Well - I suppose if you find lying to people that you are discussing something with "funny", then I guess you would think you were being humorous....
why bother ?
- Thread starter swelec
- Start date
Sponsored Links
ban-all-sheds said:
The childishly simplistic labels are flying again......
Sarcasm is saying something you don't mean for rhetorical effect, is that lying?
Playing devils advocate is saying something you don't mean for rhetorical effect, is that lying?
I think that you are so keen to find opportunites to shove your opinions down other peoples throats that you deliberately take things totally seriously that at some level you probably recognise as being faececious.
Get over yourself a bit and people might take you a bit more seriously.
P.S. Sorry I'm doing it again. You've already made clear that you will never accept anyone else point of view so I'm wasting my breath.
Can you clarify whether you want me to accept other people's points of view, i.e. accept that what they have written is genuine, or to not accept their points of view, i.e. to assume that what they have written is false?
Sarcasm is a way to make a humorous comment on something. How does making stuff up just to watch people over-react qualify as that?
And the job of a Devil's Advocate is to ensure that the other person makes as strong a case as possible, by forcing them to respond to points that they hadn't considered, or to explain their points more clearly.
It is a valuable technique, so next time I see something of yours with which I strongly disagree, I shall thank you for the invitation to explain myself more clearly, and argue strongly against it.
Sarcasm is a way to make a humorous comment on something. How does making stuff up just to watch people over-react qualify as that?
And the job of a Devil's Advocate is to ensure that the other person makes as strong a case as possible, by forcing them to respond to points that they hadn't considered, or to explain their points more clearly.
It is a valuable technique, so next time I see something of yours with which I strongly disagree, I shall thank you for the invitation to explain myself more clearly, and argue strongly against it.
Bearing in mind, of course, that arguing with people generally doesn't make them change their minds.
And prolongued arguing doesn't entertain the audience either. Neither does name-calling.
So it doesn't achieve much, if anything.
And prolongued arguing doesn't entertain the audience either. Neither does name-calling.
So it doesn't achieve much, if anything.
Sponsored Links
Love this article
Feel free to make comparisons with whoever you wish
swelec
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
Drink Liquor.
Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."
Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873..."
Your opponent says: "Lincoln died in 1865."
You say: "You're begging the question."
OR
You say: "Liberians, like most Asians..."
Your opponents says: "Liberia is in Africa."
You say: "You're being defensive."
Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
NOTE: Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
Feel free to make comparisons with whoever you wish
swelec
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:
Drink Liquor.
Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.
Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level."
NOTE: Always make up exact figures.
If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house."
Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Qua
So to speak
You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not."
Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money."
You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D."
Only a fool would challenge that statement.
Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
What are your parameters?
This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means.
Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say: "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873..."
Your opponent says: "Lincoln died in 1865."
You say: "You're begging the question."
OR
You say: "Liberians, like most Asians..."
Your opponents says: "Liberia is in Africa."
You say: "You're being defensive."
Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."
So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
NOTE: Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons.
ban-all-sheds said:
I don't want you to accept anyones point of view if you don't want to, I would prefer arguing with you if you accepted that other people are allowed a different point of view. If you considered the possibility that they may have a different perspective than yours, which may be as valid as yours.
As for the accepting weather what they have written is a true reflection of their beliefs or is said for rhetorical effect, if you attack the idea not the person, it doesn't matter.
I'm totally unaffected by name-calling, so it doesn't bother me to invite it. It won't stop me from discussing something else with you in another thread. It appears that there are some people whom you have so succesfully p'd off that they simply won't talk to you.
How does this help you get your ideas across? (as you are clearly interested in doing)
I'm struggling to know who I was abusing, or even how a string of asterisks that didn't stand for an obscene word counts as general abuse, but there you go.MOD 2 said:
You saw what I wrote, even if nobody else did - how would you suggest I make the analogy?
-----------------------------
Damn - didn't mean to edit out all my post - thought I was replying.
Sincere apologies to MOD 2 for making it look like he'd deleted the whole thing
ban-all-sheds said:
You stop over-reacting and I'll stop doing it.
You answered this yourself.
You hit the nail on the head. Please do argue strongly, just so long as you DO consider the newly discovered points, sometimes you might discover you were wrong via this method.
I'm glad we established that saying something you don't actually beleive is not just pure and simple lying.
You STILL with us, thought you'd given up alongtime agoThermo said:
ooh sorry.....did I miss the answer somewhere in here? why are we bothering to post?
Oh yeah!! Because we're all entitled to our own opinions
besides............where else at the end of the day, can you rant and rave at others, completely (well sort of) anonymous. without someone callin the plod? call it stress relief-----err.... i before e except...er never mind
Oh yeah!! Because we're all entitled to our own opinions
besides............where else at the end of the day, can you rant and rave at others, completely (well sort of) anonymous.
without someone callin the plod? call it stress relief-----err.... i before e except...er never mind
I'm sure you would, but wouldn't that prove that you were doing it just to wind me up, not as a valid part of a debate?baldy01 said:ban-all-sheds said:
You stop over-reacting and I'll stop doing it.
I think there is a huge difference between deliberately seeking to upset or anger someone, for no reason other than to generate hurt and anger, and playing Devil's Advocate.
I could not do otherwise.
No, but see above. If your motive is to test the strength of, and to improve the strength of, my argument then that is one thing.
If it is an attempt to deceive me just to upset me, then that is another matter altogether.
M
Moz
swelec
if your origional post was just a wind up why do you supply the bullets for everyone to fire ,lol ....
I must say the vast majority here are smashing people even those with nasty weird opnions an the moral majority that jump on them , lol .....
I have posted many things here in the past ...an been beaten , slaughtered ...an buried on some things ....If you cannot take the heat stay out of the kitchen
if your origional post was just a wind up why do you supply the bullets for everyone to fire ,lol ....
I must say the vast majority here are smashing people even those with nasty weird opnions an the moral majority that jump on them , lol .....
I have posted many things here in the past ...an been beaten , slaughtered ...an buried on some things ....If you cannot take the heat stay out of the kitchen
Sponsored Links
