"Arguing on the internet= You're still retarded

[Gnomesmusher]

I hope this clears things for you.

No it does not.

 

[lrkun]

I hope this clears things for you.

No it does not.

Because?

 

[BrainBlow]

Arguing, if you're familiar with logic, is akin to a reasonable discourse yes? But, when you add logical fallacies into the mix, to my eyes, it becomes a turn off. Why? Because it takes the focus out of the arguments and into the person saying the argument.

Irkun, an insult BASED on what you have written is not a logical fallacy.

THIS would be the comment if it was a logical fallacy:
Irkun: Arguing on the internet is retarded.
Jotto: Nuhu, because you're a poop nose.

 

[lrkun]

Arguing, if you're familiar with logic, is akin to a reasonable discourse yes? But, when you add logical fallacies into the mix, to my eyes, it becomes a turn off. Why? Because it takes the focus out of the arguments and into the person saying the argument.

Irkun, an insult BASED on what you have written is not a logical fallacy.

THIS would be the comment if it was a logical fallacy:
Irkun: Arguing on the internet is retarded.
Jotto: Nuhu, You're a poop nose.

It's my explanation for agreeing with the claim in your first post. It does not say that insults are similar to logical fallacies. Instead I was differentiating fighting from arguing.

Complete quote below.

Arguing is different from fighting, don't you agree? The former requires reason, the latter involves name calling and all that logical fallacies. My comment refers to that guys remark where he added the name calling and insults rather than focus on the arguments. That is why I find it(his reply without merit, although the reasoning was sound, he didn't have to add the latter portion) retarded.

I use the word retarded because it's the word the thread starter used in the title of this thread.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I still don't know what you're going on about, Irkun. The whole point of this thread is that discussion can be a good thing, even on the internet. But funny enough, you're turning this into a pointless argument.

 

[Finger]

I would believe in all sorts of silly things if I hadn't ever been argued with. Situations where my ass has been handed to me have been the best lessons I've ever had, even if I didn't honorably admit defeat and Seppuku right then and there.

But, I would disagree with BrainBlow on one thing... Macs, Coke, and X-Box are all demonstrably inferior to their competitors... Also anime.

 

[BrainBlow]

I would believe in all sorts of silly things if I hadn't ever been argued with. Situations where my ass has been handed to me Macs, Coke, and X-Box are all demonstrably inferior to their competitors... Also anime.

Wow, we have the same tastes then.

 

[Nashy19]

People do change there mind, sometimes people thank you, even on the Youtube comments. I'm not simply wrong much (anymore), but I like to find different angles on things I thought were very clear. I only get into small arguments and keep it constructive.

It's not about a random persons taste, some people like MS_DOS, that doesn't make it superior to Windows XP
I think blind tests were done by Pepsi and Coke, both were in favour of Pepsi so obviously only Pepsi used it for marketing.

 

[lrkun]

I still don't know what you're going on about, Irkun. The whole point of this thread is that discussion can be a good thing, even on the internet. But funny enough, you're turning this into a pointless argument.

So I'm not allowed to have a different opinion?

 

[Memeticemetic]

So I'm not allowed to have a different opinion?

No. You're not. A TRUE atheist would know that... :twisted:

 

[lrkun]

So I'm not allowed to have a different opinion?

No. You're not. A TRUE atheist would know that... :twisted:

Hehe. I still disagree.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Memeticemetic wrote:

So I'm not allowed to have a different opinion?



No. You're not. A TRUE atheist would know that... :twisted:



Hehe. I still disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-isGzfYUZ4&feature=player_detailpage#t=270s

 

[sgrunterundt]

I agree with the claim. I believe what I want to believe.

Fixed it for you.

It is true that there are always extremists that are unswayable by any arguments or evidence. But the whole point of the thread is that there is a large middle ground of people for whom such discussions are beneficial. Even if it is a discussion with the likes of Nephilimfree who will never change his mind, exposing his lies to others are still beneficial. The middle people will get a chance to see the flaws in his arguments pointed out.

On the topic of evidence, plenty of evidence has been given in this very thread that discussion does make a difference, and more will be coming if you ask for it. By ignoring this evidence you make you point perfectly that people who ignore evidence exists. Hence the fixed quote. I could have been nicer and more general in the fix by making it "Some people believe...". But you are obviously a subset of those "some" therefore it is not wrong.

Although I do not hope to change your view on discussions I still find this worthwhile, because other more sensible people will read this discussion and see that they can make a difference. Why you are still here I cannot figure out, however. A prime example of doublethink?

 

[lrkun]

I agree with the claim. I believe what I want to believe.

Fixed it for you.

It is true that there are always extremists that are unswayable by any arguments or evidence. But the whole point of the thread is that there is a large middle ground of people for whom such discussions are beneficial. Even if it is a discussion with the likes of Nephilimfree who will never change his mind, exposing his lies to others are still beneficial. The middle people will get a chance to see the flaws in his arguments pointed out.

On the topic of evidence, plenty of evidence has been given in this very thread that discussion does make a difference, and more will be coming if you ask for it. By ignoring this evidence you make you point perfectly that people who ignore evidence exists. Hence the fixed quote. I could have been nicer and more general in the fix by making it "Some people believe...". But you are obviously a subset of those "some" therefore it is not wrong.

Although I do not hope to change your view on discussions I still find this worthwhile, because other more sensible people will read this discussion and see that they can make a difference. Why you are still here I cannot figure out, however. A prime example of doublethink?

