User Tag List

View Poll Results: Which would be more attractive to you ?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • I want an argument. The nastier the better. Subject-irrelevant

    0 0%
  • I want a nasty argument - It should relate to a pre-existing stance

    2 5.41%
  • I want an argument with an edge- no ad hominem, though.

    10 27.03%
  • I hate to admit it, but I am more attracted to a dispute.

    4 10.81%
  • It doesn't matter to me if it is an argument or neutral, if the subject is interesting

    23 62.16%
  • I won't participate in a dispute unless I am awfully sure, and so I find arguments limiting

    7 18.92%
  • I tend to avoid most disputative threads.

    4 10.81%
  • I despise argumentative threads. They suck.

    5 13.51%
Multiple Choice Poll.
First 345

Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Argument

  1. #41
    Senior Member Crabapple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alienclock View Post
    edited to add full and unnecessarily and potentially disastrous disclosure
    Your agreement with me does not count, and may look bad to others... as you are . . . (drumroll). . . my sister!
    Furthermore, I shall never agree with you online or in life! I change my position, hunt people you think are dumb and haunt them with typist remarks and complete dismissal of their current position...
    O/T: You so silly. How would have they have know if you didn't tell them?

    On Topic: I dislike arguments. I like debates. There need to be rules. There needs to be no gratuitous insults. If insults or jokes further the debate, so be it. If they are an attempt to harass someone or prove one's own perceived superiority, you.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
    -- Unknown

  2. #42
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    "It's the question that drives us"

    I prefer those threads where there is movement left in the conversation. Threads where a question is asked and answered (admittedly to my own satisfaction) no longer interest me unless the validity of the answer comes into question.

    I guess I am attracted to those threads where someone is getting flamed but only out of a sense of justice. I'd certainly be a cold day in hell before I joined in beating someone down/ up.

    (Note: I'm not sure what poll option this makes me so I'll just leave off the poll)
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  3. #43
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuranes View Post
    Are you more stimulated to take part in a thread where there is a dispute going on versus people simply exchanging concepts or opinions ? In other words, let's say you see a thread on the kinds of engines near and far future spacecraft would have, for escaping the atmosphere or navigating in space itself. If you saw a thread that criticized a popular method that is used ( or which have had plans whose general details are available to the public ) for such propulsion, and you had some subject matter knowledge, would you be just as liable to participate if someone asked (neutrally ) what method you advocated, OR if they took a stance where they badmouthed a proposal ?

    I was going to use an example other than rocket propulsion, and pick music groups or politics etc. but then we might have gotten off into a discussion how these subjects had been brought up so many times that both argumentive and neutral aspects of these particular kinds of threadbuilding were somewhat boring.
    '

    I hate how ad hominem is misapplied so much these days. Ad hominem is just an error in reasoning, dont blow it out to be more than that.

    Basically its like saying that John's argument is not acceptable not because there is something wrong with his reason, but only because he is an idiot. You can just say that John is an idiot and you havent commited the ad hominem there because you didnt say that his argument is unacceptable while making no notice of his reasoning.

    Oh and also. There is no opponent in an argument and the nature of debate should never be adversarial. The purpose of arguing should be no other than getting closer to the truth. So you have someone that you co-operate with in the endeavor, but not someone that you're trying to prove wrong, you're arguing to learn and not give affirmation to your prejudices.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #44
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    I hate how ad hominem is misapplied so much these days. Ad hominem is just an error in reasoning, dont blow it out to be more than that.

    Basically its like saying that John's argument is not acceptable not because there is something wrong with his reason, but only because he is an idiot. You can just say that John is an idiot and you havent commited the ad hominem there because you didnt say that his argument is unacceptable while making no notice of his reasoning.
    I think it's implied ad hominem.
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Oh and also. There is no opponent in an argument and the nature of debate should never be adversarial. The purpose of arguing should be no other than getting closer to the truth. So you have someone that you co-operate with in the endeavor, but not someone that you're trying to prove wrong, you're arguing to learn and not give affirmation to your prejudices.
    My truth or yours?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #45
    Senior Member kuranes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    XNXP
    Posts
    1,065

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    '

    I hate how ad hominem is misapplied so much these days.
    I'd be open to admitting that I don't understand all the ins and outs of the original definition of ad hominem. I'm using it as I originally understood it, which may be off base. Nevertheless, I'm still interested in the concept behind what i'm asking, as applied to whether and how arguments go from "spirited discussion" and "attempting to find the truth" to "heated arguments" with people taking fixed positions come what may.

    If, in the course of pointing out an error in someone's reasoning, you also call him/her "retarded" or something similar, or ask a sarcastic question like "did you get that from 'Psychology fer Dummies'?" etc., you are adding an extra element to a disagreement. This is what I meant by ad hominem. If that is the wrong use of the term, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, that is what I meant.

    A person injecting that element into a discussion ( and perhaps, or perhaps not, therefore turning it into an argument ) may be correct in opposing a viewpoint. Their main point may be "you've forgotten the fact that this rocket fuel ( to return to my original analogy ) has a high ignition point, which wouldn't be possible in those circumstances." Hypothesizing that this was true, for the sake of my example here, then they have come up with a good reason ( in terms of their ignition point theory ) that this fuel not be chosen. Did they need to add the word "dumbass" at the end of their statement or question ?

    What if the point they were making was not even correct ? Let's say they were wrong about the ignition point, but they still went ahead and said the same thing ( "with "dumbass" at the end. ). There would be no less hostility generated. It would simply provide someone the opportunity to disprove them, and perhaps add their own hostile remark back, tit for tat.
    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    Reichsfuhrer Herman Goering at the Nuremburg trials.

  6. #46
    Senior Member girlnamedbless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    186

    Default

    I despise argumentative threads. They suck.

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] Do you ever get "hungry" for a good argument?
    By ygolo in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 04-19-2009, 12:31 AM
  2. The Great Christian Argument
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 08-05-2008, 10:44 PM
  3. present an argument as to why you are your type
    By Grayscale in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 03-27-2008, 09:48 PM
  4. [JCF] How my Ti functions (crude representation) vs. F in an "argument"
    By MacGuffin in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-20-2007, 06:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO