Poll: Fontaine's Law

[Geo Da Sponge]

I've noticed a similar thing in R&P. Most of the time people don't try to prove their points at all, they just spend all of their time saying why the other person is wrong.

Both are silly.

Agreed. In a very recent thread (I won't say which) I saw one of the most frequent posters had never actually made an argument. He had simply typed his opinion in a single line, and whenever anyone tried to disagree with this he just mocked their arguments.

Or like when someone makes an entire post dedicated to pointing out alleged logical fallacies without actually showing why their side is right. If their argument is fall of mistakes and fallacies, then it should be obvious when your argument breaks it in half. If you're just pointing out errors then you're not proving anything apart from the fact that your opponent can't construct a proper argument.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I don't know. I see more people arguing about semantics and going "you used X logical fallacy (that you really didn't use and/or I don't understand properly), therefore you lose the argument!" when it gets to that point. Seriously, there needs to be a logical fallacy about going "logical fallacy, I win!" and another one about "this word has a commonly accepted simple definition, but I'm going to argue about the connotation because I've got nothing else left to support my argument."

 

[DoPo]

"this word has a commonly accepted simple definition, but I'm going to argue about the connotation because I've got nothing else left to support my argument."

Oh gosh, this so much. Semantic arguments are low, but there are ways to even go lower than that. I remember a guy here who wrote "Serbian wastes" rather than "Siberian wastes" then spent the next few posts trying to convince me that what he wrote made sense, rather than admit his mistake. Going as far as saying something to the effect of "Yes, I made a mistake, but suck on this dictionary definitions, I am correct!".

 

[Vault101]

Yeah...I should know

very annoying...

mabye its hypocritical because I find things like "lol" and "u" and spelling things like an idiot VERY grating "i dun kno wat u men cuz u r a dick" <-that kind of shit

but it also really pisses me off when someone nitpicks my spelling in such a smug "stick up their ass" way

 

[White Lightning]

Well, I don't correct people on small things like if they mispelled one word or forgot punctuation or something. However if the guy is typn lik dis i fukn lse it.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Yeah...I should know

very annoying...

mabye its hypocritical because I find things like "lol" and "u" and spelling things like an idiot VERY grating "i dun kno wat u men cuz u r a dick" <-that kind of shit

but it also really pisses me off when someone nitpicks my spelling in such a smug "stick up their ass" way

Oh... you find 'lol' annoying...? XD

So many goddamn ellipses going on here. They aren't decorations btw -.-

 

[evilneko]

You know the difference between a cake and a muffin? Nothin'. A muffin is a bald cupcake. And we know it.

 

[RedLister]

You know the difference between a cake and a muffin? Nothin'. A muffin is a bald cupcake. And we know it.

This made me smile and also a tad hungry.

I have never really been a grammar nazi. Mainly because i make typos and cockups with my grammar and spelling all the time! Im butchering my own language! Although i do try my best so my posts are least a little bit readable.

 

[Nouw]

Why Fontaine?

snippeth

You changed your avatar, amazing .

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Why Fontaine?

snippeth

You changed your avatar, amazing .

Because the friendly fella that brought this wealthy idea into the world was non other than the man who posts and games online under the alias "JackFontaine" .

That and because it would not be easy to take "PewPewPepe's Law" as seriously as "Fontaine's Law".

It's a marketing ploy if that explains it?

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I'll sometimes correct someones misspellings in the quotes I'm responding to, but never really mention it. I just don't see the importance in blatantly correcting grammar mistakes. That is unless they are so numerous it makes reading the post impossible.

The "Do u no w this is?" crap should stop though. Save it for the phones.

 

[Treblaine]

Logical fallacy is a reason not to "win the argument" but to steer the course back on topic.

I never just reply with "this is a logical fallacy" but use it to steer the discussion back to relevant points.

Fallacies are powerful, they have to be neutralised by being called out, but for your argument to be nothing but pointing out logical fallacies then you aren't adding anything positive to the discussion.

 

[MetalMagpie]

Wait, just on the internet?


Any time I try to have any conversation with anybody in my family it INSTANTLY degrades into grammar.

If I try to make a point but I made a grammatical mistake, they'll turn all their attention to that and completely ignore what I was talking about.


And if I try to stop arguing about grammar, I get that "Okay, I'll have mercy on you because you're still wrong and still stupid," look.

I remember being really annoyed when I was little that my dad seemed to pay more attention to my grammar than to what I was actually saying! Our conversations seemed to go a bit like this:

Me: "Dad! Dad! Me and Alice found a frog!"
Dad: "Alice and I."
Me: "It's even more big than the one we found yesterday!"
Dad: "Even larger."
Me: "So we put it in your suitcase."
Dad: "I think you mean briefcase, dear. A suitcase is... Wait, you did what?"

 

[Colour Scientist]

You changed your avatar, amazing .

Why does everyone keep saying that? I didn't realise people were so attached to it.

 

[trlkly]

No, but I do arguer those points. But I do so from the start, and then the conversation ends when I realize what has happened and point it out.

Semantics is more likely to sneak up on you, but, again, when I notice it, I put a stop to it.

And, of course, I will occasionally just discuss grammar: why not? It's an interesting topic.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

I don't know. I see more people arguing about semantics and going "you used X logical fallacy (that you really didn't use and/or I don't understand properly), therefore you lose the argument!" when it gets to that point. Seriously, there needs to be a logical fallacy about going "logical fallacy, I win!" and another one about "this word has a commonly accepted simple definition, but I'm going to argue about the connotation because I've got nothing else left to support my argument."

I never said anything like that to you, because I never said anything to you!

Am I doing it 'wright'?.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

So many...? I only count two ellipses each composed of 3 dots...

That's different. It's a little depressed face. See -.- <- look at his exasperated grimace.

So many...? I only count two ellipses each composed of 3 dots...

Well if it were composed of more or less than 3 dots it wouldn't count as an ellipsis, it would just be someone being overly mashy with the full stop button.
And yes so many. In the space of one sentence. One. That shouldn't technically be possible, because an ellipsis should mark the end of a sentence, but you managed it.

Also you have invented a creepy hybrid ellipsis-question mark thing which scares me.

Time for that face again.

-.-