If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Going beyond Godwin's Law, here's a comprehensive set of rules for ending an argument on the Internet. Argue about them in the link to the right   (wired.com) divider line 134
    More: Amusing, internet, Godwin's Law, logical fallacy, burden of proof  
•       •       •

6808 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Dec 2012 at 5:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 01:04:59 AM

SearchN: stewbert: timujin: Coolfusis: minoridiot: MaudlinMutantMollusk: minoridiot: I don't need to argue -- I'm never wrong.

Are too

An argument isn't just contradiction.

It is too.

No it's not. I don't have time to prove it, though, just look it up.

Whatever, the burden of proof is on you. I'm not your personal research service.

Just keep standing up that straw man.


The burden of proof is on the person who is arguing the "positive" (supposedly true) position. You cannot disprove a negative. That's why our legal system puts the burden of proof on the prosecution: "prove that my client committed the crime."

The alternative is:

"We the prosecution say you committed the crime. Prove that you did not."
"I have an alibi; I was at a party with friends when the crime occurred."
"No, we say you were using a double at the party; prove that you did not."
Etc.
 
2012-12-18 03:56:39 AM
Forget it, Jake, it's the Internet.
 
2012-12-18 03:56:42 AM

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: What a shiatty article.


Yeah it left a little to be desired, but I wouldn't say the points they made were wrong.
 
2012-12-18 04:47:41 AM
Correlation does not equal causation! Except sometimes.
 
2012-12-18 05:02:25 AM

LittleSmitty: The fastest way to end and argument is to say "you're right". You don't "win", but it takes the wind out of their sails because they have no ground to argue at that point.

I used that tactic a lot. It works great unless you are the type that needs to have the last word.


I think you misunderstand. They are talking about INTERNET arguments. no one is EVER right that at any point disagreed with you.
 
2012-12-18 06:16:28 AM

Quantumbunny: Oddly enough the div itself: "abPleaBar" is easily blocked...


Go on...
 
2012-12-18 07:07:53 AM

LittleSmitty: The fastest way to end and argument is to say "you're right". You don't "win", but it takes the wind out of their sails because they have no ground to argue at that point.

I used that tactic a lot. It works great unless you are the type that needs to have the last word.


I agree. If you need to get in the "last word" add "That last argument convinced me, you're right" and type nothing else. The thinly veiled sarcasm seems to eat at them. It is kind of like when arguing with a woman and they say "Fine!" and nothing else. You know you really didn't "win" and out of frustration you stick your foot further in your mouth trying to get in that last "zinger" but you fail miserably.

/ Or just don't argue on the internet
// I used to be bad troll bait and learned the hard way
 
2012-12-18 07:21:19 AM

I sound fat: LittleSmitty: The fastest way to end and argument is to say "you're right". You don't "win", but it takes the wind out of their sails because they have no ground to argue at that point.

I used that tactic a lot. It works great unless you are the type that needs to have the last word.

I think you misunderstand. They are talking about INTERNET arguments. no one is EVER right that at any point disagreed with you.


You're right
 
2012-12-18 08:52:41 AM

omeganuepsilon: Quantumbunny: Oddly enough the div itself: "abPleaBar" is easily blocked...

Go on...


With ABP, right click on the banner and "Block this ad". Make sure the ad you are blocking is the div called "adPleaBar".

You can do the same when fark changes their entire background to some car or movie ad.

\According to study after study I thought there were only like... a very small percentage (like 2%) of users that adblocked anything. If it's even 5% it doesn't seem like it would notably impact ad revenues. Or are fark users just so much more technically savy that like half of us do it?
 
2012-12-18 10:14:07 AM
FTA: * If you claim to have supporting evidence available online, but instead of linking to it you say "Look it up yourself," you lose.

Similarly to the banning thing, "look it up yourself" clearly means "please please please don't look it up yourself." It's an admission of failure.


That one goes for 85% of the trolls in the politics thread.
 
2012-12-18 10:42:14 AM
It's a good thing the author is an "award-winning" humorist, as he certainly would starve to death trying to make a living on the debate circuit.
 
2012-12-18 10:45:50 AM

Diagonal: RedVentrue: Ya know who else had a final solution to internet arguments?

Study up on it out.


