Planetarion Forums

Planetarion Forums (https://pirate.planetarion.com/index.php)
-   General Discussions (https://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Internet Arguing (https://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=191717)

Deffeh 24 Jul 2006 00:00
Internet Arguing
 
So its come to my attention that theres different styles of internet arguing, each of them more infuriating than the last.

1. "One bizarre exception disproves an otherwise generally true statement" / The Vampy

In its most raw sense, this would be if i said something like "Greenday are a three piece band", and someone countered it with "thats not true, they hired a session violinist for the intro to hitching the ride".

Admittedly the plus side of this argumenting technique is that it does tend to stop people generalising unneccesarily. Obviously calling someone on a statement that has no facts to it is good, but providing a 1% exception to a rule as a way of sidetracking an argument / trying to derail someones point, is ridiculous.

2. "The bold new world" / The Phang

Repeating a statement you made earlier even if its already been replied to makes it significantly more interesting and worthy the second time round.
Repeating a statement you made earlier even if its already been replied to makes it significantly more interesting and worthy the second time round.

3. "Talk first, face the concequences later" / The Deffeh

I am atrocious for making gigantic sweeping statements then having to spend half an hour defending and amending it. Usually i make these statements to be overly controversial or raise a discussion point, as well as obviously doing them in anger sometimes. Every word tends to be picked apart and by the time the discussion is over what is left is an uninteresting subjective opinion that isnt interesting.

4. "Attack is the best defence" / The idimmu / Game

Sometimes the best way out of an argument is to resort to a personal attack rather than discussing the subject. Game has made an internet career out of it (and shagging fatties of course), considering he doesnt have much of a personality or intellect to rely upon. idimmu the other night was content to hurl insults and attack my highlight rather than to take part in any discussion on any meaningful level.

5. "Fight rhymes with shite" / The Dace

Having a terrible attention and tolerance span means arguments and discussions tend to be fast and furious. Why debate, when you can swing a "u r gay" at someone and go back to what you were doing? This is by far the most effective and sanest method.

6. "People care what i think" / The energetic newbie.

Sure, its tough to get recognition on an internet forum or chat room, but more often than not youll find if you interject into arguments that arent anything to do with you and the originator wasnt directing at you, and consistently quote and address them even when they are simply not bothered what you have to say; you arent going to make any friends.

7. Pedantry / The Jakiri

Picking up on one small inaccuracy and ignoring the broad thrust of any argument made.

8. Aloof / The Yahwe

Refusing to argue or operate on any meaningful or actual level, preferring to do the "you just dont get it" thing.

9. Faggotry / The MM

Managing to turn everything into something about cock, or arse, and sustaining any credibility in the process.

10. The Internetty / Unintelligent unoriginal generic forum user.

Tl; dr quote tl;dr, special olympics orly?

s|k 24 Jul 2006 00:09
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Why not list them in the reverse order, and then say 'each less infuriating than the last'? Then your post would seem less angry. :0

Ste 24 Jul 2006 00:27
Re: Internet Arguing
 
you missed out the "there's only black and white" arguing.

"what do you mean Israel are overreacting? do you want them to all be blown up by suicide bombers"
or
"what do you mean you hate thatcher? you must be a dirty commie"
etc

Or the "completely offtopic response" arguing

"1+1=2 so therefore ID cards are good and there is a god"

Dante Hicks 24 Jul 2006 00:42
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deffeh
Usually i make these statements to be overly controversial or raise a discussion point, as well as obviously doing them in anger sometimes.
There's no real need to make something additionally controversial - if a topic is worthy of discussion it doesn't need the flamebait.

And to be honest, sometimes the generalisations are so broad they actually become a completely different point. No-one minds a little exaggeration for effect and indeed that's a common feature in internet discourse. So
"The amount of non-white MPs is like 0.000000000000001% of the total or something"

Is a valid enough point, albeit exagerrated. However if someone was to say "There's a lot of legal barriers in the UK which makes it impossible for a non-white person to be an MP." then obviously that would be false as evidenced by the fact there non-white MPs (albeit a relatively low number). The most obvious example I can think of is here where you say :

Quote:
no one is really half irish, they just have some irish blood in them somewhere back back back down the line and wap the knowledge of this out as if the rest of our gene pool is contaminated somehow
Well the thing is your post is ambiguous here. You could be making a point about categories like "half-Irish" are essentially meaningless - and I think Tomkat argues that later in the thread. But from what you later say (when accusing me of pedantry) it seems that you actually meant something like "The amount of people calling themselves 'half' Irish is disproportionately high". Which is fair enough but is a completely different point.

Quote:
4. "Attack is the best defence" / The idimmu / Game
I'm curious as to why you picked these two for this one, but then again I tend to avoid IRC for debates (it seems a terrible medium for such an endeavour). Lots of people do this (probably the majority of GD). How many times has someone's argument / point been dismissed because the poster is too young / mentally ill / a lawyer / too short / too fat / etc?
Quote:
7. Pedantry / The Jakiri

Picking up on one small inaccuracy and ignoring the broad thrust of any argument made.
While I doubt Mark would deny being a pedant, I don't actually recall him doing that very often (if at all) during any serious debate. Sometimes of course one exception does disprove an entire argument (as in my example above) and it's entirely appropriate to concentrate on one example.

The main one that irks me is when people don't actually read what is being said and just post some sort of (typically emotional) auto-response. The threads on paedophilia usually have some responses of that nature - I think DarkJedi once posted lengthy attack on Yahwe while completely missing the point of the argument, but I can't find it now.

milo 24 Jul 2006 00:51
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Some long dead and demonstrably wrong bloke from germania can be read to understand why u r rong nd i am rite - thedante/t&f/assorted commies

TBH if im in a particularly egotistical mood i don't 'get' why im wrong but if im feeling chilled and open minded my pov can be changed.

lokken 24 Jul 2006 01:00
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Code:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Deffeh again.

Dace 24 Jul 2006 01:33
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deffeh
5. "Fight rhymes with shite" / The Dace

Having a terrible attention and tolerance span means arguments and discussions tend to be fast and furious. Why debate, when you can swing a "u r gay" at someone and go back to what you were doing? This is by far the most effective and sanest method.


I dare anybody to argue with this approach. My general opinion is that most people (that i tend to "argue" with) have made up their minds already and although those opinions may be wrong "why bother arguing with them?". I mean i could. I could lay out a brilliant argument with examples and everything but most likely they'd ignore it and i'd only be giving myself stress. In my opinion it's better to tell someone that they're wrong and just leave it at that. This is not a debating competition. I win **** all if i'm proven to be correct.


Achilles this attitude is why i didn't respond to you.

furball 24 Jul 2006 01:35
Re: Internet Arguing
 
So ahead of his time...

vampire_lestat 24 Jul 2006 01:53
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
I dare anybody to argue with this approach. My general opinion is that most people (that i tend to "argue" with) have made up their minds already and although those opinions may be wrong "why bother arguing with them?". I mean i could. I could lay out a brilliant argument with examples and everything but most likely they'd ignore it and i'd only be giving myself stress. In my opinion it's better to tell someone that they're wrong and just leave it at that. This is not a debating competition. I win **** all if i'm proven to be correct.


Achilles this attitude is why i didn't respond to you.
ur so fukkin ded

Phang 24 Jul 2006 02:23
Re: Internet Arguing
 
i am entirely, entirely guilty as charged.

however. the two things you're probably basing it on (expensive clothing, IRC and drugs and music, MSN) the problem was that almost every time you "answered" the question you misunderstood it. I wasn't trying to re-ask a question and make it more worthy, I was trying to re-ask a question so that you understood it. so no moral highground for you.

milo 24 Jul 2006 03:00
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
I dare anybody to argue with this approach. My general opinion is that most people (that i tend to "argue" with) have made up their minds already and although those opinions may be wrong "why bother arguing with them?".

whilst id agree this does happen, as i said earlier i am concious of this in myself and try to overcome it, it basically comes down to ego everyone thinks the world would be better if it was run by them and find it difficult to empathise with another pov, its especially difficult if you've wasted 4 pages arguing.

I tend to find that after posting on GD whenever i debate anywhere else i initially spend quite a period of time clarifying what exactly the other person 'means', its less of a problem on GD since the quality of posting is higher, but on other forums its often the case that the 'other person' hasn't really thought through their opinions and is instead bombarding you with stuck together tabloid opinions. Instead of debating what anyone 'thought' the debate was about more time is taken getting rid of very tangential points and and attempting to get together some sort of 'core point'.

