Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

How to make post without pissing each other off (or, a "code of conduct" meta-thread)

1456810

Posts

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    At some point you do have to shake someone and yell "ANECDOTES DO NOT TRUMP DATA" in their ear, though, and the kind of people likely to wave ancedotal fallacies around like that to begin with are almost always the kind to take it as a personal insult. Because, gasp, their life experiences aren't representative of the general population.

    I'm not sure there's a nice way to break the idea to someone.

    Except the problem is that in some cases the data is incorrect, or geographically limited in scope. Data correct in California may be not be indicative of conditions in Nevada, Kentucky, or New York.

    Moreover one must always consider the scope of the data in question. Much like where we had data posted discussing the effectiveness of the Tax structure of The state of Texas. This data is only useful when discussing conditions in Texas.

    When you have data that is trying to tie together numerous factors and says that their net effects are statistically insignificant that does not mean someone out there is not taking a loss while someone else is getting a gain.

    When the person experiencing the loss shows up and starts screaming about how he is getting screwed telling him he is wrong because the data shows no net change would be incorrect. His anecdotal data is correct from his frame of reference. What he is not seeing is the someone else getting the gain to offset his loss.

    Detharin on
    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Cat wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you mean the tags would be private but I can't help but imagine what it would be like it the tags were public. If we did that, I'd have a whole alphabet of scarlet letters covering my avatar from all sorts of different posters.

    The funny thing is despite my years posting here, despite all the enemies I've accumulated on the boards, I've never been jailed or infracted. Evidence that I am a very civil poster.

    Uh, dude. I'm pretty sure you've been infracted twice. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Here and here.

    Its evidence that he relies on weasel words and similar tactics that work to goad others rather than ever openly declaring allegiance to a particular viewpoint and acting to defend it. Lest anyone take that as a personal attack, its more of an illustration of general principle: Its really easy for anyone to avoid infraction here when they refuse to openly stand for or against anything, and stick to sniping from the sidelines. Most infractions here are and have always been handed out for open hostility exhibited by forumers with strong opinions, because its easy to police. The more insidious forms of dickery are really difficult to police without an amount of effort than frankly can't be expected from a skeleton staff of volunteers. The mental energy required to keep up with that kind of shit is forbidding.

    I'll take that as a personal attack. 'Weasel words' would be a great topic to explore in the civility thread. You mean passive-aggressive statements, inoffensive and subtle ad hom attacks, and deliberate misunderstanding or fact twisting designed to aggravate. You're talking about carefully chosen words that play off the target's goodwill so they won't hit that REPORT button even when they know they're being mocked. The masked, seemingly innocuous troll is a worse threat to thread civility than the loudmouth troll - we know this because we've all had experience with quiet trolls and we know how frustrating it is to watch them squirm out of a solid nailing. Hell, look at what I'm doing right now! I'm accused of using 'weasel words' so one of my defenses is to confront the issue head on and draw a line in the sand. By laying out what qualifies a quiet troll, I'm building a tiny bit of trust and an us vs them alliance, with me being on the 'us' side. I do not admit to being a troll, however.

    The Cat has said the mods can't keep an eye on all the 'weasel words' flying around the board. What can the civil poster do to defend against them? At the one extreme, you have the Ignore ALL Trolls strategy. Stopping a fight before it starts is civil. The other extreme is to regularly engage the quiet troll with facts and a gentle tone over and over again until someone cracks. Still civil, if not a tad pathetic considering the quiet troll is very patient. The Cat uses a mix of information, confidence, and shaming to battle trolls of all kinds which is effective, but not always civil. A useful side effect - the method identifies The Cat as one of the alpha dogs of the board. Wait, was that a subtle snipe? ... "not always civil" ... "alpha dogs" ... it's hard to be sure.

