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  
•       •       •

6806 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
 
2012-12-17 02:15:29 PM
Looks like "your mom" jokes are still fair game!
 
2012-12-17 02:50:39 PM

NowhereMon: Looks like "your mom" jokes are still fair game!


Discussing the rules = you lose.

/ Some guy who may or may not have looked a lot like Charlie Chaplain might have thought your mom was great last night.
 
2012-12-17 03:10:44 PM
Honey Boo Boo frowns on your shenanigans
 
2012-12-17 03:19:23 PM
I don't need to argue -- I'm never wrong.
 
2012-12-17 04:52:00 PM

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


Are too
 
2012-12-17 05:00:39 PM

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

Are too


An argument isn't just contradiction.
 
2012-12-17 05:06:43 PM

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

Are too

An argument isn't just contradiction.


It is too.
 
2012-12-17 05:10:21 PM

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.
 
2012-12-17 05:17:20 PM
-whtvr
-you sound poor
-i joined fark in 1972
-i oiled my generator up
 
2012-12-17 05:19:00 PM
If you're arguing that your subculture created by a cartoon's marketing department should be treated as Serious Business, you automatically lose.
 
db2
2012-12-17 05:19:16 PM
Nine comments with no mention of Monty Python? Huh.
 
2012-12-17 05:21:05 PM
Thinking of The Game = you lose
 
2012-12-17 05:21:23 PM
That whole thing was a red herring!
 
2012-12-17 05:21:53 PM
Logical fallacies are not Harry Potter spells. You don't just get to shout them out and wiggle your wand to make magic happen.

But wouldn't it be fun if they were? "Appeal to authority! Straw man! Ad hominem!"
 
2012-12-17 05:22:13 PM

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


It's been meta-mentioned. Please try to keep up with the group.
 
2012-12-17 05:22:30 PM

BKITU: Thinking of The Game = you lose


Godamitsomuch
 
2012-12-17 05:25:17 PM
My hair is a bird.
Your argument, is invalid.
 
2012-12-17 05:25:31 PM
You know who else liked to end arguments on the internet?
 
2012-12-17 05:26:13 PM
Subby is Hitler, and that article was worse than the Holocaust.
 
2012-12-17 05:26:39 PM
If you really care about these things, you're lost.
 
2012-12-17 05:26:56 PM
I thought admitting defeat was winning, because then you get to move on with your life, where as continuing to pursue a pointless argument occupies too much of your life.
 
2012-12-17 05:31:29 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-17 05:31:57 PM

wildcardjack: [img.photobucket.com image 360x290]


Came here for this. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-12-17 05:38:24 PM
* If you make a reference to Honey Boo Boo, you lose.

There's no rhetorical basis for this, I'm just freaking tired of hearing about Honey Boo-Boo.


Looks like he just lost at the rules. Only on the internet.
 
2012-12-17 05:39:12 PM
Oh and if you can't figure out HTML bullet points and you make a living writing on the internet, you lose.
 
2012-12-17 05:40:20 PM
NO U
 
2012-12-17 05:40:43 PM

Haliburton Cummings: -i joined fark in 1972


This one is my favorite. I looked up your account profile, Mitt Wrongney! You started posting this year, so you must be a troll!
 
2012-12-17 05:42:35 PM
Wow, Lore Sjoberg still exists. Who knew?



/Still misses brunching shuttlecocks.
 
2012-12-17 05:44:00 PM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-12-17 05:44:09 PM

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.
 
ecl
2012-12-17 05:45:32 PM
Smiting people with insults is still a go right?
 
2012-12-17 05:45:52 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-17 05:45:56 PM
www.criticalgamers.com 

/the game
/you lost it
 
2012-12-17 05:49:56 PM
My rules:

1) don't repeat yourself. if you're saying the same thing again you're wasting your time, the other people involved aren't paying attention to your words anyways. at the best say "see my previous post" but honestly even this isn't worth the little effort it takes.

2) don't chase moving goalposts. given a chance someone backed up to the wall with facts will merrily have you discussing the futility of penny production in the US when the original topic was concealed carry permits. either steer back onto topic or ignore the off-topic ramblings.

3) 99% of the internet is just trolling out of boredom. if you're going to entertain someone at least get paid for it.
 
2012-12-17 05:50:06 PM
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.
 
2012-12-17 05:52:33 PM
FTFA: If you invoke Occam's Razor, or "the burden of proof," you lose.

Really? Every time? So, if some conspiracy kook starts spouting nonsense about the CIA using alien technology recovered from Roswell to bring down the Towers in order to appease Xenu and begin a New World Order in the name of Obama, and a sane person mentions that Occam's Razor shiats all over their theory and calls it a dirty whore, the sane person loses?
 
2012-12-17 05:52:45 PM
This should be stickies in the politics tab.
 
2012-12-17 05:53:36 PM

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.


The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks.
 
