Why am I so... toxic... to any argument?

[Phoenix Wright]

i understand, yeah. and i agree, if your goal is to educate someone, make sure you actually understand what it is you're trying to teach. but...

[spoiler=banter]to me, the website is very juvenile to begin with--the immature references to the bible, the 5 points listed that are too informal and childish (eg. 5. potato), and the cringe-worthy marketing lingo (eg, "perfect christmas gift for your favorite nerd?) all fail to show that they're trying to educate me. really, i get the sense that these posters are not for the purpose of education, but instead for the purpose of showing off what one "knows." compare it to the wikipedia page, where most people go for on-the-fly learning. it's formal, referenced, and correct (as far as i can tell). that is a website meant for learning.

point being, i think the site is kinda dumb and we shouldn't pay any attention to it.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Phoenix Wright

[Rapier]

What's hilarious about that website is that none of those fallacies listed on the front page are actually logical fallacies. :P Logical fallacies concern reasoning from the premises to a conclusion. What that website lists are just bad ways to argue.

I find it strange that they did not refer to the Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Precedent fallacies, which fit both in your definition and in theirs. These are very common fallacies used in discussions. So, there was no point on skipping them.

This textbook and Richard L. Epstein's Critical Thinking are good starters on logic.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Rapier

[Chiki]

I find it strange that they did not refer to the Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Precedent fallacies, which fit both in your definition and in theirs. These are very common fallacies used in discussions. So, there was no point on skipping them.

This textbook and Richard L. Epstein's Critical Thinking are good starters on logic.

Rapier, please stop acting like a logician. =_=

[Rapier]

Rapier, please stop acting like a logician. =_=

Its not like my post has factually incorrect (or invalid, as far as I can see) content for you to criticize, so what's your issue now?

Edited November 17, 2014 by Rapier

[Esau of Isaac]

Olwen do you have to masturbate to yourself in every topic

[Chiki]

Olwen do you have to masturbate to yourself in every topic

Yep

[Moira]

I think we exchanged posts a couple times and you seemed to assume a lot about what I was saying. Also, you seemed to be rather aggressive, but tons of people on this site seem aggressive so that might just be me.

While we're at it what do I do that annoys people when I post (which isn't often) in discussion/argument threads

[Rapier]

Olwen do you have to masturbate to yourself in every topic

Through a moral anti-realist perspective, screwing with one's own sibling is valid. He can't understand your point even if he wanted to.

I think we exchanged posts a couple times and you seemed to assume a lot about what I was saying. Also, you seemed to be rather aggressive, but tons of people on this site seem aggressive so that might just be me.

While we're at it what do I do that annoys people when I post (which isn't often) in discussion/argument threads

Discussions are serious business, what do you mean

that person on the internet is wrong and I need to refute him/her/it while AA1's objection theme plays in WMP to fit in the mood

[dondon151]

i think we're actually in more need of a topic explaining why rapier is toxic to an argument

[Shin]

Truth be told, Snowy, you'd benefit most from looking back when you've got yourself into a pickle and try to understand what you did. Your problem is more of an attitude thing, which wouldn't really be remedied with any sort of logical something-or-another.

[Chiki]

Through a moral anti-realist perspective, screwing with one's own sibling is valid. He can't understand your point even if he wanted to.

HAHA. Ok, there's quite a few confusions here in just that one sentence. First, it's not "valid." On the antirealist view, nothing is "valid" or "invalid." To say that an action is ethically valid presupposes that moral realism is true. That concept just doesn't exist. To be more precise, there's nothing saying that it's right or wrong to fuck your sister. It's just ethically inert, as is everything else. What distinguishes antirealists from realists is that antirealists just don't "like" it when bad things happen. Antirealists don't think it's okay to bomb children. They don't think it's right or wrong; they just wouldn't like it if anyone went around bombing children.

Second, just because I'm a moral antirealist doesn't mean I don't understand morality (what is right or wrong). Why would I try to help you learn how to think properly by giving you a book and helping you argue if I were a moral antirealist? Because I'm trying to be nice.