    In my opinion, the best way to deal with the quiet troll is to ignore them. Read their posts but don't reply. If they say something poignant, don't reply. If they say something wall-eyed stupid, don't reply. Civil discourse is possible in the absence of all trolls.

    emnmnme on
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I'm not going to argue immigration specifics in this thread. My problem is specifically related to a correlation=causation claim. How am I to resolve a situation when I point out that one is not the other, and I'm cast as (to paraphrase) "not being receptive to any evidence"? This seems like a declaration that the conversation is over, and I don't see any way around it.

    There's really not substantive research on the topics that are being argued in the immigration thread, unfortunately, which is what spurns much of the arguing. It's almost all "This is what I feel" vs. "This is my anecdotal data."

    Correlation does not equal causation, but it doesn't discount causation either, and you need research to tell the actual effect. Lacking research, everyone only has their personal opinions on the matter; you and legionofone.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    I'm not going to argue immigration specifics in this thread. My problem is specifically related to a correlation=causation claim. How am I to resolve a situation when I point out that one is not the other, and I'm cast as (to paraphrase) "not being receptive to any evidence"? This seems like a declaration that the conversation is over, and I don't see any way around it.

    There's really not substantive research on the topics that are being argued in the immigration thread, unfortunately, which is what spurns much of the arguing. It's almost all "This is what I feel" vs. "This is my anecdotal data."

    Correlation does not equal causation, but it doesn't discount causation either, and you need research to tell the actual effect. Lacking research, everyone only has their personal opinions on the matter; you and legionofone.

    legionofone's claim is that there are a lot of illegal immigrants, and that there is high unemployment in Nevada, and that the former causes the latter, or at least is a component of the latter. He also says that more illegal immigrants are going to Nevada, when all the research says that immigrants tend to leave (and are leaving) during economic downturns. I'm receptive to the first idea, but there hasn't been anything posted showing a causal link between the two.

    It seems like the reasonable stance in the absence of evidence for causation is agnosticism, particularly given the small sample size that we're dealing with. Given that relevant experts tend to say that immigration has next to no effect on unemployment, I think a more reasoned position is skeptical agnosticism. It's possible that legionofone is correct here, but based on the above, it behooves me to ask for something stronger than correlation as evidence for causation.

    I reject your characterization.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    I'm not going to argue immigration specifics in this thread. My problem is specifically related to a correlation=causation claim. How am I to resolve a situation when I point out that one is not the other, and I'm cast as (to paraphrase) "not being receptive to any evidence"? This seems like a declaration that the conversation is over, and I don't see any way around it.

    There's really not substantive research on the topics that are being argued in the immigration thread, unfortunately, which is what spurns much of the arguing. It's almost all "This is what I feel" vs. "This is my anecdotal data."

    Correlation does not equal causation, but it doesn't discount causation either, and you need research to tell the actual effect. Lacking research, everyone only has their personal opinions on the matter; you and legionofone.

    legionofone's claim is that there are a lot of illegal immigrants, and that there is high unemployment in Nevada, and that the former causes the latter, or at least is a component of the latter. He also says that more illegal immigrants are going to Nevada, when all the research says that immigrants tend to leave (and are leaving) during economic downturns. I'm receptive to the first idea, but there hasn't been anything posted showing a causal link between the two.

    It seems like the reasonable stance in the absence of evidence for causation is agnosticism, particularly given the small sample size that we're dealing with. Given that relevant experts tend to say that immigration has next to no effect on unemployment, I think a more reasoned position is skeptical agnosticism. It's possible that legionofone is correct here, but based on the above, it behooves me to ask for something stronger than correlation as evidence for causation.

    I reject your characterization.

    Which characterization? The one where I said everyone has opinions, or the one where I said there isn't a lot of concrete research or data on the subject?

    To try and summarize, you just restated what I said;

    Legionofone is in Nevada (I think?), working in immigration. He has anecdotal data.

    You're quoting "relative experts" but haven't cited any hard, meaningful data. You have, to paraphrase, a feeling.

