fear have to do with it?
The best way is to gracefully use logic to show them up and put them in their place.
I have seen the wrong-use of logic to “show another up” and “put them in their place” so by all means I would love to see the correct use of logic to achieve that…
I think that it’s best to let dumb people do what they do and not to try and make them smart. It’s easier to navigate around a bunch of idiots than to have to answer to a bunch of people who all think they know something.
No I would not unless they are irritating. Otherwise a respectful aproach is best.
Fear of being wrong can have an affect for the average competitive personality.
How much fear has to do with it could only be determined by a case by case basis. Even if someone’s motivation was to demonstrate one’s superiority over another, it isn’t necessarily rooted in fear.
I do think it can be important to use reasoning to tear apart someone else’s way of reasoning on a particular matter. The advancement of thought and its ideas is a noble pursuit. 
It depends on the situation and my more distant goal.
And fear has nothing to do with it except if what I say is going to ignite fear in them (whether good or bad).
If someone is using arguments to justify bad stuff - my evaluation, that is of ‘bad’ - sure. IOW once the stage has been set by the other person - now we will show why X should happen or not happen or why this Group should suffer or whatever - then if there is a clear path to reason against this argument, why not? Smugness, self-serving arguments, arguments that justify abuse of Power, all that kind of stuff seems fair game for being shown up. The issue can be very tricky since sometimes people are merely groping or are channeling stuff they’ve trained/brainwashed to Believe. So they can be giving their energy up to abusive Power, helping it, without really being on top, stepping on what they consider ants. They may simply just be confused or too scared to Think for themselves. Here, it is better, it seems to me, to simply Point out, rather than show up. But it is not Always so easy to distinguish between the two and then I also wish people were better able to question, use their own experiencing and actually notice reality, so ‘innocence’, or so it feels and seems, often, is not really on the table. I’ll get angry at someone who keeps hitting themselves in the face with a hammer after a bit, even if they never Think I should be hit or someone else. For example.
Thank you all.
I mention fear only from the standpoint of fearing I would mess it up. That is to say I believe people are where they “are” for reason and I don’t grok it.
I feel there is not randomness beyond reason, but if reason is to exist it must flow from some source, as conception, it has not emerged from within a vacuum.
On one hand I think reasoning exists universally as a maxim and on the experiential side it exists as a matter of pragmatism. Does any one else see an “and” in there?
I question whether there is an either or playing out here but rather there are circumstances by which we measure our experience and the judgement of them that is finitely dependent upon them for the exclusionary experience to occur where I question whether in experiences derived from a different consideration may make a thing both right and wrong at the same point in time and out of time. Logic seems to dictate a one or the other sort of conclusion but I think some how that is what is amiss with logic. It presumes a condition as exclusionary fact. Something can not fall up as example. But take away the confines of gravity and a massive planetary body out in space some thing can fall in any direction initiation takes it but we don’t call that falling and we don’t associate it’s direction with reference to a planetary body center.
So it seems that our reasoning is dependent on experience that has provided the reason to believe is such manners. The question remains whether experience can be considered exhaustive outside of our ability to perceive it. Reason seems constrained by capacity of our ability to grasp what is not directly perceivable to our senses, and when will that “ride” be completed, where we can see from within and claim we have an omniscient perspective.
But to answer my own question, I try not to and I have failed in the effort.
Blanks are they all that is in this gun?
I may be wrong but, it seems as though you are omitting instinct and senses. Experience does affect reason but, instinct and senses do also. Lacking experience we reason with senses and instinct.
A lack of self-esteem in ourselves and arrogance, either conscious or unconcious, might lead us to have this mindset and the determination to do just what you described above. I intuit that fear, low self-esteem and arrogance flow in the same waters and feed off each other. As a result of this, fear might have a lot to do with this.
The question is: Does logic really have a place here or is it emotions? I may be wrong though.