|
On May 19 2014 03:54 Deleuze wrote:
Why is it important point out that orange has Autism btw?
Oh, because he's a bit of a friend. And the way I make a statement/argument to someone like that would be a bit less complex and such. Also, because of his autism, I felt like friends were not going to be of some superior intellect and thereby I initiated with a simple argument. In no way, am I intending to offend with the statement, I just felt it could give a little more information to the premise of the argument.
|
On May 19 2014 03:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 03:54 Deleuze wrote:
Why is it important point out that orange has Autism btw? Oh, because he's a bit of a friend. And the way I make a statement/argument to someone like that would be a bit less complex and such. Also, because of his autism, I felt like friends were not going to be of some superior intellect and thereby I initiated with a simple argument. In no way, am I intending to offend with the statement, I just felt it could give a little more information to the premise of the argument.
So this whole exchange was on Orange's profile? What was the original post? That's quite funny. I'd love to post some thing, go to sleep and then wake up and read that.
I was interested as I have high-functioning autism, and I am curious as to how people perceive the disorder. In logical/systematic discourses I tend to be fine, but when it comes to emotional/social discussions I usually just emulate what other people say. lol.
|
I had to look up "Solipsism" after reading the transcript. Black's mom is a genetic fallacy. BURNED.
|
On May 19 2014 04:08 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 03:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:On May 19 2014 03:54 Deleuze wrote:
Why is it important point out that orange has Autism btw? Oh, because he's a bit of a friend. And the way I make a statement/argument to someone like that would be a bit less complex and such. Also, because of his autism, I felt like friends were not going to be of some superior intellect and thereby I initiated with a simple argument. In no way, am I intending to offend with the statement, I just felt it could give a little more information to the premise of the argument. So this whole exchange was on Orange's profile? What was the original post? That's quite funny. I'd love to post some thing, go to sleep and then wake up and read that. I was interested as I have high-functioning autism, and I am curious as to how people perceive the disorder. In logical/systematic discourses I tend to be fine, but when it comes to emotional/social discussions I usually just emulate what other people say. lol.
Yeah it was on oranges profile, he just posted that picture I linked to in the OP with a different font on a white background.
I tried to view that discussion unanimously, but it will not allow you to comment, sorry 
Truthfully, I know very little about little about Autism, just the Autistic people I've seen are usually slower, don't make complex arguments, and mostly look at things only on the surface. And knowing he was like this, it was my approach.
Edit: And why does everyone love rating all my blogs one star -__-
|
you're advocating institutionalised victimhood, it's pure solipsism to not acknowledge that.
This is my favourite part of Black's spiel. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I mean just... how?
|
On May 19 2014 04:20 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +you're advocating institutionalised victimhood, it's pure solipsism to not acknowledge that. This is my favourite part of Black's spiel. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I mean just... how?
You'd think a solipsist would have little to fear from gun violence. Maybe he meant "myopic"?
|
Man, I do wish it was possible to post in that message tree without being the guys friend.
I would really enjoy teamliquid intellects swarming in, and absolutely demolishing him at his own game. The power of teamliquid knows no bounds.
|
On May 19 2014 04:18 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 04:08 Deleuze wrote:On May 19 2014 03:59 FiWiFaKi wrote:On May 19 2014 03:54 Deleuze wrote:
Why is it important point out that orange has Autism btw? Oh, because he's a bit of a friend. And the way I make a statement/argument to someone like that would be a bit less complex and such. Also, because of his autism, I felt like friends were not going to be of some superior intellect and thereby I initiated with a simple argument. In no way, am I intending to offend with the statement, I just felt it could give a little more information to the premise of the argument. So this whole exchange was on Orange's profile? What was the original post? That's quite funny. I'd love to post some thing, go to sleep and then wake up and read that. I was interested as I have high-functioning autism, and I am curious as to how people perceive the disorder. In logical/systematic discourses I tend to be fine, but when it comes to emotional/social discussions I usually just emulate what other people say. lol. Yeah it was on oranges profile, he just posted that picture I linked to in the OP with a different font on a white background. I tried to view that discussion unanimously, but it will not allow you to comment, sorry Truthfully, I know very little about little about Autism, just the Autistic people I've seen are usually slower, don't make complex arguments, and mostly look at things only on the surface. And knowing he was like this, it was my approach. Edit: And why does everyone love rating all my blogs one star -__-
Opps. I obviously didn't read the first sentence to the OP! That would have scared the shit out of me to see that discussion on an image I posted. lol.
I can appreciate what you are saying about wanting to express yourself simply in that context. I tend to take things for granted when it comes to instructions or arguments, if they are not clearly defined (which is very difficult to do) then I usually misinterpret what is being said in run off in my own direction.