    Really, the conversation would probably be best to move on from the specific arguments you're citing. I ultimately agree with what you're saying, but you're trying to persuade someone that's living the situation day to day and would understandably have some difficulty seeing things from a more "macro" perspective.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I guess I don't see how "I don't see any evidence for causation, and the general consensus among economists tends to back the position that there isn't a lot of causation, if any" would be construed as a "feeling". Perhaps I misunderstand the word you're using. To me, "feeling" means in this context something like "intuition", and "intuition" is not a word most people would use to describe pointing out a lack of evidence, and citing experts.

    Maybe you mean something different by "feeling".

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Feeling, in regard to an opinion (whether informed or not) without supporting data.

    Feeling probably isn't the exact term I should have used.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    and the general consensus among economists tends to back the position that there isn't a lot of causation
    [citation needed]
    I for one am not aware of this consensus.

    enc0re on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    adytum wrote: »
    Feeling, in regard to an opinion (whether informed or not) without supporting data.

    Feeling probably isn't the exact term I should have used.

    My opinion is that more is needed to establish causation between two data points than

    1. the existence of those data points
    2. the assertion that one causes the other

    I'm not sure what exactly "supporting data" for me would look like. I'm in a position of skeptical agnosticism... that's the wrong term, actually... skeptical ignorance on this issue. I need more from the person making the claim, I don't need more than the argument I'm attacking--and its holes--in order to maintain this position.

    Perhaps I haven't been making this clear? Maybe that's my problem.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    and the general consensus among economists tends to back the position that there isn't a lot of causation
    [citation needed]
    I for one am not aware of this consensus.

    I'm just going by this.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    the easiest way to get infracted is to brag about not getting infracted

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Paladin wrote: »
    the easiest way to get infracted is to brag about not getting infracted

    I'm ashamed of how little I get infracted. It's probably indicative of a personality deficit.

    :(

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    For the record, I work for a three letter federal agency in an investigative position on the SW border with five years experience in immigration law enforcement, more in generalized.

    Loren, detharin pretty much nailed it, as did adytum. I appreciate you're one of the few posters in that thread who's actually arguing a position that isn't wrapping itself in "If you don't agree with me you're a racist!".

    However, like detharin said, you're banging your economic book about how awesome unrestricted migration is and I'm the one raiding drop houses where they are packed 70 deep and (when I was wearing green) dealing with 8 month pregnant teenagers who's bodies self aborted because of the 120 degree heat after they were abandoned by their guide.

    Acting as if your viewpoint isn't affected by you benefiting from lax immigration standards would be as silly as me acting as if my occupation didn't color my views.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Acting as if your viewpoint isn't affected by you benefiting from lax immigration standards would be as silly as me acting as if my occupation didn't color my views.

    I'm sure my background does affect my viewpoint.

    Is it relevant to my argument though?

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    Acting as if your viewpoint isn't affected by you benefiting from lax immigration standards would be as silly as me acting as if my occupation didn't color my views.

    I'm sure my background does affect my viewpoint.

    Is it relevant to my argument though?

    You don't believe that policies that impact you will affect your argument?

    No sarcasm, honestly curious.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Acting as if your viewpoint isn't affected by you benefiting from lax immigration standards would be as silly as me acting as if my occupation didn't color my views.

    I'm sure my background does affect my viewpoint.

    Is it relevant to my argument though?

    Pretty much, since the goal is at least partially to persuade you. Merely stating facts is generally ineffective in this sort of argument, so the next step is to attack your assumptions, in order to cause you to put more thought into them and maybe replace some of them.

    jothki on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Paladin wrote: »
    the easiest way to get infracted is to brag about not getting infracted

    Through hubris, we invite the wrath of the gods ... er, mods.

    emnmnme on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    To be honest, I'm kind of surprised how fast civility went out the window in the Immigration thread.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    enc0re wrote: »
    and the general consensus among economists tends to back the position that there isn't a lot of causation
    [citation needed]
    I for one am not aware of this consensus.

    I'm just going by this.