Dante Hicks 24 Jul 2006 06:33
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Some long dead and demonstrably wrong bloke from germania can be read to understand why u r rong nd i am rite - thedante/t&f/assorted commies
I don't remember ever making that argument. :confused:

I mean sure, I quote our beloved Hitler as much as the next man, but only when it's relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
My general opinion is that most people (that i tend to "argue" with) have made up their minds already and although those opinions may be wrong "why bother arguing with them?"
Mainly to pass the time, clarify/challenge your own opinions and very possibly influence other people's views. 95% of the time the last point applies to other people reading the thread, not the actual person you're arguing with.
Quote:
This is not a debating competition. I win **** all if i'm proven to be correct.
What about the love and respect of your internet peers?

jt25man 24 Jul 2006 07:35
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deffeh
6. "People care what i think" / The energetic newbie.

Sure, its tough to get recognition on an internet forum or chat room, but more often than not youll find if you interject into arguments that arent anything to do with you and the originator wasnt directing at you, and consistently quote and address them even when they are simply not bothered what you have to say; you arent going to make any friends.
If you make a post and nobody reads it, does it actually exist?

Game^ 24 Jul 2006 07:41
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deffeh
4. "Attack is the best defence" / The idimmu / Game

Sometimes the best way out of an argument is to resort to a personal attack rather than discussing the subject. Game has made an internet career out of it (and shagging fatties of course), considering he doesnt have much of a personality or intellect to rely upon.
How bloody rude :(

I don’t find the "group" I have been labeled under worrying; I actually find it out right insulting that Idimmu is in there with me too! I mean how is this possible? He’s fat, I’m slim, he’s ugly, I’m beautiful, it just doesn’t make sense!

Still I suppose this is what you get allowing a suicidal poster make threads, he's clearly doing this to wind me up, hoping that ill search him out and kill him, because he hasn’t got the minerals to do it himself! :(

Deffeh 24 Jul 2006 09:20
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
There's no real need to make something additionally controversial - if a topic is worthy of discussion it doesn't need the flamebait.

Re controversy, its unavoidable, as exaggeration fits into our general speech. Im sure you arent as racist as you come off, but its much easier for you to do the whole "too many dark skinned people" rather than going into detail about what you do or dont like about black people all the time. Similarly, the conversation 2 nights ago started basically because i expressed sheer indignation that anyone would pay £65 a pair of jeans and consider it a reasonable purchase. Exaggeration and overemphasis is impossible to avoid, its part of our dailly speech.


And to be honest, sometimes the generalisations are so broad they actually become a completely different point. No-one minds a little exaggeration for effect and indeed that's a common feature in internet discourse. So
"The amount of non-white MPs is like 0.000000000000001% of the total or something"

Is a valid enough point, albeit exagerrated. However if someone was to say "There's a lot of legal barriers in the UK which makes it impossible for a non-white person to be an MP." then obviously that would be false as evidenced by the fact there non-white MPs (albeit a relatively low number). The most obvious example I can think of is here where you say :


Well the thing is your post is ambiguous here. You could be making a point about categories like "half-Irish" are essentially meaningless - and I think Tomkat argues that later in the thread. But from what you later say (when accusing me of pedantry) it seems that you actually meant something like "The amount of people calling themselves 'half' Irish is disproportionately high". Which is fair enough but is a completely different point.

So i worded it badly i admit, and you are correct in your analysis. Its something (as i have admitted) i'm bad for. The point i was making is that people tend to view irish genes as luminous or something, they are more likely to comment or reflect upon an irish grandparent than an english one, or any other nationality really.


I'm curious as to why you picked these two for this one, but then again I tend to avoid IRC for debates (it seems a terrible medium for such an endeavour). Lots of people do this (probably the majority of GD). How many times has someone's argument / point been dismissed because the poster is too young / mentally ill / a lawyer / too short / too fat / etc?
While I doubt Mark would deny being a pedant, I don't actually recall him doing that very often (if at all) during any serious debate. Sometimes of course one exception does disprove an entire argument (as in my example above) and it's entirely appropriate to concentrate on one example.

Re mark, hes an incredibly nice, and incredibly intelligent chap, but occasionally with intelligence you have to get your "hands dirty" an in internet sense. Rather than talking about what he means or detailing a full post, he'll make a one or two line comment - like a footnote, almost, a small edit to his stance which we should all have stored in our minds.

