Discussion Forums > The Lounge
Who's the worst person to get in an arguement with?
megido-rev.M:
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on June 01, 2012, 03:07:16 AM ---You're confusing a rational debate with a contentious verbal or written altercation in which the words are irrelevant. Outside of arguments from emotion, there are arguments of opinion -- these are most of them --in which case one cannot be wrong however vehemently it's implied.
--- End quote ---
I'm not comparing anything let alone rationality and altercation. There's not much difference between arguing and debating aside from the fact that the latter is regulated in order to abide to strictures.
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on June 01, 2012, 05:08:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: NeonFlame on June 01, 2012, 03:38:14 PM ---I hate it when that happens. Because then there's no way you can "prove" that what they're saying is wrong, they have "evidence" to the contrary.. even if you know why it appeared that whatever they're saying is true works.
Proof needs to be reproducible but people just don't seem to understand that..
--- End quote ---
They're always so damn smug about it too.
I remember participating in political chatroom discussions during the second Iraq war and its preamble. Some of the more unreasoning anti-war proponents and the hawkish warmongers were treating the WMDs as if they were an article of faith to be accepted or rejected blindly. Every false report of WMDs which came out and every time those reports proved false brought with them a renewed wave and eventual backlash of sickening self-satisfaction and hostility. Each side nodding sagely to one another and pondering what fools these mortals be on the other.
Either way, it was infuriating. The issue was important objectively, and both sides had reasonable grounds for doubt, but in the end it was just an excuse to be a complete douche to people who didn't share your worldview. These arguments were just window dressing for a deeper personal malignancy coupled with masturbatory tendencies.
--- End quote ---
I hear you. Weak-minded interests and lacking of desire for true proof => wastes of time.
NeonFlame:
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on June 01, 2012, 11:17:30 PM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on June 01, 2012, 03:07:16 AM ---You're confusing a rational debate with a contentious verbal or written altercation in which the words are irrelevant. Outside of arguments from emotion, there are arguments of opinion -- these are most of them --in which case one cannot be wrong however vehemently it's implied.
--- End quote ---
I'm not comparing anything let alone rationality and altercation. There's not much difference between arguing and debating aside from the fact that the latter is regulated in order to abide to strictures.
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on June 01, 2012, 05:08:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: NeonFlame on June 01, 2012, 03:38:14 PM ---I hate it when that happens. Because then there's no way you can "prove" that what they're saying is wrong, they have "evidence" to the contrary.. even if you know why it appeared that whatever they're saying is true works.
Proof needs to be reproducible but people just don't seem to understand that..
--- End quote ---
They're always so damn smug about it too.
I remember participating in political chatroom discussions during the second Iraq war and its preamble. Some of the more unreasoning anti-war proponents and the hawkish warmongers were treating the WMDs as if they were an article of faith to be accepted or rejected blindly. Every false report of WMDs which came out and every time those reports proved false brought with them a renewed wave and eventual backlash of sickening self-satisfaction and hostility. Each side nodding sagely to one another and pondering what fools these mortals be on the other.
Either way, it was infuriating. The issue was important objectively, and both sides had reasonable grounds for doubt, but in the end it was just an excuse to be a complete douche to people who didn't share your worldview. These arguments were just window dressing for a deeper personal malignancy coupled with masturbatory tendencies.
--- End quote ---
I hear you. Weak-minded interests and lacking of desire for true proof => wastes of time.
--- End quote ---
Oh totally. It's even worse when they start attacking what you're saying when they have no clue what they're talking about.
That always gets me angry and then I can't argue properly and end up having to walk away before I sound like an idiot.. you just can't argue with people like that.
megido-rev.M:
--- Quote from: NeonFlame on June 06, 2012, 04:44:20 PM ---
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on June 01, 2012, 11:17:30 PM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on June 01, 2012, 03:07:16 AM ---You're confusing a rational debate with a contentious verbal or written altercation in which the words are irrelevant. Outside of arguments from emotion, there are arguments of opinion -- these are most of them --in which case one cannot be wrong however vehemently it's implied.
--- End quote ---
I'm not comparing anything let alone rationality and altercation. There's not much difference between arguing and debating aside from the fact that the latter is regulated in order to abide to strictures.
--- Quote from: Nikkoru on June 01, 2012, 05:08:36 PM ---
--- Quote from: NeonFlame on June 01, 2012, 03:38:14 PM ---I hate it when that happens. Because then there's no way you can "prove" that what they're saying is wrong, they have "evidence" to the contrary.. even if you know why it appeared that whatever they're saying is true works.
Proof needs to be reproducible but people just don't seem to understand that..
--- End quote ---
They're always so damn smug about it too.
I remember participating in political chatroom discussions during the second Iraq war and its preamble. Some of the more unreasoning anti-war proponents and the hawkish warmongers were treating the WMDs as if they were an article of faith to be accepted or rejected blindly. Every false report of WMDs which came out and every time those reports proved false brought with them a renewed wave and eventual backlash of sickening self-satisfaction and hostility. Each side nodding sagely to one another and pondering what fools these mortals be on the other.
Either way, it was infuriating. The issue was important objectively, and both sides had reasonable grounds for doubt, but in the end it was just an excuse to be a complete douche to people who didn't share your worldview. These arguments were just window dressing for a deeper personal malignancy coupled with masturbatory tendencies.
--- End quote ---
I hear you. Weak-minded interests and lacking of desire for true proof => wastes of time.
--- End quote ---
Oh totally. It's even worse when they start attacking what you're saying when they have no clue what they're talking about.
That always gets me angry and then I can't argue properly and end up having to walk away before I sound like an idiot.. you just can't argue with people like that.
--- End quote ---
Fortunately I never need to run into such situations. Although at one point which I did, I rerouted their words against them and then preemptively countered nearly everything else: fun stuff.
Verslie:
Anyone who watches anime is usually impossible to reason with.
NeonFlame:
--- Quote from: Verslie on June 08, 2012, 04:41:30 PM ---Anyone who watches anime is usually impossible to reason with.
--- End quote ---
I see what you did thar.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version