Why do so many people argue so often so pointlessly?

[8letters]

I've come to view AH threads not as discussions but as polls. With bonus points for witty posts.

 

[StillStunned]

I've come to view AH threads not as discussions but as polls. With bonus points for witty posts.

My dear old mum from the rural north of England is fond of saying, "If wit were shit, you'd be constipated."

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Qui, moi, je discute

 

[StillStunned]

Qui, moi, je discute

I don't think anyone would disagree that quinoa is just disgusting.


(Disclaimer: my French might not be as good as it once was.)

 

[Bamagan]

I'm a cynic and misanthrope. I believe people are each an ocean of ignorance with, at best, an archipelago of competencies and maybe an expertise or two. Their assumptions are largely unassailable by either logic or emotion.
That being said, the act of arguing a point or a principle can have merit for the person doing so, in that it can help them to better understand their own implicit assumptions, and maybe even reexamine them sometimes. It could be an early step on the path to wisdom, even if no one pays any attention to the argument made.
But yeah, with respect to social media and similar fora, arguing is probably mostly about raising a flag to see who salutes, so one's contempt can be doled out appropriately.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

I don't think anyone would disagree that quinoa is just disgusting.


(Disclaimer: my French might not be as good as it once was.)

Maybe I'm brain dead right now, but I haven't a clue what that is.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Wait, do you mean the food stuff quinoa?

 

[StillStunned]

Wait, do you mean the food stuff quinoa?

I was punning on the phonetic similarities between "qui, moi" and "quinoa" and between "je discute" and "just disgusting".

Another hugely successful joke from me.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I've come to view AH threads not as discussions but as polls. With bonus points for witty posts.

On a lighted stage with deep pounding music?

 

[AG31]

On and on, day after day, thread upon thread, back and forth, ying and yang with no possibility of either side convincing the other?


How does the same chicken keep crossing the road so many times during rush hour without getting run over?

I love to analyze stuff. If I find people who will do it with me, it makes me happy. Doesn't matter if they disagree. AH is far and away the best group I've ever been in for analyzing stuff.

 

[SimonDoom]

I DO have debate experience, and I admit I enjoy a spirited argument, and on occasion I've tossed out terms like "ad hominem" and "straw man," along with "red herring." Not because I see an AH argument as something to win, because I don't expect that to happen, but because I think it's more interesting when we candidly and rigorously explore WHY we hold the positions we do, and why we resist listening to others with different points of view. Ad hominem ("against the person") attacks are a sure sign of intolerance, because the speaker attacks the other person rather than the merits of the point they're making.

Whether or not one party or another "wins" the argument, or whether the parties ever change their minds or agree, a debate can be illuminating and worthwhile as long as the parties try to do the following:

1. Agree on definitions and terms, so the debate can be about meaningful things: a clash of values, or an argument about what the facts are, instead of a pointless quibble about definitions. "This word means X." "No, it means Y." That's pointless debate.
2. Stick to the merits and avoid ad hominem attacks, i.e., attacks on the other person's knowledge, good faith, motive, empathy, decency, etc.
3. Avoid straw man arguments. This is when you mischaracterize the other person's position in a way that makes it easy to knock down.
4. Avoid red herrings, i.e., arguments that sound like they score points but don't really have anything to do with the subject at hand.
5. Avoid trying to bludgeon the other side into disagreeing with you.
6. Explore whatever common ground exists. Focus on the things you agree with as much as the things you don't.
7. Be rigorous about facts. Avoid confirmation bias, i.e., paying attention only to the facts that support your case and ignoring those that don't (this is how people believe in astrology and conspiracy theories and other implausible things.
8. Be open to the possibility that there are different ways of looking at a subject, or even that you are just completely wrong about something. I'm pretty sure I've been wrong twice since I joined this place almost 9 years ago. It might even be more than that.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

I was punning on the phonetic similarities between "qui, moi" and "quinoa" and between "je discute" and "just disgusting".

Another hugely successful joke from me.

I've been humor-challenged of late.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I've been human-challenged of late.

 

[Comshaw]

My dear old mum from the rural north of England is fond of saying, "If wit were shit, you'd be constipated."

From an uncle of mine: If brains were gunpowder, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.


Comshaw

 

[TheRedLantern]

Be open to the possibility that there are different ways of looking at a subject, or even that you are just completely wrong about something. I'm pretty sure I've been wrong twice since I joined this place almost 9 years ago

I count 3 times because you joined 10 years ago.