I didn't one star it!
|
Welcome to the internet, where stupidity flourishes with flare. Plus most everyone on the internet tends to argue with a goal that is wholly antithetical to the true purpose of a debate. They just want to show the world that they're right and awesome. It's pretty fucking stupid. In the end it becomes a huge circle jerk, but instead each person just jerks himself off while everyone who happens to wander upon the activity ends up turning away disgusted after a few moments. Or some jump into the fray and starts masturbating in tandem. Or if you don't give a damn anymore, you can watch the madness and 
So the real question is, what type of person are you?! lol
|
but instead each person just jerks himself off while everyone who happens to wander upon the activity ends up turning away disgusted after a few moments
Now that's solipsism!
|
On May 19 2014 04:40 PassionFruit wrote:
Or some jump into the fray and starts masturbating in tandem. Or if you don't give a damn anymore, you can watch the madness and lurk
So you just eat popcorn and watch people masturbate?
|
Croatia9500 Posts
The whole logic of that image could be thrown on its face by adding:
"Don't like killing? Don't do it."
But don't take the right of someone else to kill? It just shows that things are not that black and white as the image makes it out to be.
Also, reading that transcript was pretty painful as it's needlessly complicated with poor argumentation, on both sides. The "ass" seems like someone who took philosophy 101 and is now throwing all these terms that he heard in class (solipsism, really?) and you took his arguments way too personally which pretty much kills any debate.
"I dunno, I don't really see much use in civilians owning firearms" is not a good way to make your argument. Your argument should be based on empiric evidence. You first decide what's your objective, eg. lower the number of deaths made by a firearm. And then you try to find a correlation between your objective and the thing you're debating about. This is not a simple process because you would need to do both sides (legal guns and illegal guns) over a period of time and see which one results in more favorable objective. But since that's unlikely to happen and you only have data of one side (guns are legal) you try to predict what would happen with second side (guns are illegal) by inspecting all the data of the first side and see if the data would look any better or worse by having a second side in place.
Of course there are a lot more variables that goes into this and it's not a simple thing to predict it correctly, but my point is that you should always base your arguments on scientific method (making predictions based on empiric evidence) and not on some personal feeling that you have deep inside you.
|
On May 19 2014 08:41 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2014 04:40 PassionFruit wrote:
Or some jump into the fray and starts masturbating in tandem. Or if you don't give a damn anymore, you can watch the madness and lurk So you just eat popcorn and watch people masturbate?
lol in a manner of speaking yes. It's one of my dark pleasures. Another one I have is eavesdropping on people at coffee joints while doing my work with headphones on with super low volume. The other day I heard a father talking to his new girlfriend about how he had to deal with his son coming out at 17 years old. And it's even more entertaining when you have Beethoven's 5th playing on the background.
|
On May 19 2014 08:48 2Pacalypse- wrote:
The whole logic of that image could be thrown on its face by adding:
"Don't like killing? Don't do it."
But don't take the right of someone else to kill? It just shows that things are not that black and white as the image makes it out to be.
Also, reading that transcript was pretty painful as it's needlessly complicated with poor argumentation, on both sides. The "ass" seems like someone who took philosophy 101 and is now throwing all these terms that he heard in class (solipsism, really?) and you took his arguments way too personally which pretty much kills any debate.
"I dunno, I don't really see much use in civilians owning firearms" is not a good way to make your argument. Your argument should be based on empiric evidence. You first decide what's your objective, eg. lower the number of deaths made by a firearm. And then you try to find a correlation between your objective and the thing you're debating about. This is not a simple process because you would need to do both sides (legal guns and illegal guns) over a period of time and see which one results in more favorable objective. But since that's unlikely to happen and you only have data of one side (guns are legal) you try to predict what would happen with second side (guns are illegal) by inspecting all the data of the first side and see if the data would look any better or worse by having a second side in place.
Of course there are a lot more variables that goes into this and it's not a simple thing to predict it correctly, but my point is that you should always base your arguments on scientific method (making predictions based on empiric evidence) and not on some personal feeling that you have deep inside you.
I generally agree.
FiWi, you did make at least some of those fallacies "the ass" was mentioning. In a debate, fallacies should be the first thing to go. Once you have them out of the way, the debate can move forward. As 2Pac said, you need data and empiric evidence to come to a logical conclusion about which option is better.
That said, it wasn't a cool move to completely disregard your opinion simply because it wasn't backed with loads of data. I would rather have seen "the ass" argue his side instead of pointing out all the mistakes in your debating skills. He seems to be a bit of a sadist honestly. If you knew his gf before she was dating him, was she always like that? I'm willing to bet she was enjoying "the debate" simply because he is her bf.