    Note that meta-studies and surveys have generally backed this up (here is one, published by the journal The Economist's Voice).

    The things economists agree on can be surprising; most economists are Democrats (for example). Most support energy taxes.

    ronya on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    For the record, I work for a three letter federal agency in an investigative position on the SW border with five years experience in immigration law enforcement, more in generalized.

    Loren, detharin pretty much nailed it, as did adytum. I appreciate you're one of the few posters in that thread who's actually arguing a position that isn't wrapping itself in "If you don't agree with me you're a racist!".

    However, like detharin said, you're banging your economic book about how awesome unrestricted migration is and I'm the one raiding drop houses where they are packed 70 deep and (when I was wearing green) dealing with 8 month pregnant teenagers who's bodies self aborted because of the 120 degree heat after they were abandoned by their guide.

    Acting as if your viewpoint isn't affected by you benefiting from lax immigration standards would be as silly as me acting as if my occupation didn't color my views.

    Who has called you a racist? Who? You always seem to think that everyone is calling you racist, but I have yet to see it. Maybe you're in denial.

    Do I even want to ask what finding heat stressed mothers has to do with the economic and social effects of immigration or how being an economist makes one unable to talk about economics?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Acting as if your viewpoint isn't affected by you benefiting from lax immigration standards would be as silly as me acting as if my occupation didn't color my views.

    I'm sure my background does affect my viewpoint.

    Is it relevant to my argument though?

    You don't believe that policies that impact you will affect your argument?

    No sarcasm, honestly curious.

    If I'm correct, it doesn't matter where I'm from, or what color my skin is. If I were in America illegally, as an immigrant, it wouldn't hurt my case that immigration is, over all, good for the economy, because I'm not what I'm talking about. Your attempt to link the validity of my statements to my characteristics is a perfect example of an ad hominem fallacy though. What I'm saying is either right or wrong, independent of who I am.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Detharin was the one with the unfortunate choice of terminology, not legionofone.

    ronya on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    To be honest, I'm kind of surprised how fast civility went out the window in the Immigration thread.

    You've called me disingenuous and insinuated that I'm insane. I've asked you to substantiate a claim.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Through hubris, we invite the wrath of the gods ... er, mods.

    And should the mods encounter God, God will be infracted.

    enc0re on
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    If I'm correct, it doesn't matter where I'm from, or what color my skin is. If I were in America illegally, as an immigrant, it wouldn't hurt my case that immigration is, over all, good for the economy, because I'm not what I'm talking about. Your attempt to link the validity of my statements to my characteristics is a perfect example of an ad hominem fallacy though. What I'm saying is either right or wrong, independent of who I am.

    Setting aside immigration specifically, where you stand can depend on where you sit. The problem is when, in the absence of obvious and blatant self-interest in a particular position, that's used to dismiss a point of view rather than simply treating it as a possible source of bias or information.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    If I'm correct, it doesn't matter where I'm from, or what color my skin is. If I were in America illegally, as an immigrant, it wouldn't hurt my case that immigration is, over all, good for the economy, because I'm not what I'm talking about. Your attempt to link the validity of my statements to my characteristics is a perfect example of an ad hominem fallacy though. What I'm saying is either right or wrong, independent of who I am.

    Setting aside immigration specifically, where you stand can depend on where you sit. The problem is when, in the absence of obvious and blatant self-interest in a particular position, that's used to dismiss a point of view rather than simply treating it as a possible source of bias or information.

    Excepting when the discussion is explicitly about the actual people having the discussion, obvious and blatant self-interest doesn't matter either. Where I stand does not matter. Again, if I were an illegal migrant worker, it wouldn't make my arguments weaker. Whatever weakness people draw from that identity, it's purely a rhetorical one, to paint me as a bad or "interested" person and to (fallaciously) make my argument appear weaker.

