UPDATE: THE ARGUMENT ADDED IN SPOILER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OPENING POST!
This is a short rant blog. Okay, well it's not about actually debating on teamliquid, essentially I was on facebook, and some guy posted this picture:
And I'm like okay, I agree with most of it, but I stated that if other people smoke and get cancer, you pay for their cancer treatment (Canada), and you might not drink, but that doesn't mean a loved one wont get run over by a drunk driver. Or that you might not buy a gun, but someone else might, and could use you to hurt you with it.
Then some guy goes and says that everything I said is a fallacy, and STD's cause as many deaths as homocides, and kept repeating the word fallacity like a million times, and that I'm a hypocrite and, bleh. He was such an asshole to discuss with. Using these complex words (properly nonetheless), but just made him come off as such a condescending dick.
Anyway, I decided I would opt to argue my position of keeping firearms illegal. Then apparently because I say "I think" or "I believe" in my arguments, it means I'm not objectively discussing this.... And ugh. He just decided to shit on the other person in subtle ways while to bystanders appearing innocent, arguing like a cold-hearted killer.
I always focus on arguments to enlighten the other person, respect the other person, and just be open minded to all perspectives, just like teamliquid is. But man, I got trashed in that debate. Considering it was on a facebook wall, I didn't provide extreme detail, or sufficient evidence for every one of my points. He nitpicked the little things that I wrote as more vague and attacked them so hard, taking what I said out of context, and meh.
It just pissed me off how someone can come off as convincing with this arguing style and trying to degrade their opponent. And the more sense you try to talk into them, and come off as nice, the more they can attack your weakness by using feelings when talking to the person. I am like the most sciencey + engineeringey guy you will ever meet on teamliquid, I do not use feelings in my arguments, I use feelings to talk to a person, to not offend them, to express my argument in such a way that wont piss everyone off. I'm sure many people have experienced this in such topics in teamliquid as well, sam!zdat or whatever his name is, is a perfect example of that kind of user, and unsurprisingly, he's not with us anymore. It's not like he is dumb, quite the contrary, but he formulates his arguments in such aggressive and unpleasant ways.
I suppose I'm just quite unhappy that I lost an argument to someone like that, especially when I feel like with that tone, nobody would listen to him in person, and in general he gave off that vibe of being an unpleasant person to be around. Yet, I didn't have a proper rebuttal that he couldn't counteract and make me look worse. I don't really know how to argue against it, and I'm not willing to succumb to that ugly form of an arguing style to get my point across. I suppose the best thing to do is to simply not get involved in the first place, but I dislike the fact that he could convince someone more than I could, being the way he is.
Anyway, I'm sure I have biases myself, and I'm sure someone is going to want to reply supporting this guy, and say something like I do argue with my emotions, because I do say "I" a lot, and that's fine (if you have proper and civil arguments), I'm a really open minded person, but eh. At the end of the day, I just needed to rant, and hear any suggestions if anyone has them. Thanks for reading!
My logic professor said if someone is putting up insurmountable obstacles to a rational discussion, there's not much you should do besides ask them about the weather. It's not worth your time to humor them usually. Another option is to out-troll them with sophistry. Either way it's important that you care very little because you can't change that shit.
Well, I mean, in a battle of things which are purely opinion, there's no right or wrong, so like... whoever is better at making the other guy look dumber wins...
On May 18 2014 17:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:Then apparently because I say "I think" or "I believe" in my arguments, it means I'm not objectively discussing this.... And ugh.
I hate it when people think using those formulations makes you subjective although it just shows you are just being more honest and aware (might even say objective here) than them about what should be a universal truth and what is still open to debate.
I hate that and the way people mistake my civility and constructive criticism for a lack of knowledge/understanding. Like those stupid students who don't understand that "I'm sorry I'm afraid I didn't fully understand your explaination, could you come again" or "I'm not sure this/that would work as expected" essentially means "I think you're wrong" or "I think your explaination shows YOUR lack of understanding/knowledge" and not that I'm somehow blindsighted by your hungover lazy grad student way of getting out of this lab as fast as you can.
I think approaching a facebook argument as a 'win' or a 'loss' is a big mistake. Also as others have said, don't worry too much about a facebook discussion... make sure you make the points you want to make. The other guy can counter with whatever bullshit he wants, and you don't have to reply. Readers can make up their own minds.
On May 18 2014 17:46 FiWiFaKi wrote: I always focus on arguments to enlighten the other person, respect the other person, and just be open minded to all perspectives, just like teamliquid is.