FTFY
 
2012-12-18 11:03:05 AM

Quantumbunny: omeganuepsilon: Quantumbunny: Oddly enough the div itself: "abPleaBar" is easily blocked...

Go on...

With ABP, right click on the banner and "Block this ad". Make sure the ad you are blocking is the div called "adPleaBar".

You can do the same when fark changes their entire background to some car or movie ad.

\According to study after study I thought there were only like... a very small percentage (like 2%) of users that adblocked anything. If it's even 5% it doesn't seem like it would notably impact ad revenues. Or are fark users just so much more technically savy that like half of us do it?


I don't see that option
/google chrome w/ abp
 
2012-12-18 11:20:16 AM

omeganuepsilon: I don't see that option
/google chrome w/ abp


Nevermind, I have it sorted.
In the tab: Add Your Own Filters
"www.fark.com###abPleaBar"

Thanks to another thread.

/can't go with noscript, html stupid and need the formatting and quote options
 
2012-12-18 11:37:28 AM

giftedmadness: Yeah it left a little to be desired, but I wouldn't say the points they made were wrong.


It left everything to be desired. It was a giant steaming pile of shiat. If you liked it, or agreed with it, then you are a bad person, and should feel bad.
 
2012-12-18 12:37:06 PM

way south: The simpler theory is best but Occam's razor isn't that theory.


...because Occam's razor is a theorem. Or rather, the crude approximation to the formal math theorem, like "disorder increases" for the theorem about flow mapping of phase spaces underlying the statistical mechanics expression of the second law of thermodynamics.

So, I'd accept an exception to the invocation of Occam's Razor if the invoker is willing to prove the theorem. I'd similarly suggest an exception to someone asserting the burden of proof, provided they accept the burden of proof for the existence and location of a burden of proof.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You cannot disprove a negative.


Actually, disproving a negative is easy: provide a positive example.
For example, I can disprove that "there are no black cats with black fur" by providing a cat with black fur.
And I can thus disprove that "You cannot disprove a negative", in providing a positive example of some negative that may be disproven.

Proving a negative is more of a challenge; but is in some cases possible, depending on the sense of the word "prove" used. Insert standard digression to Hume, the Problem of Induction, and resolution thereof....
 
2012-12-18 12:48:23 PM

vactech: I drunk what: minoridiot: The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks

no it isn't

/ni

End the argument by invoking a simple logic test. The winner takes all. 

//or perhaps the one who produces....a shrubbery cuts down the mightiest tree in the forest... with....a herring!


we are no longer the knights who say ni
 
2012-12-18 01:05:23 PM

LDM90: Is there an argument on the Internet that hasn't been done over 9000 times? No one ever "wins". Maybe I'm just on Fark too much.

/atheism is a religion


Which is why I don't entirely agree with the "look it up yourself" argument.

Articles on climate have been linked to since the internet was invented. The data is out there; linking to it one more time isn't going to make whatever moron you're arguing with believe it. Sometimes I feel it's just easier to say the information is out there, I'm not going to do the work for you.
 
2012-12-18 03:05:07 PM

StrangeQ: LDM90: Is there an argument on the Internet that hasn't been done over 9000 times? No one ever "wins". Maybe I'm just on Fark too much.

/atheism is a religion

Which is why I don't entirely agree with the "look it up yourself" argument.

Articles on climate have been linked to since the internet was invented. The data is out there; linking to it one more time isn't going to make whatever moron you're arguing with believe it. Sometimes I feel it's just easier to say the information is out there, I'm not going to do the work for you.


But if you are trying to convince someone else, the responsibility is on YOU to show them why you're right and he's wrong.

It's a good way to pick out the trolls - the ones who refuse to EVER back up what they say belong on the Purple 3 list (or ignore, as the case may be).
 
2012-12-18 03:12:45 PM

I drunk what: vactech: I drunk what: minoridiot: The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks

no it isn't

/ni

End the argument by invoking a simple logic test. The winner takes all. 

//or perhaps the one who produces....a shrubbery cuts down the mightiest tree in the forest... with....a herring!

we are no longer the knights who say ni


Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?
 
2012-12-18 03:21:03 PM

I drunk what: vactech: I drunk what: minoridiot: The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks

no it isn't

/ni

End the argument by invoking a simple logic test. The winner takes all. 