I read about a minimal form of law once where the only things that were illegal were the following:
-hurting someone else
-hurting someone else's property
-stealing someone else's property
I wonder how that kind of system would play out. For example, we have lots of laws that are not based on whether an action will harm someone or their property. In this situation we would have highways where people can drive as fast as they want, people harming themselves if they want to, i.e. legal drug use and the like, people firing guns whenever they want as long as they aren't hurting someone or their property, etc. Of course, we have laws in place like "don't shoot randomly whenever you want to, bro!" to keep the probability of accidents (and harm) to a minimum. But, a lot of these laws that we have are simply unnecessary for us to function. Some actions may be less safe than others, but that doesn't mean people can't reasonably take unsafe actions a reasonable amount of times at their own peril. Of course, if there is an accident as a result of the unsafe action, which harms someone else or their property, then the person should be punished. This is generally my view on politics.
Oh hai wall 'o .txt!
|
Well that guy is a dick, but somewhat correct, Sam. As the others have been saying, just avoid wading into it and keep it simple - "don't like rape? Don't rape." shows the logical error of the main image, Sam. Sam, I was disappointed with you when you said you'd stop arguing and kept going, Sam.
|
Just steer clear of online arguments outside of TL. Here is a sanctuary compared to the sort of dumb shit I see in facebook groups that are gen pop.
If I do get sucked in to commenting on an offensive/ignorant fb post I'll usually keep it to one clear comment so people see my PoV. It's pointless trying to convince the poster but at least some others might think about it.
|
First things I'll say in general
1) The "ass", i'll call him A, really is just plain trolling. This gets overused, but he goes so far as to say "I even made those comments because I knew I would bait out somebody with your sentiments and I wanted to make an example out of them". However, there is no chance he actually cares about that, as his choice of words is more suited for an academic philosophy paper than a Facebook discussion. If he was truly trying to make an example of you to "educate others" he would have chosen a more appropriate word choice for his given audience
2)The guy is actually pretty wordy, and while he does have good vocabulary and grammar, it's much like 2Pacalypse said...it sounds like a philosophy student writing for his discipline, but he fails to take his audience into consideration. He is either clueless, or using the vocab he chooses simply to stroke his own ego or perhaps in hopes that it will make you look dumb by comparison (it doesn't). If he was doing the latter though that would be amusingly ironic given that his entire lecture is about not using fallacies.
Now as far as the argument goes:
1)Shell pointed out that you did use some fallacies, and this is true. All of you arguments were not solidly grounded with good support and logic
2)Complaining that the guy was arguing aggressively was a little silly, and made you seem either insecure/desperate. Its much better, and prevents getting off topic, if you continue to discuss the topic at hand and not his style of argumentation.
3) As to how I would have approached this, I likely would have started out with something similar to what 2Pac mentioned, adding in "Don't like killing? Don't do it, just don't take away my right to do so. " and then stating something along the lines of "The line has to be drawn somewhere, but how best do we decide where that line is drawn". That's a hard question to answer, and there is nothing close to a correct answer he could pick. More importantly, this grounds the debate and let's you know exactly what it is you are discussing anyway.
I definitely would have caught him there and called him out on his "you either support civil liberty or you don't" comment. I'm guessing he doesn't support anarchy, which means at some point you are going to have some measure of your liberty restricted. Him setting it up as a dichotomy of "either you are with us or you are a hypocrite" is a wonderful fallacy in it's own right.
He actually makes a number of other claims that aren't really substantiated ("were blessed that are economic and sociological composition does not lend to us as a society resorting to violence often. This is why Calgary is the safest city in Canada") or backed by any evidence but by that point the debates was pretty silly, especially once you start pleading with him to "argue nice" and all he was doing was jerking himself off emotionally by telling you what was wrong with your arguments, rather than actually engaging in discussion...which again, could arguably be a fallacy in and of itself.
|
I support anarchy.
+ Show Spoiler +Especially in twitch plays pokemon, no more of this democracy bullshit
|
Croatia9500 Posts
On May 20 2014 08:11 ninazerg wrote:I support anarchy. + Show Spoiler +Especially in twitch plays pokemon, no more of this democracy bullshit
I know you've probably said this jokingly, but there are actually a lot of misconceptions about anarchism where people associate it with disorder, chaos, mayhem and everyone doing whatever they want. Without going into too much detail as it is quite off topic, anyone interested to learn more can read an anarchist FAQ or watch Noam Chomsky's talk on anarchism.
|
Isn't there a fallacy for refusing to address someone's points because they're fallacies. Anyway, man you got owned. He's also not wrong, it's easy to come to a very liberal place like TL and have a group circlejerk on how evil firearms and libertarianism are but there's really no right or wrong answer when it comes to stuff like that. Worth noting I'm a left leaning person myself
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