Insults mean nothing to me; but again, i refer to saturday nights conversation. Me and nodrog held completely opposing views but were trying to reply to the broad thrust of what each person was saying - at the same time i had phang drifting in and out of the conversation and bolding it up, idimmu every now and again was saying (deffeh this is what we happen when we let a mentally ill person talk) (deffeh is mentally ill so his worldview is terrible) and then was suprised when i labelled him in this category. He wasnt trying to be constructive, it was even pretty poor trolling considering im simply not bothered, it was being dismissive for his own sake. As well as this at the same time i had posters who i dont mind (SYMM) and people who i am somewhat indifferent towards just now (xeolythe, rahihyn) drifting in and out, misquoting me and misdirecting the argument and taking it places it wasnt meant to have gone. And there was a sizeable number of people saying "this is boring cant we talk about something else" - well, if its boring, your welcome to talk about something else, but this is what i'm talking about tonight. nodrog in the end was drifting in and out and telling some of them he agreed with me on a certain point (because it was so off topic or whatever).

Im not meaning to butter nod up here btw, i think his general view on human nature is pretty terrible, and when we boiled down the discussion to the bare minimum, i still pretty much fundamentally disagreed with his way of thinking.
.

Deffeh 24 Jul 2006 09:24
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phang
i am entirely, entirely guilty as charged.

however. the two things you're probably basing it on (expensive clothing, IRC and drugs and music, MSN) the problem was that almost every time you "answered" the question you misunderstood it. I wasn't trying to re-ask a question and make it more worthy, I was trying to re-ask a question so that you understood it. so no moral highground for you.
I havent misunderstood owt. you didnt hang around to the end of either conversaton or take part in them fully. It moved from

"how expensive should jeans be" -> "does expense equate fashion" -> "who is fashion for" -> "self esteem or self confidence?" -> "is self esteem internal or external"

and along the way i conceded things to nodrog, most notably that part of _my own_ insecurity is that i dont put myself out there to be judged or care about what they think perhaps because i dont want to hear the response. Somewhere along the line you managed a bizarre metaphor about fashion being related to expense as paintballing is to showering. You can bold that all you like my friend, but its not going to make any more sense

JonnyBGood 24 Jul 2006 09:38
Re: Internet Arguing
 
We missed out on "I'd reply to your argument but I'm too busy having sex with my supermodel girlfriend in the back seat of my ferrari surrounded by piles of money from my highly successful and innovative business launched on the back of my enormous IQ."


Of course this thread appears to be about a specific irc argument and not arguments in general on the internet so maybe nobody there was doing that I don't know.

Dante Hicks 24 Jul 2006 09:51
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deffeh
Im sure you arent as racist as you come off
I don't think (outside of jest) that I've ever posted anything even vaguely racist. I'm refusing to include "I don't find category x of people attractive" in that for the same reason that I don't think I'm a sexist for not loving the cock.
Quote:
Re mark, hes an incredibly nice, and incredibly intelligent chap, but occasionally with intelligence you have to get your "hands dirty" an in internet sense. Rather than talking about what he means or detailing a full post, he'll make a one or two line comment - like a footnote, almost, a small edit to his stance which we should all have stored in our minds.
This is probably true, but I'd apportion a lot of the "blame" to people being lazy in the reading. If Mark says something a little bit cryptic then it's worth thinking about it for a second rather than assuming he's made a very obvious mistake or is saying something offtopic or whatever. Admittedly not everyone has memorised every episode of Futurama so they probably won't get every comment.

But on this topic I'll repeat my earlier point : problems come about from people arguing against some sort of strawman rather than bothering to work out the nuance of what someone else has said. It's much easier to presume someone likes child molestors or doesn't care about abuse victims than to argue against a reasonable enough proposal in changes in the law or whatnot.

MrL_JaKiri 24 Jul 2006 09:51
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
While I doubt Mark would deny being a pedant,
The technical term is "an pedant".

Tomkat 24 Jul 2006 13:30
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
We missed out on "I'd reply to your argument but I'm too busy having sex with my supermodel girlfriend in the back seat of my ferrari surrounded by piles of money from my highly successful and innovative business launched on the back of my enormous IQ."


Of course this thread appears to be about a specific irc argument and not arguments in general on the internet so maybe nobody there was doing that I don't know.
I was there and ALMOST doing that!

It was in fact "I'm having sex with JBG's mother on the bonnet of someone else's Skoda surrounded by lots of sweaty men taking pictures and watching in the usual style of dogging".

Close enough though am i rite?