I'm just teasing. Your whole list should be required reading to access any internet forum.

 

[SimonDoom]

The thing I've taken away from debate experience is not that it's all about winning and losing, but that when you really scrutinize the logical and empirical cases for different positions on an issue the "right" answer is often much less obvious than we assume it is. And that's EXTREMELY unsettling for a lot of people. This is a particularly apt forum for these kinds of discussions, because, after all, most of us are trafficking here in deviance -- we're writing and publishing stories that many non-Lit folks would dub disgusting or immoral.

 

[iwatchus]

I DO have debate experience, and I admit I enjoy a spirited argument

What lawyers like to argue or something?

 

[Baztrachian]

The thing I've taken away from debate experience is not that it's all about winning and losing, but that when you really scrutinize the logical and empirical cases for different positions on an issue the "right" answer is often much less obvious than we assume it is. And that's EXTREMELY unsettling for a lot of people. This is a particularly apt forum for these kinds of discussions, because, after all, most of us are trafficking here in deviance -- we're writing and publishing stories that many non-Lit folks would dub disgusting or immoral.

I like the Truth. And not a mushy, feels-good philosophical truth but a hard truth that doesn't give a fuck about anyone's feelings including my own.

And I agree with you that the nature of this group affords everyone a kind of intellectual freedom that absolutely doesn't exist anywhere else.

 

[Djmac1031]

People think theyre always right, and refuse to admit when theyre wrong.

Critical thinking skills are practically non existent and they find it impossible to consider there might just be another side to the argument, another viewpoint that may be just as valid or, god forbid, invalidate their argument.

No one listens. They just wait for their chance to speak.

I gave up on debating / arguing with people online ages ago and my mental health is better for it.

"I believe I've passed the age
Of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right..."

Billy Joel, "Angry Young Man."

I'm not a young man anymore, and too much anger is toxic.

 

[Comshaw]

I DO have debate experience, and I admit I enjoy a spirited argument, and on occasion I've tossed out terms like "ad hominem" and "straw man," along with "red herring." Not because I see an AH argument as something to win, because I don't expect that to happen, but because I think it's more interesting when we candidly and rigorously explore WHY we hold the positions we do, and why we resist listening to others with different points of view. Ad hominem ("against the person") attacks are a sure sign of intolerance, because the speaker attacks the other person rather than the merits of the point they're making.

Whether or not one party or another "wins" the argument, or whether the parties ever change their minds or agree, a debate can be illuminating and worthwhile as long as the parties try to do the following:

1. Agree on definitions and terms, so the debate can be about meaningful things: a clash of values, or an argument about what the facts are, instead of a pointless quibble about definitions. "This word means X." "No, it means Y." That's pointless debate.
2. Stick to the merits and avoid ad hominem attacks, i.e., attacks on the other person's knowledge, good faith, motive, empathy, decency, etc.
3. Avoid straw man arguments. This is when you mischaracterize the other person's position in a way that makes it easy to knock down.
4. Avoid red herrings, i.e., arguments that sound like they score points but don't really have anything to do with the subject at hand.
5. Avoid trying to bludgeon the other side into disagreeing with you.
6. Explore whatever common ground exists. Focus on the things you agree with as much as the things you don't.
7. Be rigorous about facts. Avoid confirmation bias, i.e., paying attention only to the facts that support your case and ignoring those that don't (this is how people believe in astrology and conspiracy theories and other implausible things.
8. Be open to the possibility that there are different ways of looking at a subject, or even that you are just completely wrong about something. I'm pretty sure I've been wrong twice since I joined this place almost 9 years ago. It might even be more than that.

A few of my references as to "How To" that I try (and fail miserably at times) to follow:

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

Confirmation Bias

Baloney Detection Kit


Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

On and on, day after day, thread upon thread, back and forth, ying and yang with no possibility of either side convincing the other?


How does the same chicken keep crossing the road so many times during rush hour without getting run over?

Because the chicken ain't a chicken, it's a Road Runner in disguise. What better way to lure the Coyote out into traffic?

Comshaw

 

[Abeona1]

Because making up is so much fun

 

[dirk2024]

No one listens. They just wait for their chance to speak.

You know my in-laws?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I just enjoy being contrarian.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

So, we're going to argue about whether arguing is arguing or debating?