    Likewise, if I were a recently out-of-work construction worker saying the same thing I'm saying, it wouldn't make my argument any stronger. It would be a purely illusory, rhetorical effect.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Excepting when the discussion is explicitly about the actual people having the discussion, obvious and blatant self-interest doesn't matter either. Where I stand does not matter. Again, if I were an illegal migrant worker, it wouldn't make my arguments weaker. Whatever weakness people draw from that identity, it's purely a rhetorical one, to paint me as a bad or "interested" person and to (fallaciously) make my argument appear weaker.

    Likewise, if I were a recently out-of-work construction worker saying the same thing I'm saying, it wouldn't make my argument any stronger. It would be a purely illusory, rhetorical effect.

    Obvious and blatant self-interest or bias doesn't make a fact less true or the logic of an argument less sound. But it can be very relevant depending on what, specifically, the argument is. "This economics paper says X" is a fact. But the decision to credit a particular economics paper over one with a different conclusion might be motivated by bias.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Drez wrote: »
    Also, I know that's a fuckload of text, and I'm sorry for that. That's another rhetorical ploy - I know people have mentioned it in this thread. Throwing a wall of text at someone and expecting them to read it all and respond to them, or later saying "bah, you didn't even read everything I wrote" is a pretty underhanded tactic.

    Anyway, I don't mean to be too harsh mythago. If you weren't being disingenuous and you took offense to my application of that phrase, I apologize. Truly.

    The tl;dr version of what I was saying is that cutting out what you think the "excess" is in a small or reasonably-sized post is not something that actually helps. Half the time it gets a "why did you cut out my context" response. I've seen that dozens of times recently. The other half of the time, it just twists away from what the original poster meant. All in all, it usually doesn't go anywhere good. You can quote an entire post and still focus on one part of it. I personally feel that that is a much more helpful mode of conversation, because even if you don't consider a certain part of the post relevant context, maybe the original poster does, and he can refer to it in his response without having to go back and find his original post so he can requote himself. And I do think it is akin to dismissal, albeit on a smaller scale.

    While it can happen that a person is attempting to drown out their opponent through excessive text, these attempts are pretty obvious coming down the road. more often than not a large block of text indicates to me a reasonable amount of argument or thought put into something, and the very mention or use of tl;dr invalidates their opponents counter-argument, at least to the extent that it is a respectable and thoughtful position.

    In my opinion, if a person cannot be bothered to read their opponent's argument, they forfeit any response to said argument on the grounds that nearly anything they say is going to be irrelevant or fallacious.

    But I'm just biased because I tend to write big. In general complaints of length of response or writing bug me. No one has forced you to read it, and complaining about luxuries is the epitome of childishness.
    Especially in a medium like a forum. This is the sort of place where you brew up some coffee and spend some time ruminating and browsing. I at least partly blame things like chat threads for promoting such a short attention span in an arena where attention ought to be long and slow. We're writing to each other, not sitting in a chatroom. As draconian as it may be, I would probably moderate any forum I run to warn or infract people for any response that is not at least a full and complete sentence. OP's would need at least a paragraph.

    But that's just me and my approach when it comes to legitimate forum browsing. I've spent enough time on 4chan to see legitimate and interesting arguments devolve into a lot of "hey, you're a fag" "no u" etc. When well thought out, but possibly poorly formatted posts receive nothing but tl;dr in response, I feel bad. And get really angry, depending on length and how thorough and interesting the post was.

    Also, I know I'm being irrelevant to the discussion of how a person's background does not impact their argument (one of the strongest justifications for an anonymous discussion platform) but I have nothing to add to that and find this line of inquiry more interesting.

    What is your opinion on length as it relates to civility on a forum? Does promoting larger posts lead to politeness, or do people simply find larger and more creative ways to insult each other?

    Thejakeman on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    To be honest, I'm kind of surprised how fast civility went out the window in the Immigration thread.

    You've called me disingenuous and insinuated that I'm insane. I've asked you to substantiate a claim.

    Your boy Scalfin said I should be killed, so you'll have to excuse me if my sympathy goes so far.

