Most annoying argument tactics

Ziggy Stardust said:

It's quite unnessecary.

Click to expand...

Ziggy, you've brought up this pet topic of yours twenty times, in twenty other threads (mostly global warming threads), and I've given you the same answer every time. With this thread, I've now given you that same answer twenty-one times.

The method of proof I described is always necessary. That which is definite must be proved. That which is possible need only be theorized. If there was proof behind it, it wouldn't be a theory--it would be fact.

Ziggy Stardust said:

Allright Basket, want to go the childish route with me? I'll play. Explain how a possibility, a wild theory, a guess is suddenly a truth that hurts?

Click to expand...

I'll do you one better.

A couple centuries ago, the words "global warming" were never used together. The idea of human emissions cooking the planet did not exist. The idea was never even published until 1896.

But the truth is that human emissions had been warming the planet for SIX THOUSAND YEARS. Probably longer than that. That nobody knew about global warming did not change the fact that it was happening. There was NO PROOF ANYWHERE that early human farms were heating up the Earth. But the fact that there was no proof had no influence at all on whether or not it was actually happening.

A truth is a truth from the very beginning. The only thing that changes is how much we humans know about it--and how much we know about something does not change, in the least, whether or not it is happening. Global warming is either happening, or it is not. Saddam either had nukes, or he did not. I am definitely either a man or a woman. I'm not going to suddenly change from one to the other the moment you find out which.


Now drop it. We're so far off topic we should get our own Internet domain. Keep asking the same question, I'll keep giving you the same answer--liberally salted with smartass remarks.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.
"Either it's this thing, or it's this other completely different thing."
"Either you support XXX, or you support terrorism."
"Either I'm right, or else the whole universe is nuts."

They have been for 6 thousand years, but until the 1800's, were we burning coal or oil in massive amounts? Was there anywhere near as many people on the planet as there are today? No, there wasn't even one billon people until circa 1800.

In other words, prior to that, yes, they had been warming the planet, but each person contributed far less, and there were far less people. Do the math, the effect of humans on the planet's temperature has been insignificant until the 19th century.

choxorn said:

In other words, prior to that, yes, they had been warming the planet, but each person contributed far less, and there were far less people. Do the math, the effect of humans on the planet's temperature has been insignificant until the 19th century.

Click to expand...

Actually, several highly reputable climatologists would disagree with that last part (methane from ancient farming being a very important factor). The key thing is that whether it was happening was unaffected by whether or not anybody knew about it.

Oh, and by the way--

And perhaps doing so would give you time to update the Vanguard...

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is definitely annoying. I've been having a serious creativity problem all year. There's a saying somewhere that writers write better when they're in a bad mood. Well, that's not happening. I've been really crabby all year, but when I stare at the pages I can't get the ideas to work out.

I might have posted this already, but...

If I can prove that you're wrong about one minor detail or that you've spelled something wrong -- then you're wrong about EVERYTHING and henceforth, I am right.

scy12 said:

People who manipulate every word you say so that they can keep ignoring what you have to say , they then create an imaginary arguement which they then defeat and so they can proclaim themselfs as winners. And they act like it was not on purpose. Sophistical lying.

Click to expand...

That is officially strawmanism.

BasketCase said:

I'll do you one better.

Click to expand...

I know you have to sidestep. Again. As always, you can't answer the question. Simple fact of the matter is, a possibility is not an absolute truth that hurts. You said so yourself: If there was proof behind it, it wouldn't be a theory--it would be fact. Now, it's just unfounded what if's.

So, the smartass remark: the truth hurts, is quite totally beside the point.

Now drop it. We're so far off topic we should get our own Internet domain.

Click to expand...

The topic is annoying argument tactics. Which is what we are discussing. Well, I am discussing while you are avoiding. That much is clear from your sway towards the global warming topic, which is off-topic since the topic was your response The Truth Hurts when the topic was possibilities, wild theories and guesses.

Topic, topic, topic!

Ziggy Stardust said:

I know you have to sidestep. Again. As always, you can't answer the question. Simple fact of the matter is, a possibility is not an absolute truth that hurts.

Click to expand...

I already answered the question. Global warming wasn't a sidestep, it was an example (and if you REALLY want to stay on topic, your claim that I sidestepped? That's annoying).

Global warming is either definitely happening, or definitely not happening. One of those two boldface bits IS A TRUTH THAT HURTS.

We simply don't know which one. From our viewpoint, they are both possibilities. But one of these possibilities must be true. Therefore: one of these possibilities is a truth that hurts.


The argument tactic I find most annoying of all? People who break the rules of logic and call things true (or false) when they're neither.

warpus said:

Does this count?

Click to expand...

Hadn't seen that before, thanks.

