Pretty much any arguments without facts bother me. I usually defend a point against someone who has a good cause, but does it without supporting himself.
Spurious arguments and their causes
- Thread starter electric discordian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I hope that point was to look like a linguistic tightwad. Because if so...OH MAN! You rule!corporate_gamer post=18.72733.784503 said:
I am sure this will come as a deep shock to anyone who knows me but any variant of "I hate feminism/Feminists hate men (projecting much?)/Feminism is no longer necessary/Women have it better than men/Feminists want to spoil all my fun and cut my peepee off/Gaming is our our little tree-fort, you girls should go play dolls" makes me want to strangle people. I then try to re-direct my "grrrrraarrgh!" energy into strangling their argument with facts and better arguments instead. I keep doing this until I am bored and then I go RP instead. And express the wish in IM or PM to trusted individuals that [name redacted] would die in a seat-melting car fire. I then revise it to the wish that they survive a seat-melting car fire. Then, having vented my spleen, I go back to enjoying my life.
I also remind myself that I hang out in any given place because it's fun, and if it stops being fun, I always have he option of leaving. If I don't take the option of leaving, then it's ME being pants-on-head at that point, because I'm the one that's pissing myself off for no good reason.
I also remind myself that I hang out in any given place because it's fun, and if it stops being fun, I always have he option of leaving. If I don't take the option of leaving, then it's ME being pants-on-head at that point, because I'm the one that's pissing myself off for no good reason.
I have found myself in a lot of religious debates as of late. Only getting more and more annoyed as the the people I argue with just say "Look at the Bible, that is evidence enough." and complain when I, not being a scientist, can't explain the Big Bang, and tell them to look at all the books on it. I can't even begin to fathom the hypocrisy of their argument. As they change my nihilistic view of the world, in fact they are only reinforcing it.
I would be more than happy to answer these questions, but that would derail this thread, and I try to keep the 13-page Sexism threads spaced far enough apart so as not to give the impression that such things are all I/we ever argue about. Honestly, I think the only threads that generate bigger shit-storms are Xbox/PS3 threads.Taxi Driver post=18.72733.784847 said:
So, with respect, would you like to PM me the questions? Or wait until the statute of limitations is up on the previous sexism thread and do it then?
Where the hell do you live where people are so stupid? Another stereotype is "Angry, man-hating lesbians" but I've never seen one in my life. I've also never heard anyone say "God I hate those lesbians. They all want to kill every man you see you know?"mshcherbatskaya post=18.72733.784800 said:
nope, what I bet myself was some anally retentive would fixate on the purposeful grammatical error, instead of paying attention to the point I was making about people fixating on spelling and grammar mistakes and ignoring peoples comments. Although to be fair you're right, that is pretty much the definition of irony.Imitation Saccharin post=18.72733.784774 said:
Ah! The point being a bait-and-switch!corporate_gamer post=18.72733.785140 said:
That's so pointlessly Machiavelli of you, I simply must add you as a friend
The point is somewhat lost as you're clearly baiting something like that. A similar bet would be to set up a sign saying "Free food" next to a pizza box containing warm, gooey, and oh-so-delicious pizza. To win the bet, I have to assume someone will eat the food.corporate_gamer post=18.72733.785140 said:
Oh, and you ignored most of Labyrinth's comments by fixating on your bait-and-switch trap.
Ah, logical fallacies aside...
ON TOPIC -
Typically any argument I've had for or against Harry Potter with just about anyone. I personally highly dislike the books, so I tend to get fan-stomped when I publicly state my opinion. That's not to say I haven't had decent discussions about them, but a majority of them accuse me of poor research or blind-sided hate, despite my thorough research and pains-taking read-through of the series.
I pretty much agree with with all the other points she made, so there was little to discuss. And on the other point you're probably right it wasn't much of a 'bet' but its not like I won anything.
Oh and in the spirit of not fixating on what was meant to be slightly amusing comeback, why'd you bother to read all of the harry potter series if you don't like the books? I don't like James Patterson books ergo I don't read the new ones.
Oh and in the spirit of not fixating on what was meant to be slightly amusing comeback, why'd you bother to read all of the harry potter series if you don't like the books? I don't like James Patterson books ergo I don't read the new ones.
I had mentioned to my English (and Newspaper) Teacher that I didn't like the first three books. Given that she always thought editorials were my strong suit, she told me to write a book review. I don't review anything unless I complete it (exceptions are First Impressions reviews), so I would need to read the entire series to have a fully-educated opinion on it. As such, I went out and read every single book in the series that was out at the time. (This was before the series was complete. I believe books 1-5 were out when I wrote the first review). As they came out, I would read, review, and submit to the school paper.corporate_gamer post=18.72733.785238 said:
It was an assignment I did well, ended up getting a decent grade too.
EDIT
The final penning of that article is here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.72370] on the Escapist, if you're curious. I'm putting the series, and those arguments, behind me with that article and whatever discussions come from it. I'm tired of remembering details about those books.
To cancel out the argument of "They get better later on!"corporate_gamer post=18.72733.785238 said:
On-topic, stupid people in general. No, not ignorant. Ignorance can be solved with facts. Stupidity requires a shotgun and a shovel.
That, I am sorry to say, has all happened here on our beloved Escapist. And yes, the man-hating lesbian trope has popped up it's pointy little head here as well.EvilEngineNumberNine post=18.72733.785032 said:
Sorry my 13 times less likely is a bit off It was people who obtained guns illegally were 13 times more likely to commit violent crime than legal gun owners 41% to 3% it was in a seatle newspaper can't find the article online ATM. Lol points still the same, gun owners usually don't commit crimes with themImitation Saccharin post=18.72733.784320 said:Source?sneakypenguin post=18.72733.784310 said:EDIT: answer to above post. Well CC holders are 13 times less likely to commit violent crime so i'd say your pretty safe arguing with us
Being told not to cheat on a guy annoys you?Labyrinth post=18.72733.771341 said:
Would you not care if one cheated on you?
This quote wins the "No shit, shirlock" award.sneakypenguin post=18.72733.785780 said:
It's more that the background to that statement is a point of female submission, and only female submission. The housewife thing, as it were. In a committed relationship, it's mutual respect and love that one does not go and cheat, and I treat it as such, rather than being obedient to the partners wishes.TheGhostOfSin post=18.72733.786055 said:
That said, Dominance/submission in terms of kink is related more to consent and enjoyment than to actual degradation and control of one or another person.
You don't think spelling/grammar matter and agree with a family of four having eight or more cars? Not to mention the implication that you're racist, in which case YOU disgust METaxi Driver post=18.72733.786105 said:
I hope you're either joking (which I doubt) or you overlooked those ones. I hope very much.