    Edit: I was going to quote it here for you, but he went and punked out and edited his post.

    By the way, bringing up what you do as coloring where you're coming from isn't an ad hom. Maybe you and Angel Hedgie want to take turns fainting everytime someone posts something you don't like? I don't know at this point. Pretending that you, as someone who benefits from increased migration doesn't have a self interest in arguing for more, as you're claiming, is silly.

    We have little and less to discuss, I believe.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    You called me disingenuous and insinuated that I was insane after I asked you to substantiate a claim... because some other guy said something to you?

    That's a head-scratcher, but I guess that puts your views on economics in perspective.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    You called me disingenuous and insinuated that I was insane after I asked you to substantiate a claim... because some other guy said something to you?

    This is D&D, boy. We don't substantiate claims here.

    _J_ on
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010
    By the way, bringing up what you do as coloring where you're coming from isn't an ad hom.

    if used to support an argument, it's argument from authority, if it's used to deny an argument, it's the very definition of ad hominem. It is ultimately irrelevant no matter who says it.
    Pretending that you, as someone who benefits from increased migration doesn't have a self interest in arguing for more, as you're claiming, is silly.

    Regardless of whether or not he stood to gain millions and sleep with your girlfriend and conquer the entire world based on a side bet on the culmination of the argument, it would still be irrelevant to the rational consideration of the argument.

    That's the concept here. Neither of you are doing much in the way of promoting civility, but in the case of the argument here, you're in the wrong.

    You misunderstand bias to be an objectively bad thing to have. It is most certainly not. Bias is just that, bias. it implies nothing more of an argument than that the person arguing has a reason to argue the way they are. It does not impact the actual argument. Fox news is not a bad organization because it's biased towards the right wing, It's a bad organization because they report falsehoods and attempt to deceive people into believing in their "objectivity." The president tends to tell people to support the democrats. He is obviously biased towards them in his political support. This doesn't mean that supporting the democrats is a bad idea, it just means that the president supports them.

    so on and so forth exempli gratia ad infinitum

    Thejakeman on
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2010
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    By the way, bringing up what you do as coloring where you're coming from isn't an ad hom.

    if used to support an argument, it's argument from authority, if it's used to deny an argument, it's the very definition of ad hominem. It is ultimately irrelevant no matter who says it.
    Pretending that you, as someone who benefits from increased migration doesn't have a self interest in arguing for more, as you're claiming, is silly.

    Regardless of whether or not he stood to gain millions and sleep with your girlfriend and conquer the entire world based on a side bet on the culmination of the argument, it would still be irrelevant to the rational consideration of the argument.

    That's the concept here. Neither of you are doing much in the way of promoting civility, but in the case of the argument here, you're in the wrong.

    You misunderstand bias to be an objectively bad thing to have. It is most certainly not. Bias is just that, bias. it implies nothing more of an argument than that the person arguing has a reason to argue the way they are. It does not impact the actual argument. Fox news is not a bad organization because it's biased towards the right wing, It's a bad organization because they report falsehoods and attempt to deceive people into believing in their "objectivity." The president tends to tell people to support the democrats. He is obviously biased towards them in his political support. This doesn't mean that supporting the democrats is a bad idea, it just means that the president supports them.

    so on and so forth exempli gratia ad infinitum

    I'm not saying that bias is bad, I just think he's full of it to claim it doesn't shape his argument so he can continue to keep up role playing like a Vulcan who isn't affected by something silly like emotions.

    @Loren: I have no clue what you're talking about, but continue to clutch your pearls some more.

    legionofone on
    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The worst thing is when a troll is able to troll on for 30 pages because people let him. I understand that sometimes a person gets angry and doesn't realize they're being trolled, but there's a limit past which it becomes a little absurd.

    I won't name the thread, but I've been watching someone repeat the same inflammatory things over and over, and several people go along with. I don't know if it's contiguous, but it has been going on every time I've dipped in to the thread over the last 30 or so pages.