There's nothing to fix. Maybe the way you edited my original post is how you really feel about the situation?

It's simple, you can't figure me out because you don't know me.

My reasons for being here is simple. Curiousity. But posts like the one I'm going to highlight right now makes me have second thoughts. Do you even know what double think is?

---

A side note, don't you think that our conversation right now is an example of why it is retarded? You conclude without seeing the whole argument. ^,,.^

Maybe you ought to do an experiment every now and then. Try and go against the grain and see what happens.

 

[BrainBlow]

Irkun, you keep highlighting parts of what people say like if they did some huge personal attack against you and then you blow them, and their critique of you and your statements, off like they aren't worth discussing with anymore.
In reality, all they have done is make statements based on your behavior, talking points and habits. And then you act like some victim of personal attack.
Please do take this as a personal attack, but you, Irkun, are a giant pansy.
These "attacks" against you are the exact same type of "attacks/insults" that we all use when labeling people such as Nephilimfree as Closed-minded. These aren't attacks. They are judgments of you. And if you can't handle that people judge you for what you say and how you act then get the hell off this forum!

A side note, don't you think that our conversation right now is an example of why it is retarded? You conclude without seeing the whole argument. ^,,.^

If you had actually watched this thread more closely, you would see that the only thing shown is that as good as everyone here knows full and well that opinions can be swayed by internet arguments, except for you, which goes to show that sgrunterundt's quote-fix is more correct than you like to believe.

My reasons for being here is simple. Curiousity. But posts like the one I'm going to highlight right now makes me have second thoughts. Do you even know what double think is?]

You're not the only one here who doesn't have English as their main language, Irkun.

 

[lrkun]

:shock:

But you are supposed to argue and not call names yes? I dislike being correct. This is my last post, since I'm not wanted here.

 

[sgrunterundt]

A side note, don't you think that our conversation right now is an example of why it is retarded?

No. As I already wrote:

Although I do not hope to change your view on discussions I still find this worthwhile, because other more sensible people will read this discussion and see that they can make a difference.

If it is not doublethink then I will have to label it trolling. You argue that internet arguments won't change anybodys mind. Either you argue to change our minds, which would require you to believe that it is possible, even though you believe it is not. Hence "doublethink". Your recent post , however leads me to believe that you simply think it is fun to act angry and controversial and see if you can piss people off enough to make them betray their ideals and call you nasty names. That is called trolling.

Finally conserning dogmatism and not being swayed by evidence; you actually wrote this:

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

Right after this:

Well, I'm living proof that the original claim is bull.

By a person who was directly deconverted by ExtantDodos youtube channel. I suppose you think he is lying?

 

[BrainBlow]

Arguing in this sense is retarded because it is actually possible that a discussion can end in disagreement . Instead of reading the part where you dealt with my two-sentence argument, I'll go back to complaining about name-calling, since that is what 4/5 of my posts have been consisting off so far.
I'm actually supposed to be reading the arguments in the OP, but since I have a pre-determined position, I'll just declare victory in this discussion because people make judgments of how I ignore the arguments in the first place.

Honestly, I'm very happy that I got to use my disagreement as proof of my own position. I'll never let myself be swayed in anything. That would hurt my pride. Who cares right?
Now I'll leave this thread temporarily until you or someone else disagrees with me and/or offends me enough.

fixed

Also, Irkun, that was a nice edit of your post.
It was better having your comment make you look like "the unwanted duckling" rather than the smug lord of victory who leaves because his position has been confirmed, yes? Just like what your original post was.
The edit also lets you jump right back into the discussion at any time you please since you will NOW not be going back on your own word about leaving.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I still don't know what you're going on about, Irkun. The whole point of this thread is that discussion can be a good thing, even on the internet. But funny enough, you're turning this into a pointless argument.

So I'm not allowed to have a different opinion?

Quit straw-manning me. And you're a hypocrite when you've been saying how discussions are retarded because of fallacies and name calling but then you pull a strawman which doesn't help anything at all ,except to derail honest discussion.

I just didn't understand what your stance is because you seem to be flip flopping all over the place. First you agreed with the claim in the subject title, then you backpedal when pointed out that you yourself are here on these boards a lot arguing. And of course, you keep applying YOUR way of thinking and viewpoint to everyone. Not everyone goes into a discussion refusing to change their minds, some actually go in to learn something.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

I agree with the claim. People believe what they want to believe.

No.

People believe what they want to believe refers to person who having met all the facts and grounds which reflects reality still chose to close their eyes to it. Ex. You say it's gravity. The other person says no, it is god. You can't change my mind because I believe his angels are pulling the thing to the ground. <-- this situation.

So it's retarded to debate with people on the internet who are not going to change their mind no matter what the evidence is?
Is that your message? "People believe what they want to believe" actually means "Some people only believe what they to believe, ergo arguing is useless"? Surely I do not need to point out how horribly fallacious this is.

So I'm not allowed to have a different opinion?

Opinions are irrelevant to the factual question that is "is it useless to argue on the internet?"
So no, in this case you can't have an opinion. You can have a conviction and use arguments to support it.

And even then your conviction is flat-out wrong. Arguing on the internet is not useless, as both Quantumfireball (who you so charmingly ignored even though his post is right above yours) and myself as well as many other people have deconverted through arguing on the internet.