Support NeoGAF

[Tesseract]

For god's sake grow a spine Tesseract.

i got 4 plates on my spine, breh. meet me somewhere

ain't nothing wrong with being wrong, science demands it

demands it, i say !

my hat is blood.

 

[Iph]

Whenever my fiancée is wrong that's when she either doesn't want to talk about it anymore or it just suddenly "doesn't matter". Bunch of bullshit.

Could just be an ingrained defense mechanism that is irrational and you have to find a different way to talk to her about it or in a way she understands better. She may know she's wrong but not know the best way/thing to do about it.

An example would be that I grew up isolated a lot so I don't understand some things about people, especially unsaid stuff that someone can't talk to me about to my face, or if I don't know when someone considers something wrong or right, I need them to tell me.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

- strawman arguments
- I'm louder so I'm right.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

When people dismiss a comparison on the grounds of it being a strawman argument or false equivalency, when it's not and that person has no clue what those things are.

I've run into someone accurately calling out a strawman or false equivalence maybe twice in all of my time on the internet, both of which were on GAF.

 

[Business]

A girl I know is quite argumentative, and when she's sick of arguing or she feels like she's losing she'll say something like "Why are you arguing" or "You're so argumentative" at which point being quiet is the only option because if you say something like "I'm not" or "You're arguing just as much as me" she'll say "See, you're still arguing, you can't stop" and look at other people in the room with a smug "see, he won't stop" look on her face.

I came to post this. That is THE one, thanks.

 

[Iph]

When people dismiss a comparison on the grounds of it being a strawman argument or false equivalency, when it's not and that person has no clue what those things are.

I've run into someone accurately calling out a strawman or false equivalence maybe twice in all of my time on the internet, both of which were on GAF.

I agree. If someone is using comparisons to try and communicate and bridge a gap, it's the start of opening a dialogue and they shouldn't be attacked for trying to communicate. Communication is one of the hardest things these days, I've personally notice.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

i got 4 plates on my spine, breh. meet me somewhere

ain't nothing wrong with being wrong, science demands it

demands it, i say !

my hat is blood.

Fuck you Tesseract. Fuck you. I gave you friendly advice.

 

[theJohann]

I'd like to add one more I thought of, and it is somewhat related to my prior point: when people say that two things, A and B, have areas of overlap between them and thus cannot be neatly distinguished, and therefore things A and B and their surrounding discussions are meaningless. Similarly, when people say that the definition of thing X is not airtight in its insularity, and thus X and its surrounding discussion is meaningless.

This sentiment is often untrue, as few aspects of existence can be so neatly demarcated. One will struggle to find an academic field of study that is not interdisciplinary, a vocation that does not require multiple and different skills, an event that can only be viewed from one perspective, a person without multiple facets, and so on. Blurry lines exist because the world is complex, and we create distinctions to translate this complexity into a more digestible form.

It's just an analogy that is intentionally a bit obscure because I quite desperately wanted to sound intelligent to Opiate. I felt like if I posted what I did, I might get crowned as king of the mods and Evilore would give me a million dollars to travel around the world with him. I'm still holding out hope.

If you are familiar with trigonometry, think about a periodic waveform like a wine wave. If you reverse/invert it's polarity (that is, multiply it by -1) and then add the original waveform to the polarity reversed/inverted waveform, they cancel each other out perfectly and you get zero. One way to check whether or not two waveforms are perfect duplicates of each other is to invert polarity on one and check that the sum of both waveforms is zero. I was comparing the source and target in an analogy to two waveforms, which under the argumentative technique in question would be required to sum to 0, for the analogy to be worthwhile.

Balanced audio cables use this to cancel out line noise picked up along the length of the cable. There are two wires both transmitting the exact same signal, but one cable is polarity inverted before transmission. Any noise is picked up on both wires. Then polarity is switched on one of the 2 wires at the receiving end. This effectively cancels out noise between the two wires.

Edit: "phase cancel" may or may not be incorrect terminology, depending on how you are thinking about it.

Ah, thank you.

 

[Tesseract]

Fuck you Tesseract. Fuck you. I gave you friendly advice.

<3

 

[theWB27]

My ex used the technique of throwing a bunch of crap in the air and my dumbass would help somthing stick by connecting the dots for her..and thus cause myself to have to talk my way out of a situation that wasn't worth it in the first place. That went on for YEARS until my big bro pointed it out to me...once it happened the next time it was like...

 

[Sibersk Esto]

"Oh you didn't like _____? Let's see you do better"

It's not my job to do better asshole

 

[prag16]

Ha. The OP is perfect.

The most common usage is when the comparison used for the analogy is something more extreme than the original issue.

Person B will instantly dismiss the argument of person A while laughing the analogy off as invalid simply because the argument at hand is some first world problem while the analogy drawn might involve something actually serious.

Person A: "First world problem" is similar to "serious issue" in that xyz.

Person B: "Holy shit man, how can you even compare "first world problem" to "serious issue". I'm done here.

Infuriating. Sometimes the "serious issue" is something callous or insensitive. But usually person B is just losing the argument, and is just looking for an out.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

-"I was raised to think this way so anything you say is wrong and I will build as much of an argument that I need to deflect whatever you say to critique/change/dissect/disprove my viewpoint."

-"We claim that we're for this, even though out actions are clearly not for this"

-Sega does what Nintendon't.

 

[Big-E]

I hate when there are threads about some deplorable crime or heinous act committed where some posters discuss talking physical punishment for the perpetrator and someone always comes in to say that everyone in the thread is no different from the person who perpetrated the heinous crime.

 

[DOWN]

I hate when people want to drop an argument before I've made myself sound correct (I basically always know how to sound correct). I want my point to be so clearly trumping yours that you want to deck me (which is probably an argumentative technique on my part that annoys people).

 

[Nothing1016]

"Everything is subjective"

Kills all arguements. It's no fun .

 

[Symphonia]

No response or a "Whatever" when one person has lost.

There's no catharsis to that.

Goddamnit, that really pisses me off, which I guess is what they were hoping for. Even worse, there's no decent argument or comeback for "Whatever..." so the conversation or argument hits a stalemate. Ugh.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

"Everything is subjective"

Kills all arguements. It's no fun .

Yeah, it's unfortunate that so many arguments just come down t a difference of opinion, because it really ruins so much of the point of even discussing pros and cons.

 

[Oppo]

go have a look in the latest Order thread to see the fresh hell that's been created there.

 

[Lazyslob]

i hate when people prove me wrong

 

[Nabbis]

Straw mans annoy me. If you use one, you are not interested in the actual truth of the issue but only in your own agenda.

 

[Dice]

Ha. The OP is perfect.

The most common usage is when the comparison used for the analogy is something more extreme than the original issue.

Person B will instantly dismiss the argument of person A while laughing the analogy off as invalid simply because the argument at hand is some first world problem while the analogy drawn might involve something actually serious.

Person A: "First world problem" is similar to "serious issue" in that xyz.

Person B: "Holy shit man, how can you even compare "first world problem" to "serious issue". I'm done here.

Infuriating. Sometimes the "serious issue" is something callous or insensitive. But usually person B is just losing the argument, and is just looking for an out.

This happened to me earlier in the sleeping-with-cheaters thread. The thread was asking about the dynamics of moral responsibility for being an outlet of others immoral actions, so I said it was like selling weapons to warmongers. People said I was completely wrong but didn't even attempt to explain why. I didn't bother challenging them because if a person only shows enough interest to dismiss you upfront, they aren't up for a thoughtful discussion.

Note that I'm not looking to derail this thread and will not engage any debate on that subject in here. I'm just affirming with a real-life example of the argument style.