Third, what's particularly hilarious here is that moral realists and antirealists alike think that incest is fine as long as it's between two consenting individuals having very safe sex. I can't think of a single philosopher who thinks it's not okay to fuck your sister as long as your dick is covered and she wants your dick.

i think we're actually in more need of a topic explaining why rapier is toxic to an argument

Lol.

[Esau of Isaac]

Snowy, Olwen is basically just trying to give you an example of how not to act in other topics

basically just don't do this in literally every topic you post in and you're good

[dondon151]

if snowy could articulate himself with half the clarity that chiki does, that would be a big improvement.

[Chiki]

Snowy, Olwen is basically just trying to give you an example of how not to act in other topics

basically just don't do this in literally every topic you post in and you're good

Sorry Esau, I know it offends you a lot that I'm much smarter than you. You make that clear whenever I post any kind of argument. I'll try and bring my level down when I post from now on so I don't offend you.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Chiki

[Rapier]

HAHA. Ok, there's quite a few confusions here in just that one sentence. First, it's not "valid." On the antirealist view, nothing is "valid" or "invalid." To say that an action is ethically valid presupposes that moral realism is true. That concept just doesn't exist. To be more precise, there's nothing saying that it's right or wrong to fuck your sister. It's just ethically inert, as is everything else. What distinguishes antirealists from realists is that antirealists just don't "like" it when bad things happen. Antirealists don't think it's okay to bomb children. They don't think it's right or wrong; they just wouldn't like it if anyone went around bombing children.

Second, just because I'm a moral antirealist doesn't mean I don't understand morality (what is right or wrong). Why would I try to help you learn how to think properly by giving you a book and helping you argue if I were a moral antirealist? Because I'm trying to be nice.

Third, what's particularly hilarious here is that moral realists and antirealists alike think that incest is fine as long as it's between two consenting individuals having very safe sex. I can't think of a single philosopher who thinks it's not okay to fuck your sister as long as your dick is covered and she wants your dick.

(1) I wasn't using the formal terms when I mentioned about validity, but you informed me about something I didn't know, so thanks.

(2) My judgment was misplaced. Yes, you can -understand- morality, but from what you said (and from what I understood), you use your own subjective opinion to judge whether you should act morally or not. Doing stuff just because you find it 'nice' is a very shallow justification (you can argue that there is no better justification though, and then I won't be able to argue back, since I'm not mature enough for this. You can send me a Philosophy 101 so I can play my part as Phoenix Wright).

(3) I know you are much more informed than me about this, but I see that it is farfetched to believe that all moral realists and antirealists think that incest is fine...

Also, the statement "sex is fine a slong as it's between two consenting individuals having very safe sex" is questionable. Would it still be fine if both parties were, for example, between their 13-15 years? We can argue that they are not psychologically mature enough for this kind of intercourse at a reasonably young age.

i think we're actually in more need of a topic explaining why rapier is toxic to an argument

You can send any complaints about me to my message board, but I won't assure you that I can care about your opinion, nor that anyone else cares enough about your issues with me to take your tantruns seriously.

Sorry Esau, I know it offends you a lot that I'm much smarter than you. You make that clear whenever I post any kind of argument. I'll try and bring my level down when I post from now on so I don't offend you.

Uh, please go back to Fate/StayNight, Gilgamesh.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Rapier

[Chiki]

(1) I wasn't using the formal terms when I mentioned about validity, but you informed me about something I didn't know, so thanks.

Doesn't matter, there's no such thing as formal and informal "ethical validity." They're the same.

you use your own subjective opinion to judge whether you should act morally or not.

Doesn't everyone? Even though we may try to act based on objective morality, the reason we chose those axioms is ultimately subjective anyway.

(3) I know you are much more informed than me about this, but I see that it is farfetched to believe that all moral realists and antirealists think that incest is fine...

They don't, but I'm pretty sure most, if not all, professional ethicists don't think safe consensual incest is wrong.

Also, the statement "sex is fine a slong as it's between two consenting individuals having very safe sex" is questionable. Would it still be fine if both parties were, for example, between their 13-15 years?