//or perhaps the one who produces....a shrubbery cuts down the mightiest tree in the forest... with....a herring!


A better use of fish:

i48.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-18 03:51:47 PM
If you claim to have supporting evidence available online, but instead of linking to it you say "Look it up yourself," you lose.

This one is important. It's one thing when it's a news story that's blowing up all over the internet, but when you are citing specific arguments to bolster your facts, but then won't post your sources, it makes all of your credibility go down the drain.

/If you had any left, that is...
 
2012-12-18 04:04:28 PM

vactech: Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?


there is no movie funnier than the Holy Grail.

it is the Holy Grail of Comedy, no discussion (and in real life i separate those who get it and those that do not, and you DO NOT want to be on the list of those that don't get it)

now go away or i will taunt you a second time
 
2012-12-18 04:06:32 PM

rufus-t-firefly: StrangeQ: LDM90: Is there an argument on the Internet that hasn't been done over 9000 times? No one ever "wins". Maybe I'm just on Fark too much.

/atheism is a religion

Which is why I don't entirely agree with the "look it up yourself" argument.

Articles on climate have been linked to since the internet was invented. The data is out there; linking to it one more time isn't going to make whatever moron you're arguing with believe it. Sometimes I feel it's just easier to say the information is out there, I'm not going to do the work for you.

But if you are trying to convince someone else, the responsibility is on YOU to show them why you're right and he's wrong.

It's a good way to pick out the trolls - the ones who refuse to EVER back up what they say belong on the Purple 3 list (or ignore, as the case may be).


This. You can't just say 1+2=42 and except to be taken at face value as right. Citations are needed, and are not always ignored as some proclaim.

Sure, you run into it when one fallible troll is arguing against another fallible troll. But in rational discussion with rational people, if the topic is centered on available information, that information needs to be linked or referred to explicitly more often than not.

There are times, however, that information is common knowledge. A recent example of mine would be " high testosterone can increase aggression" Pretty much a no brainer, one would think, well established science right there, from mice to men. Very observable in the short term by anyone. Yet people will still refute that, and display themselves as wholly ignorant of the subject.
IMO, linking to people that are that grossly disconnected is sort of pointless.

As far as climate goes, that's a different beast all together.

That is the inherent problem of a theory without readily tangible proof, and what corroborating evidence there is, is delivered with 90% or so of arbitrarily assigned "certainty" or "confidence".

The other inherent problem with climate is that implied "consensus" is an illusion. Many of the "warmist" studies have varying results and predictions, not to mention that appealing to popularity doesn't deal with the data itself at all, and thereby "proves" nothing. (IE you can be correct, but if you come to a conclusion based on faulty information, it's no more genuine than the people who doubt your claim without reference)

IMO, it's a judgement call, this need of citation. The asserting party should be ready to back up their claims with a credible source, or simply back down/walk away. If information is requested, it's common courtesy(something lacking on the internet) to provide information. The request, yes, it is a challenge, but it's also a service, you're being handed the "win", so to speak, if you are indeed correct. If you fail to or refuse to do that, you may as well chalk it up to a loss, if for no other reason than you are an irrational dick who chooses to employ straw men and insults to come out on top.

As I mentioned above, the inverse applies. If one's ignorance is so complete as to be repugnant, no link is needed. If they're asking for citations for 1+1=2, they obviously have issues and debating with them is pointless. Facepalm.jpg is perfectly acceptable, but not quite as classy as handing over a citation anyhow.

There's a balance there. Most of us have done one or the other, the legitimacy of each circumstance depends on several variables, there can be no real golden rule in this area.
 
2012-12-18 04:20:01 PM

minoridiot: MaudlinMutantMollusk: minoridiot: I don't need to argue -- I'm never wrong.

Are too

An argument isn't just contradiction.


It can be.
 
2012-12-18 04:25:27 PM

I drunk what: vactech: Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?

there is no movie funnier than the Holy Grail.

it is the Holy Grail of Comedy, no discussion (and in real life i separate those who get it and those that do not, and you DO NOT want to be on the list of those that don't get it)

now go away or i will taunt you a second time


I agree. Life of Brian made me uncomfortable with it's portrayal of an ancient Rome, where religious fanaticism and state corruption was rampant and where a multitude of self-proclaimed prophets rambling off pseudo-religious truisms could easily (sometimes by accident) gain a legendary cult following.