Well, here's the thing: let's say you go to the zoo and see the lions in their glass prison, and you're like "Hey, I'd like to play with them. They look kind of cute!" so you enter the lions' area, and you just want to play with them, but they want to eat you. That's kind of what you're dealing with when you enter a debate with someone who is only interested in completely destroying you.
But here is something that you can always use against stupid-ass political master debaters. If you live in a Democratic Republic, you belong to a club that has rules called "laws". It's not 'anarchy', where you can just do whatever you feel like. You can't just post "Don't like rape? Then don't rape people. Don't tread on my rights to do so." because there are laws in a democracy. Therefore, you have the right to interject your opinion about the laws, even if your opinion defies all logic and reason. However, you're not some extreme minority that believes the world is flat. There are many fine, decent, tax-paying Canadian citizens who feel the same as you do.
There are many possible replies to this very reasonable answer, including, but not limited to:
This is why stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Liberals are becoming an ever-increasing minority for this very reason, because you want to control everyone else's lives.
Fuck you.
You can't pass laws that defy the constitution, which guarantees me individual liberty.
You're only saying this because you have no answer to my arguments, and are basically admitting defeat.
Yes, we both have opinions. Good job identifying that, genius. This is why we have debates though, to determine what the laws are going to be, and you're not making a very good case.
Grammar/Spelling corrections
Citing a bunch of statistics, such as "Crimes relating to gun violence are down by 15% in the last decade, and a majority of gun-related crimes are committed using handguns, not assault rifles."
God, I wish I could have all of you liberal commies executed by firing squad (I'm serious, I saw this before)
etc
So now you have a choice. Will you continue with this argument? If you do, it will most certainly be fruitless. The only thing you can cling to is being 'right', and trying to persuade an imaginary audience, who, 9 out of 10 times will just go "You guys need to stop arguing over political stuff".
The best thing you can do is just be friendly and say "You make a good point and I can see you're passionate about making our country a better place to live in, as am I, even we disagree slightly on the parameters of how to do so. It's just that the liberal media makes conservatives seem like crazy extremists, and the conservative media makes liberals seem like crazy extremists, and I think that's a shame because we're really not that different, and could even be friends if we weren't constantly bombarded with messages saying that we need to be adamantly opposed to each other."
By doing so, you've redirected the conversation to hating on the media, which is always good, because nobody like the media.
TL works the same way. When someone can't refute an argument you made they'll just ignore your entire core of reasoning and take a small piece of your argument and take it out of context or revert to personal attacks (get off your high horse!). It's like SH's where Terran keeps trying to wriggle around the inevitable and floats his buildings in the end to poke your 6 bases with a dropship and 2 marines.
On May 18 2014 17:46 FiWiFaKi wrote: I always focus on arguments to enlighten the other person, respect the other person, and just be open minded to all perspectives, just like teamliquid is.
But here is something that you can always use against stupid-ass political master debaters. If you live in a Democratic Republic, you belong to a club that has rules called "laws". It's not 'anarchy', where you can just do whatever you feel like. You can't just post "Don't like rape? Then don't rape people. Don't tread on my rights to do so." because there are laws in a democracy. Therefore, you have the right to interject your opinion about the laws, even if your opinion defies all logic and reason. However, you're not some extreme minority that believes the world is flat. There are many fine, decent, tax-paying Canadian citizens who feel the same as you do.
There are many possible replies to this very reasonable answer, including, but not limited to:
,,,
Yes, we both have opinions. Good job identifying that, genius. This is why we have debates though, to determine what the laws are going to be, and you're not making a very good case.
No offense, but I take the bolded response (minus the invective, of course) to be a more or less correct reply to what you have claimed. That people are entitled to their opinions, whatever exactly that is supposed to mean, is in no way an argument in favor of any particular opinion. So it makes no sense to appeal to that principle in the course of debating a specific position.
Edit:
To paraphrase Popper, a principle that justifies every opinion, justifies no opinion.
On May 18 2014 17:46 FiWiFaKi wrote: I always focus on arguments to enlighten the other person, respect the other person, and just be open minded to all perspectives, just like teamliquid is.
But here is something that you can always use against stupid-ass political master debaters. If you live in a Democratic Republic, you belong to a club that has rules called "laws". It's not 'anarchy', where you can just do whatever you feel like. You can't just post "Don't like rape? Then don't rape people. Don't tread on my rights to do so." because there are laws in a democracy. Therefore, you have the right to interject your opinion about the laws, even if your opinion defies all logic and reason. However, you're not some extreme minority that believes the world is flat. There are many fine, decent, tax-paying Canadian citizens who feel the same as you do.