Basket, the argument over global warming is, for the most part, whether or not we're the ones causing it. There's plenty of stuff out there that quite clearly shows that CO2 levels are rising, and that average global temperature is rising. Pretty much everyone now agrees that Earth's getting warmer, what they disagree on is whether its natural or not.

backing his argument with unproven evidence from unreliable sources and assume it is concrete fact

I personally love the "How many more related threads will you make/hijack?" arguement, while skipping any discussion.

As shown here.

TheLastOne36 said:

I personally love the "How many more related threads will you make/hijack?" arguement, while skipping any discussion.

As shown here.

Click to expand...

Ohhh! Good one. Also shown here!

Stevenpfo said:

Ohhh! Good one. Also shown here!

Click to expand...

what?

10 chars.

Since you obviously don't like with [X], that automatically qualifies you as [Y].

For example:

Since you don't like capitalism, that must mean you are a commie.


And:

Typical idiot feminist rant:

"Women are equal to men because we have to give birth to babies!"

Not that I agree or disagree with feminism, but can anyone spot something a bit off in that argument?

cybrxkhan said:

"Women are equal to men because we have to give birth to babies!"

Click to expand...

I've never in my life heard anyone saying that.

On the other hand, I've heard it used as a justification for male-only conscription, which is of course ridicilous.

Worst feminist ideology ever:

Women were oppressed by men for 100's of years so now we should be able to oppress men for 100's of years.

WORST VEGETARIANSIM ARGUMENT EVER!
"If we stop killing animals for meat, we can stop killing other people" (Chrissie Hynde, of the Pretenders, December 4 2006, opening act for the Who)

... is all i have to say. (other than the fact that I paid to see The Who, not listen to the opener preach. If I wanted to hear preaching at my rock concert I would (and did) pay to go see u2.)

but to sum it up, she just said that eating meat makes one murder other human beings... Eating meat creates this bloodlust, right? I mean, every time YOU eat a hamburger, don;t you just want to stab the person who made it for you in the chest?

Agreed on both. Whoever coined the phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" should have several javelins shoved up... well, you know where they get shoved.

Food doesn't make me feel anything, except full when I'm done eating it.

j_eps said:

Worst feminist ideology ever:

Women were oppressed by men for 100's of years so now we should be able to oppress men for 100's of years.

Click to expand...

No half-evolved feminist would say such a thing. This is like calling westboro a christian ideology. Who said this to you? Your little sister when she was 10?

WORST VEGETARIANSIM ARGUMENT EVER!
"If we stop killing animals for meat, we can stop killing other people" (Chrissie Hynde, of the Pretenders, December 4 2006, opening act for the Who)

Click to expand...

Violence begets violence. Cruelty to animals desensitizes us to cruelty against humans. Stepping stones. Address the source.

... is all i have to say. (other than the fact that I paid to see The Who, not listen to the opener preach. If I wanted to hear preaching at my rock concert I would (and did) pay to go see u2.)

Click to expand...

I saw them front row (literally, a friend's uncle worked there) at Joe Robbie Stadium (80000 people) many years ago. The Who, of course. I'm not some kind of moron that would pay to see U2 after JT (which I should have seen at the Orange Bowl).

but to sum it up, she just said that eating meat makes one murder other human beings... Eating meat creates this bloodlust, right? I mean, every time YOU eat a hamburger, don;t you just want to stab the person who made it for you in the chest?

Click to expand...

See above, I believe it is a bit more eloquent and far less short-sighted.

Just in case this helps wake you up, you're welcome.

----

The guy who agrees with him promotes anal rape with a weapon:

choxorn said:

Agreed on both. Whoever coined the phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" should have several javelins shoved up... well, you know where they get shoved.

Click to expand...

Food doesn't make me feel anything, except full when I'm done eating it.

Click to expand...

What a shame.

choxorn said:

Basket, the argument over global warming is, for the most part, whether or not we're the ones causing it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. I was only using global warming as an example, though.

Any given thing is either happening or not happening, and whether or not we know if it's happening has no influence on whether it's happening. Either something is true or it is false--but if we don't know which, then we must label it "unknown" and accept the fact that it's possible. A whole lot of people tend to see everything in black and white, and can't handle the words "I don't know". They have no room for the middle ground--but in any logical environment, that middle ground is required.

Far too many people try to take the position "well, if you can't prove this true, then it must be false". Or the reverse: "well, if you can't prove this false, then it must be true".

Here's the way it's actually supposed to be done: "well, if you can't prove it true and you can't prove it false, then we don't know, therefore it's possible but unknown". I get incinerated by a lot of people whenever I point this out, because the presence of the unknown in an argument just drives people crazy.


Yes, this is annoying--but it's also necessary. And it's also forum-legal. Highly effective (and moderator-proof) method for driving people up the walls.