The spaceship scene was funny though. lol
 
2012-12-18 04:32:21 PM

vactech: I drunk what: vactech: Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?

there is no movie funnier than the Holy Grail.

it is the Holy Grail of Comedy, no discussion (and in real life i separate those who get it and those that do not, and you DO NOT want to be on the list of those that don't get it)

now go away or i will taunt you a second time

I agree. Life of Brian made me uncomfortable with it's portrayal of an ancient Rome, where religious fanaticism and state corruption was rampant and where a multitude of self-proclaimed prophets rambling off pseudo-religious truisms could easily (sometimes by accident) gain a legendary cult following.

The spaceship scene was funny though. lol


Life of Brian DOES have the superior ending however.
 
2012-12-18 04:42:52 PM

Fano: vactech: I drunk what: vactech: Which movie do you like better Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or Life of Brian?

there is no movie funnier than the Holy Grail.

it is the Holy Grail of Comedy, no discussion (and in real life i separate those who get it and those that do not, and you DO NOT want to be on the list of those that don't get it)

now go away or i will taunt you a second time

I agree. Life of Brian made me uncomfortable with it's portrayal of an ancient Rome, where religious fanaticism and state corruption was rampant and where a multitude of self-proclaimed prophets rambling off pseudo-religious truisms could easily (sometimes by accident) gain a legendary cult following.

The spaceship scene was funny though. lol

Life of Brian DOES have the superior ending however.


It's on the playlist for my funeral.
 
2012-12-18 07:29:24 PM

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: giftedmadness: Yeah it left a little to be desired, but I wouldn't say the points they made were wrong.

It left everything to be desired. It was a giant steaming pile of shiat. If you liked it, or agreed with it, then you are a bad person, and should feel bad.



Lol, ok then.  Nice debating there, buddy.
 
2012-12-18 08:11:08 PM
"Internet arguments are intrinsically a problem"

No they're not.

"They can't be won."

So what?

"All good things come to an end."

Says who?

"In the absence of an end condition, there's only whoever has the last word."

Reductionist bullshiat.

"So all online arguments come down to the two people who just will not shut up."

They sometimes include such people. The thing about internet arguments is, that they involve more than just two people. They include the people who read them. What they come down to is not one thing, but a set of different things for different observers. But if that's all they come down to for you, that's just dandy.

"The only solution is to come up with a way to declare a winner or a loser"

Declaring winners or losers is not a solution to anything, though it could be a feature of something.

"People who argue endlessly on the Internet are unlikely to literally take a shower."

So what? Noseplugs exist.

//also all of your rules are dumb.
 
2012-12-18 11:31:45 PM

db2: Nine comments with no mention of Monty Python? Huh.


Or Hitchhiker's Guide.
 
2012-12-19 09:29:50 AM

omeganuepsilon: If they're asking for citations for 1+1=2, they obviously have issues and debating with them is pointless.

 
Though really, that particular one can be referred over to Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica....
 

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: Reductionist bullshiat.

 
Also wrong, vis-a-vis Turing's Halting problem, and the potential lack of a "last" element for an infinite sequence of elements.
 
2012-12-19 12:01:24 PM

abb3w: Also wrong, vis-a-vis Turing's Halting problem, and the potential lack of a "last" element for an infinite sequence of elements.


Don't you need a description of a program to invoke the halting problem?

Basically what I meant was that I think the author is treating the idea of 'last word' as some kind of epiphenomenon.
 
2012-12-19 12:44:11 PM

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: Don't you need a description of a program to invoke the halting problem?

 
Only for proving it; once you do, it then becomes a convenient example of non-terminating processes. Also, it applies to a proof in a proof systems as well as to programs.
 
And finally, it's not unheard of for part of an internet argument to include as part of the argument an attempt to model the argument.....
 

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: Basically what I meant was that I think the author is treating the idea of 'last word' as some kind of epiphenomenon.

 
While I'm noting he's presuming internet argument is always finite-bounded, allowing existence of a last word. 
 
 
imageshack.us
 
Displayed 34 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report