At what point do you stop taking other people's arguments seriously?
- Thread starter Kenbo Slice
- Start date
Excessive use of exclamation marks; I'm not keen on them at all, seeing two together is borderline insulting. Even worse when people use them instead of a question mark (Anne Rice, we're looking at you). Or opening with 'Do you not think that...'. (And no, I do not think that exclamation marks should run away together and get married. Can you imagine what their children would look like!!)
It's the internet. A better question would be "when do I START taking people's arguments seriously?" 
And that point is when they show they've done actual research into the topic and come with actual facts that have been tested.
Seriously, more people should try it. About 90% of internet arguments aren't even worth "taking seriously". Just make a reply or two if you like, and move on with your life.
And that point is when they show they've done actual research into the topic and come with actual facts that have been tested.Seriously, more people should try it. About 90% of internet arguments aren't even worth "taking seriously". Just make a reply or two if you like, and move on with your life.
This. Too many times I see people flipping out about things that will make little if any difference and ignoring other things that are vital. The presidential elections compared to congressional elections are a perfect example of this.sanquin said:
When they start using insults or threaten violence. That tells me you've got nothing to come back with and have exhausted your mental capacity.
You know nothing, Saelune.Saelune said:
On Topic: When people are being blatantly disingenuous. When people avoid acknowledging valid points that has been made. When people demonstrate that they have no interest in having an honest debate. Instead, they want to harass you for having a different opinion. When people refuse to acknowledge dictionary definitions as a valid source to confirm what someone is saying. (This has happened way too much on these forums alone.) In general, when people want to act like an asshole when you engage them in any conversation or debate online. Which is, anymore, most of the time when I am on The Escapist.
It is even worse when such a person seems to acknowledge and almost take pride in doing such yet simultaneously expects you to continue to engage them. The complete and total arrogance/lack of awareness is staggering at times; Both online and off.KissingSunlight said:
People who don't look up words and concepts but then writes conspiracy theories about them.
Feminism, social justice, liberalism...
Feminism, social justice, liberalism...
At no point. Words are just words, if arguments aren't serious or after verification turn out to be false, they are not serious. If you on the other hand just deflect an argument you don't understand, don't like where conclusion takes you or don't like the way it has been delivered... well at this point you yourself can't be taken seriously.
Even the most vile, disingenuous, disgusting, repulsive, always wrong person may have a valid point, that would allow you to adjust your wrong position aka learn something.
If you just dismiss it, you're a fool (granted it's fine not to have time; just say you don't have time for it then, you're done etc.).
Even the most vile, disingenuous, disgusting, repulsive, always wrong person may have a valid point, that would allow you to adjust your wrong position aka learn something.
If you just dismiss it, you're a fool (granted it's fine not to have time; just say you don't have time for it then, you're done etc.).
You know you make a good point. We see people use terms like "libtards" for "liberals" they hate, but I've yet to see such people use it on actual liberals. People on the left who hold anti-liberal views seem to be lumped up with liberals for some reason, guess some can't get the idea that progressives and liberals aren't interchangeable and in many very important ways antithetical.Addendum_Forthcoming said:
On a rare occasion it can lead to what you describe, but more often than not it goes "I'm not racist but science has proven black people have a smaller brain."Fischgopf said:
Perhaps some people use the term as a way to say that they aren't racist, homophobic, sexist etc but for the vast vast majority, they are jut making a ham fisted attempt at trying to hide that is what they actually are.
When I can hear air being wasted, or when I feel that my brain cells are being assaulted when I haven't been drinking. You know the feeling. You know what it's like. You know what it means.
Ooh, also, when the person I'm arguing with, on hearing that I disagree with their stance, assumes I then take the most ridiculously extreme opposite stance. Case in point, I argued with a guy who was claiming their was no wage gap. He countered with "what, so you think there are evil spooky men in every office, denying women more pay?" And of course, the answer is no, but the fact is he'd already decided what my stance was before he even heard it.