JonnyBGood 24 Jul 2006 14:07
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
I was there and ALMOST doing that!

It was in fact "I'm having sex with JBG's mother on the bonnet of someone else's Skoda surrounded by lots of sweaty men taking pictures and watching in the usual style of dogging".

Close enough though am i rite?
I would have liked to see the parental permission slips for that school trip!

Dace 24 Jul 2006 14:13
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I would have liked to see the parental permission slips for that school trip!


Whatever turns you on dude.

Dace 24 Jul 2006 14:14
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Mainly to pass the time, clarify/challenge your own opinions and very possibly influence other people's views. 95% of the time the last point applies to other people reading the thread, not the actual person you're arguing with.

What about the love and respect of your internet peers?


u r gay

JonnyBGood 24 Jul 2006 14:16
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dace
Whatever turns you on dude.
This is like the pot bringing a case for racial discrimination against the kettle.

hyfe 24 Jul 2006 14:18
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win you're still a retard.

JonnyBGood 24 Jul 2006 14:25
Re: Internet Arguing
 
That's an argument on the internet in itself though and as such was written by a retard and doesn't deserve to be read.

Phang 24 Jul 2006 14:28
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyfe
Quote:
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win you're still a retard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deffeh
10. The Internetty / Unintelligent unoriginal generic forum user.

Tl; dr quote tl;dr, special olympics orly?

hyfe 24 Jul 2006 14:31
Re: Internet Arguing
 
I'm sure my post was a clever pun on itself, showing recursive retardedness.

JonnyBGood 24 Jul 2006 14:33
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyfe
recursive retardedness.
Isn't that the title of a craig david album?

Dace 24 Jul 2006 14:57
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Alliteration SELLS baby!

JonnyBGood 24 Jul 2006 15:00
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Dante's deleted post is almost certainly the most confusing thing I have ever read.

lokken 24 Jul 2006 15:01
Re: Internet Arguing
 
ITT, people adopt other posters argument styles so we can guess who they are impersonating.

Dante Hicks 24 Jul 2006 15:04
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Dante's deleted post is almost certainly the most confusing thing I have ever read.
Not as confusing as your mum.

(I got the Paralympics and Special Olympics mixed up and the definition was wrong on wordnet.princeton.edu)

JonnyBGood 24 Jul 2006 15:18
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
Not as confusing as your mum.
I'll have you know my mum is irreducibly complex.

Quote:
(I got the Paralympics and Special Olympics mixed up and the definition was wrong on wordnet.princeton.edu)
Another day hard at work eh dante?

Dante Hicks 24 Jul 2006 15:30
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Another day hard at work eh dante?
So far I've revolutionised at least three paradigms today.

I may have to take tomorrow off to recover.

roadrunner_0 24 Jul 2006 17:16
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
The technical term is "an pedant".


no it's not, it's a pedant, why would you use 'an' there?

MrL_JaKiri 24 Jul 2006 17:26
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner_0
no it's not, it's a pedant, why would you use 'an' there?
You're very slow today.

Tomkat 24 Jul 2006 17:39
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Please change it to Wile. E. Coyote_0

It'd be ace.

Demon Dave 24 Jul 2006 17:45
Re: Internet Arguing
 
No, it should be Slowpoke Rodríguez (The slowest mouse in all Mexico)

Tomkat 24 Jul 2006 17:48
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Demon Dave
No, it should be Slowpoke Rodríguez (The slowest mouse in all Mexico)
Slowpoke was a rubbish pokemon :(

jerome 24 Jul 2006 18:01
Re: Internet Arguing
 
i really loved arcanine, i've always wanted one for a pet :(

roadrunner_0 24 Jul 2006 18:51
Re: Internet Arguing
 
meep sodding meep bitches, pedantry isnt a suitable subject for irony fs

Benneh 24 Jul 2006 18:52
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerome
i really loved arcanine, i've always wanted one for a pet :(
My Squirtle > your Arcanine.

Yahwe 24 Jul 2006 20:27
Re: Internet Arguing
 
it's obvious that deffeh just doesn't understand.

Snurx 24 Jul 2006 21:03
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Stealing is right, property is wrong.

dda 24 Jul 2006 21:22
Re: Internet Arguing
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I'll have you know my mum is irreducibly complex.
So then it is only her son who is simple?

Deffeh 24 Jul 2006 23:54
Re: Internet Arguing
 
and the thread turns into pokemon. **** you, thread starter


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018