*insert Joker impersonation* Why...so...LITERAL?!

[Caiphus]

I feel roughly this way whenever a game gets a 10/10 in a review and some people choose to go "A game can't be 10/10, that means it's perfect and nothing is perfect, therefore this score is invalid".

But then I remember that their post affects my life literally zero, and go look at pictures of Sara Jean Underwood, or something. You know, to take the edge off.

 

[AustinN]

...

Captcha: Autism Speaks. Because sometimes, autistic people take things too literally.

As a person with Asperger's syndrome... I don't take offense, because it's true, and extremely frustrating for me and my family/friends. I have real trouble detecting sarcasm unless it's EXTREEEMLY ENUNCIAAAAATED or a subject matter I'm intimately familiar with.

I'm also quite guilty of getting hung up on semantics and phrasing while debating. It's very easy for me to do; I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's just a real effort to accept that someone used wording that I don't like to convey a perfectly reasonable argument. I'm trying to do better, though.

I will argue, however, that poor choice of words (not wording that I don't like, but legit bad wording) can cause real misunderstandings in a debate, causing it to spiral out of control. Hence why in a formal debate, it's important to clearly define the terms being used, especially when using words that have contradictory meanings.

I do as well, so I understand the urge to be literal, while understanding why it would be frustrating to other people.

To be clear, I didn't mean that as a jab. That's just the first time I've gotten a captcha that was somewhat relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[shrekfan246]

I think you mean "perfect" rather than Excellent...excellent is a subjective term

Tell that to Strazdas.

After being here basically daily for almost three years, I've determined that it's simply better for my sanity if I don't reply to some people.

Otherwise I'd get goaded into making threads like this one.

OT: I've noticed it too. It becomes really obnoxious once people start either ignoring parts of my posts fixate on a random line I threw in or putting words in my mouth because they're under the assumption that I'm being 100% literal and exact with everything I post.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

-snip-

The one that grates on me the most around here is when somebody gets pounced on for saying "Am I the only one who..." and everybody proceeds to post that one stupid Critical Miss comic that says "First of all, you're never the only one, you fucking clown."

Oh yes, EXCUSE me for my HORRIBLY INACCURATE statement. I can't BELIEVE I could have made such a HORRIBLY CONCEITED STATEMENT. I guess I should also correct the error I made this morning when I said it was raining cats and dogs, as there were no felines or canines falling from the sky at that particular moment. And I wouldn't know if burning my tongue on my coffee ACTUALLY hurt like hell, because I've never been there. Oh, and when I said the stoplight was taking FOREVER to change, I didn't ACTUALLY mean forever, because of course it did change eventually.

HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO CARELESSLY FIGURATIVE WITH MY WORDS. OBVIOUSLY THIS HYPERBOLE IS AFFECTING HOW WELL MY POINT IS COMING ACROSS. FROM NOW ON I WILL ONLY MAKE LITERALLY CORRECT STATEMENTS WITH NO EMBELLISHMENT OF ANY KIND.

This is exactly the kind of shit that I've been thinking for a while.

What the fuck people? Do we need to be so needlessly pedantic? It's such a petty way to try and discredit someone you disagree with. Not just that, but it discourages people from writing in an interesting style, which I find to be far and away the most distasteful thing about it.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Because people in discussions like to prove others with different viewpoints wrong. One way of doing it is trying to convince the others with arguments, but that's kind of difficult, if not outright futile in many cases. What is much easier, however, is to take some snippets of what someone said out of context, or interpret some words. some less-than-stellar phrasing perhaps, totally literally, and then attack them for all that, even though that's obviously not what they meant, so they have to defend themselves for stuff they haven't really said, yet alone meant. And, congratulations, you're already halfway there at "winning" a debate even without any good arguments.
Now obviously you can't always claim that you meant something one way when a lot things you actually say suggest otherwise, but there should be a line somewhere. And that line is often at a place right now that makes many online discussions futile and, for me anyways, not very enjoyable.
Not to mention that such behaviour tends to make you, in real life talks, pretty unpopular pretty fast.

 

[Riverwolf]

Who was it who said: "If you win a debate, you've gained nothing"? Was that the Buddha, or someone else?

Regardless, despite my desire to "win" debates, it's something I've found to be absolutely true. Whenever I "win" debates (which pretty much just means the person I'm debating with stops responding), I don't gain anything. It's those times I've lost debates (or an argument of mine is discredited even if my overall opinion remains unchanged) that I've grown and matured the most. Even if my opinion hasn't changed, I've at least gained a new perspective and appreciation for an argument I may have previously thought poorly thought out, if not just absolutely insane.

I say this for those who are lurking this thread who try "winning" debates my doing exactly what the OT and others are talking about. You should know who you are.