Typically when they can't even cite sources that support their arguments, or the sources are extremely biased, or just fluff opinion pieces dressed up as an "Expert opinion".
I find I value empirical and statistical evidence more than other forms.
I find I value empirical and statistical evidence more than other forms.
Generally three things trigger my 'this is just a lunatic not worth my time' sensor:
1. Espousing a certain position but very plainly contradicting that position. I can give people slack if it is a very hidden contradiction, but when the contradiction is obvious and they still don't see it, they're hopeless.
2. Almost immediately reaches for the insults and character attacks. I can understand frustration after a long debate, but if the very first thing they reach for is attacks designed to poison the well you just know they haven't got a point worth considering. However, this does not apply to venting. If someone has a long history of good argument, I'm not going to suddenly discount them simply because they start a new argument in such a fashion. No, it has to be generally be one where people are talking in dialog and this is the first thing that they do.
3. Can't define their own terms to any degree that doesn't lead them to silliness like tautologies. I don't expect a rigorous definition, but again if their definition very plainly doesn't support their views, or creates a situation where everything is X then they're just talking nonsense.
1. Espousing a certain position but very plainly contradicting that position. I can give people slack if it is a very hidden contradiction, but when the contradiction is obvious and they still don't see it, they're hopeless.
2. Almost immediately reaches for the insults and character attacks. I can understand frustration after a long debate, but if the very first thing they reach for is attacks designed to poison the well you just know they haven't got a point worth considering. However, this does not apply to venting. If someone has a long history of good argument, I'm not going to suddenly discount them simply because they start a new argument in such a fashion. No, it has to be generally be one where people are talking in dialog and this is the first thing that they do.
3. Can't define their own terms to any degree that doesn't lead them to silliness like tautologies. I don't expect a rigorous definition, but again if their definition very plainly doesn't support their views, or creates a situation where everything is X then they're just talking nonsense.
When reading two or more posters on a forum arguing over a topic, it'll come down to if someone starts letting their emotions get the best of them and stop using logic. I've seen on many of topics whether it's politics to specifics on game localization where things start civil, but someone starts attacking the other. From there, I end up stop reading the back and forth as anything I could possibly learn is gone and while perhaps at first it can be amusing, it quickly escalates and at times can get really ugly.
Personally, I almost never get in an argument online, and the few times I remember I stopped because more myself than anything else. Outside of certain fictional series that I am really into and perhaps some small subject matters, I know that I lack all sorts of knowledge in 99% of topics related to life. I can understand surface level things about politics, religion, economics, but go any deeper and for the most part that's beyond my understanding of the topics. So if I make a comment and somebody starts going into much more detail about stuff, I may comment or ask a few questions, but generally back off because it would be disengenous of me to argue when I know nothing, and for an internet argument I don't feel like putting in hours of effort to respond. In the end, I still manage to come out of any debate/argument with some sort of new found knowledge, even if it's a little bit.
Personally, I almost never get in an argument online, and the few times I remember I stopped because more myself than anything else. Outside of certain fictional series that I am really into and perhaps some small subject matters, I know that I lack all sorts of knowledge in 99% of topics related to life. I can understand surface level things about politics, religion, economics, but go any deeper and for the most part that's beyond my understanding of the topics. So if I make a comment and somebody starts going into much more detail about stuff, I may comment or ask a few questions, but generally back off because it would be disengenous of me to argue when I know nothing, and for an internet argument I don't feel like putting in hours of effort to respond. In the end, I still manage to come out of any debate/argument with some sort of new found knowledge, even if it's a little bit.
Any time they massively generalize.
All Christians are child molesters.
Aaaaaand I'm out.
Like how dumb do you have to be to actually say stuff like that as if its fact.
All Christians are child molesters.
Aaaaaand I'm out.
Like how dumb do you have to be to actually say stuff like that as if its fact.