There are many possible replies to this very reasonable answer, including, but not limited to:
,,,
Yes, we both have opinions. Good job identifying that, genius. This is why we have debates though, to determine what the laws are going to be, and you're not making a very good case.
No offense, but I take the bolded response (minus the invective, of course) to be a more or less correct reply to what you have claimed. That people are entitled to their opinions, whatever exactly that is supposed to mean, is in no way an argument in favor of any particular opinion. So it makes no sense to appeal to that principle in the course of debating a specific position.
Edit:
To paraphrase Popper, a principle that justifies every opinion, justifies no opinion.
Thanks for pointing that out, genius. I feel so enlightened now.
On May 18 2014 17:46 FiWiFaKi wrote: I always focus on arguments to enlighten the other person, respect the other person, and just be open minded to all perspectives, just like teamliquid is.
But here is something that you can always use against stupid-ass political master debaters. If you live in a Democratic Republic, you belong to a club that has rules called "laws". It's not 'anarchy', where you can just do whatever you feel like. You can't just post "Don't like rape? Then don't rape people. Don't tread on my rights to do so." because there are laws in a democracy. Therefore, you have the right to interject your opinion about the laws, even if your opinion defies all logic and reason. However, you're not some extreme minority that believes the world is flat. There are many fine, decent, tax-paying Canadian citizens who feel the same as you do.
There are many possible replies to this very reasonable answer, including, but not limited to:
,,,
Yes, we both have opinions. Good job identifying that, genius. This is why we have debates though, to determine what the laws are going to be, and you're not making a very good case.
No offense, but I take the bolded response (minus the invective, of course) to be a more or less correct reply to what you have claimed. That people are entitled to their opinions, whatever exactly that is supposed to mean, is in no way an argument in favor of any particular opinion. So it makes no sense to appeal to that principle in the course of debating a specific position.
Edit:
To paraphrase Popper, a principle that justifies every opinion, justifies no opinion.
Thanks for pointing that out, genius. I feel so enlightened now.
It just pissed me off how someone can come off as convincing with this arguing style and trying to degrade their opponent. And the more sense you try to talk into them, and come off as nice, the more they can attack your weakness by using feelings when talking to the person.
They don't come off as convincing at all. If there is no substance behind the argument and they don't defend their positions well they look incompetent, and then if they result to aggressively attacking you they look like even more of a moron "oh I can't respond to this guys arguments so let's just insult him"
He just discussed to shit on the other person in subtle ways while to bystanders appearing innocent, arguing like a cold-hearted killer.
If he was being insulting, he came off as insulting to everyone else too.
If you wouldn't mind posting the transcript with names censored it would be interesting to see the actual full discussion.
It just pissed me off how someone can come off as convincing with this arguing style and trying to degrade their opponent. And the more sense you try to talk into them, and come off as nice, the more they can attack your weakness by using feelings when talking to the person.
They don't come off as convincing at all. If there is no substance behind the argument and they don't defend their positions well they look incompetent, and then if they result to aggressively attacking you they look like even more of a moron "oh I can't respond to this guys arguments so let's just insult him"
That's a horrible exchange. I'm surprised that you stuck around so long.
Personally, I'm not convinced people have really figured out how to use online means of communication effectively. It seems that Brown has some ridiculous expectation that a Facebook thread can be held to the same rigour as academic fora (while also refraining from making any substantiated claims whatsoever).
I just don't think that these means of communication really work for this kind of thing - they are ultimately designed to be super quick, speedy forms to communicating which forces people to make sweeping statements, crying 'logical fallacy,' and wiki-lectualism. TL, on occasion, does allow for something with a little more milage in this regard, though that is due to the temperament of the discussants and, of course, effective moderation.
There is nothing worse than seeing someone pull out the logical fallacy card as if to say 'talk to the hand'. lol. I was once listening into a listserv discussion between some peers, and a noob turned up and starting waxing lyrical on slipper slope fallacies - and was promptly laughed off the list.
In my view you both bring forth some very important issues, though the nature of discourse these days seems to only allow arguments to be irrevocably polarised in an unending impasse. Sigh.
Why is it important point out that orange has Autism btw?
On May 18 2014 18:19 Grovbolle wrote: You lost a debate to a dick, who used feelings to make you look the fool, despite your logic being stronger.
Basically you got pwned by a politician.
Eh, I dunno about that. I'm not really sure this is the politician way to argue or whatever, seems more so than what I do anyway, all that is absolutely evident is that we approach this argument completely differently from one another.