    The mods shouldn't have to deal with that kind of thing, so I don't fault them for not intervening.

    MKR on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Regarding the thread title:

    ...I'm not sure why you'd want to? A lot of very productive debates end with one side feeling slighted and with heated words having been exchanged. Yeah, it's more vulgar on most Internet boards and people seem to have quicker tempers, but I've noticed that a lot of boards just become very quiet when the rules become really strict regarding what kind of language can or cannot be used and/or how adamant you can or cannot become on a given issue.

    I've also noticed that a lot of people, myself included, will come around to the more rational position in a debate after a heated exchange. I don't have the shame to admit it right away or apologize for being such an asshole, but I'll know that I've been defeated and that, in the future, my stance on the subject will have to be a different one.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I'm not saying that bias is bad, I just think he's full of it to claim it doesn't shape his argument so he can continue to keep up role playing like a Vulcan who isn't affected by something silly like emotions.
    That is not what Loren is claiming at all. What he is claiming is that whatever his supposed bias, if his argument is wrong, then you can attack it without bringing up those qualities.

    If his argument is biased, then show that it is biased and why. Show why the bias is producing incorrect results. If you can't then you have no leg to stand on to claim an argument is correct

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    The worst thing is when a troll is able to troll on for 30 pages because people let him. I understand that sometimes a person gets angry and doesn't realize they're being trolled, but there's a limit past which it becomes a little absurd.

    I won't name the thread, but I've been watching someone repeat the same inflammatory things over and over, and several people go along with. I don't know if it's contiguous, but it has been going on every time I've dipped in to the thread over the last 30 or so pages.

    The mods shouldn't have to deal with that kind of thing, so I don't fault them for not intervening.

    That doesn't sound right. Which is more likely? 30 pages and no one caught on to the troll's game or people privately caught on and tried to play troll-buster, toying with the agitator a.k.a. feeding the troll. What was the tone of the replies made by the people who let the troll do his or her thing?

    emnmnme on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    The worst thing is when a troll is able to troll on for 30 pages because people let him. I understand that sometimes a person gets angry and doesn't realize they're being trolled, but there's a limit past which it becomes a little absurd.

    I won't name the thread, but I've been watching someone repeat the same inflammatory things over and over, and several people go along with. I don't know if it's contiguous, but it has been going on every time I've dipped in to the thread over the last 30 or so pages.

    The mods shouldn't have to deal with that kind of thing, so I don't fault them for not intervening.

    That doesn't sound right. Which is more likely? 30 pages and no one caught on to the troll's game or people privately caught on and tried to play troll-buster, toying with the agitator a.k.a. feeding the troll. What was the tone of the replies made by the people who let the troll do his or her thing?

    Either way, it's pretty dumb.

    MKR on
  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    edited August 2010

    I'm not saying that bias is bad, I just think he's full of it to claim it doesn't shape his argument so he can continue to keep up role playing like a Vulcan who isn't affected by something silly like emotions.

    @Loren: I have no clue what you're talking about, but continue to clutch your pearls some more.

    Whether or not he's acting like a Vulcan with no emotions is irrelevant to whether or not his argument is correct.

    Thejakeman on
  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Slight necro here, but I had a lot of free time tonight.

    In regards to the infractions policy here, I have to say... I have very conservative viewpoints, and I've often felt that I'm getting too emotional for an internet argument and had to walk away from a thread. However, even when my posts have toed the line of debate versus attack of worldview, I have never had my posting ability hindered.

    On the other hand, I cannot recall a single time that I walked into a political or sociological themed thread and found anyone else of my opinion. This is an extremely lefty forum in general, and personal attacks against me have flown fast and furious, often for pretty ridiculous reasons that I never see anywhere else. That is likely why I keep having to walk away from threads with content I really care about.

    So a big "pro job" done by mods, but the community's ability to not get personal generally stinks.

    Simjanes2k on
Sign In or Register to comment.