Kids probably can't consent to sex even though they can act like they can.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Chiki

[dondon151]

You can send any complaints about me to my message board, but I won't assure you that I can care about your opinion, nor that anyone else cares enough about your issues with me to take your tantruns seriously.

you can be assured that i'm not the only one who consistently facepalms at what issues from your keyboard.

[Nightmare]

There have been made good examples of how not to post, but that's enough of that. Let the topic continue with its original purpose. If you'd like to continue this pissing contest, maybe do it in PMs or something.

[eclipse]

Anyways, I am trying to slow down and think things through a bit more, but it isn't easy to be sure. As for the personal stuff, maybe when an argument comes around that isn't GG related I can give it a spin. Hopefully it will work.

NO. That is the perfect place to start! You can practice separating yourself from the issue!

[Rapier]

You can practice separating yourself from the issue!

Separating yourself from the issue is very hard. Sometimes we can't exactly treat issues as if they were trivial, such as political matters. The most one can do is keep a levelheaded opinion and try not to be swayed too much by emotions and biases (which is something that I believe is more plausible and possible).

Just my two cents on the matter, since I can't really say much.

[Esau of Isaac]

Well, not that I'm judging or anything since I was bad (or rather, worse) in the past with regards to it, but a lot of the time Snowy seems to get too affected by what others are saying. You don't have to argue like an emotionless robot, but keeping anything from getting under your skin is a pretty good first step to avoid getting under everyone else's I guess.

That said I think Snowy is nothing like when he started posting here. He could be a real aggressive jerk back when, but these days it's usually much more joking and light-hearted, or at least seems it.

[Snowy_One]

I've always been joking/light-hearted (outside of tier lists), I've just gotten better at not being a jerk.

As to the Gamergate thing, I'm sorry, but that's one of the few issues I feel I cannot just put aside easily as gaming is something important to me and I've been involved in the anti-SJW bits for a long time now. Just stopping is... very difficult to say the least. Something I would not desire to do when I'm trying to detach myself.

[Chiki]

I think you just take the Internet too seriously. Just look at this post as an example:

...

You know what? Fuck it. You're right. Global warming is going to happen unless we cut out all carbon emissions. Corporations are evil moneygrubbing beings ruining peaceful lives. Guns are horrible things that should be banned from everyone. Zihark is better than Mia. Belief in religion makes you a horrible person one step away from murdering people at the command of God. All white people are horrible monsters for enslaving blacks years ago. I don't give a crap anymore. I'm so sick and tired of people telling me I'm wrong and stupid for believing differently and a horrible monster. I'm sick of having my own opinions and thoughts that differ from the norm. I'm sick of trying to learn about things and trying to learn about everything, so fuck it. I don't care. I'm now a Democrat, atheist, Republican, theist, whatever. I don't care anymore.

Yea! How can people be such ignorant monsters as to try and pollute the world we live in! Every day companies fill our air with carbon dioxide that's going to melt the ice caps and kill us all with floods and fires!

Just relax and masturbate more often.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Chiki

[eclipse]

As to the Gamergate thing, I'm sorry, but that's one of the few issues I feel I cannot just put aside easily as gaming is something important to me and I've been involved in the anti-SJW bits for a long time now. Just stopping is... very difficult to say the least. Something I would not desire to do when I'm trying to detach myself.

Since it's an issue near and dear to you, you can ask yourself whether or not your responses are:

- defensive, as if someone attacked you personally

- emotional, whether it be driven by it or appeals to it

You're probably not going to get it right the first time you try. Or the second. But it's a good starting point, since the consequences for not getting it right are fairly light (since we're a bunch of strangers on the Internet and all).

[Rapier]

I think you just take the Internet too seriously. Just look at this post as an example:

Just relax and masturbate more often.

It's hard to not lose your cool when dealing with mad hippies who believe industries = bad because they polute and weed = good because it's natural, mon!, or stupid neo-atheists who believe that religion = belief of alienated stupid people, that christians are nazis who hate gay people and wish to create a Theocracy where everyone has to kneel toward Rome once per day (though watching Dawkins get humiliated by Craig is fun sometimes).

I prefer to give them a much shorter answer than Snowy did, though. It's more practical and time-saving, and there will be more time for me to go play Crusader Kings or something.