On May 18 2014 18:40 oBlade wrote: My logic professor said if someone is putting up insurmountable obstacles to a rational discussion, there's not much you should do besides ask them about the weather. It's not worth your time to humor them usually. Another option is to out-troll them with sophistry. Either way it's important that you care very little because you can't change that shit.
Makes sense, it's just I'm a little on the fence on whether he was being rational. Like he had valid arguments, but it's just not what I'm used to. Like I said, I've hardly ever argued on facebook.
On May 18 2014 17:46 FiWiFaKi wrote:Then apparently because I say "I think" or "I believe" in my arguments, it means I'm not objectively discussing this.... And ugh.
I hate it when people think using those formulations makes you subjective although it just shows you are just being more honest and aware (might even say objective here) than them about what should be a universal truth and what is still open to debate.
I hate that and the way people mistake my civility and constructive criticism for a lack of knowledge/understanding. Like those stupid students who don't understand that "I'm sorry I'm afraid I didn't fully understand your explaination, could you come again" or "I'm not sure this/that would work as expected" essentially means "I think you're wrong" or "I think your explaination shows YOUR lack of understanding/knowledge" and not that I'm somehow blindsighted by your hungover lazy grad student way of getting out of this lab as fast as you can.
I completely agree with you, but it's difficult to get that across without being attacked for something else by them.
On May 18 2014 21:44 micronesia wrote: I think approaching a facebook argument as a 'win' or a 'loss' is a big mistake. Also as others have said, don't worry too much about a facebook discussion... make sure you make the points you want to make. The other guy can counter with whatever bullshit he wants, and you don't have to reply. Readers can make up their own minds.
I was not approaching the argument, but at the end of the day, when the average person reads this, I feel like I will look the fool, and my perspective will look preposterous and barbaric/illogical, while he comes off as a saint. In convincing another person, I would say I lost.
@ninazerg - I don't think any of those point form suggestions would work; they are too simple. They might work against someone with little knowledge on the subject, but I don't like to resort to such low form of arguing.
On May 18 2014 23:32 Saechiis wrote: TL works the same way. When someone can't refute an argument you made they'll just ignore your entire core of reasoning and take a small piece of your argument and take it out of context or revert to personal attacks (get off your high horse!). It's like SH's where Terran keeps trying to wriggle around the inevitable and floats his buildings in the end to poke your 6 bases with a dropship and 2 marines.
Maybe it happens, but it happens much less than anywhere else. Both sides in most of the arguments I have on teamliquid are open minded, and don't do that. Since it does nothing for the community but piss people off without giving any substance to the discussion, because all they do is refute all the points, and not make any of their own.
It just pissed me off how someone can come off as convincing with this arguing style and trying to degrade their opponent. And the more sense you try to talk into them, and come off as nice, the more they can attack your weakness by using feelings when talking to the person.
They don't come off as convincing at all. If there is no substance behind the argument and they don't defend their positions well they look incompetent, and then if they result to aggressively attacking you they look like even more of a moron "oh I can't respond to this guys arguments so let's just insult him"
He just discussed to shit on the other person in subtle ways while to bystanders appearing innocent, arguing like a cold-hearted killer.
If he was being insulting, he came off as insulting to everyone else too.
If you wouldn't mind posting the transcript with names censored it would be interesting to see the actual full discussion.
I'm not really sure if it came off as insulting to everyone, as it did to me. A lot of it was pretty subtle I felt like... Maybe someone wouldn't mind dissecting and analyzing it a little bit, and any suggestions for improvement? It was like 2am at this time, so I'm sure there is a lot of poorly worded and expressed ideas.
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 03:54 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.
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 -__-
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.
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
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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
On May 21 2014 20:28 MattBarry wrote: 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
Disagree. Both looked kinda silly. Fiwi looked a little desperate and like he didn't have a formulated well thought out argument (which appears to be somewhat true) and that he was desperate given all the "please don't be mean" comments.
The other guy looked like a moron though too, so it's no loss. Not only do you have the irony of him making his fair share of fallacious statements while point out fallacies that Fiwi made, but also he just looks like he is dodging as well since he has nothing of substance to put out. He spends 90% of his argument offering nothing, merely crying "fallacy this, and fallacy that"
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/33dfQve.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZuZfc9B.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ik9RoCY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IXMwRzl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1GRusgQ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iGIkArk.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VuwZM4x.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SqnxEGG.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vyQ7fGU.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8edZ49x.png)