2012-12-17 05:57:45 PM

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.


Doesn't that qualify as having the last word?
 
2012-12-17 05:59:35 PM
i71.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-17 06:00:14 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: FTFA: If you invoke Occam's Razor, or "the burden of proof," you lose.

Really? Every time? So, if some conspiracy kook starts spouting nonsense about the CIA using alien technology recovered from Roswell to bring down the Towers in order to appease Xenu and begin a New World Order in the name of Obama, and a sane person mentions that Occam's Razor shiats all over their theory and calls it a dirty whore, the sane person loses?


I think they mean that it isn't proof of anything.
It's like we argue about Jesus riding a dinosaur and you close it by saying "...but, SCIENCE!".

Science is a method. The fossil record or some bible verse may be proof (such as it is), but the means for divining that proof isn't a conclusion on its own.

The simpler theory is best but Occam's razor isn't that theory.
 
2012-12-17 06:02:53 PM

minoridiot: 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.

The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks.


Sheesh... no kidding
 
2012-12-17 06:05:25 PM

I Like Bread: 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.

Doesn't that qualify as having the last word?


Sometimes, but that's not the point. Some people aren't prepared for that response and you sometimes end up with the last word. But the flipside is the "I told you so" response. But as long as you can hold your tongue while they gloat, the argument is essentially over.
 
2012-12-17 06:05:34 PM

minoridiot: The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks


no it isn't

/ni
 
2012-12-17 06:08:23 PM
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-12-17 06:11:41 PM
I didn't see the just shutting down the computer to go out drinking option, I have been using that option quite a bit.lately. Too much time wasted arguing with people to lazy to look it up themselves.....
 
2012-12-17 06:13:02 PM

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.


You're right
 
2012-12-17 06:17:11 PM
I like how young wipersnapper want to make rules.

fark you! The game has already started. And no time outs!
 
2012-12-17 06:22:33 PM
The only winning move is not to play.
 
2012-12-17 06:27:20 PM

wildcardjack: [img.photobucket.com image 360x290]


This is what I get for just ctrl+f searching for the quote...
 
2012-12-17 06:28:42 PM
What if I invoke Occam's Razor in regards to arguing with truthers and other conspiracy theorists, along with its corollary Hanlon's Razor? I think that should be an exception to the rule.
 
2012-12-17 06:31:44 PM
Proper use of Occam's Razor:

"Give the choice between assholes in airplanes and a giant government conspiracy involving Xenu, the Illuminati, and the Jews, I'm going with Occam's Razor and select the assholes in airplanes."
 
2012-12-17 06:49:02 PM

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.
 
2012-12-17 06:51:39 PM

minoridiot: 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.

The Monty Python reference is lost on some folks.


No, but some aren't a slave to it, either. And your ad hominem attack is unwarranted, moran.
 
2012-12-17 06:52:17 PM
Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.

Even if you win, you're still retarded.

(Can't be bothered looking up the .jpg version of this quote, but it seemed appropriate)
 
2012-12-17 06:52:50 PM
Why? Because fark you, that's why.
 
2012-12-17 07:00:20 PM

CokeBear: Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.

Even if you win, you're still retarded.

(Can't be bothered looking up the .jpg version of this quote, but it seemed appropriate)


specialolympicswinner.jpg
 
2012-12-17 07:02:35 PM
I've both won and lost arguments on the internet before. It can be done. It's usually when someone is making a point based on something that is false, yet can be easily looked up by the other party. If you're talking about a debate on religion or something, you can't seem to win those arguments in real life anyways so what is the point of even addressing it?

Anyways, when like 5 other people in the thread start dog piling someone after a slip up, that is usually when it's considered over
 
2012-12-17 07:04:52 PM
i thought the proper way to win an internet argument was:

i11.photobucket.com 


/prove me wrong?
 
2012-12-17 07:08:21 PM
IMHO, The best argument enders are when you, as someone's vile adversary, announce that you would like to hang around and discuss things, but you have to go to you child's recital, or some other familial/human obligation. Instead of being cussed out of the thread, you very possibly will get "Ok, hope he/she does well."
 
2012-12-17 07:13:44 PM

Meerlar: i thought the proper way to win an internet argument was:

 


/prove me wrong?


Only if your hair is a bird.
 
2012-12-17 07:28:28 PM
I've found that if I post in all caps, my opponent usually gets the hint that I know my shiat and will generally back off.
 
2012-12-17 07:30:45 PM

SineSwiper: [www.criticalgamers.com image 260x260] 

/the game
/you lost it


Dick, didn't even need slashies I knew what you were doing.

/I use that exact pic at work to a supervisor every now and then
 
2012-12-17 07:31:41 PM
The "win" is an illusion for the lurkers.
 
2012-12-17 07:31:44 PM

TheSwizz: Meerlar: i thought the proper way to win an internet argument was:

 


/prove me wrong?

Only if your hair is a bird.


Or if your beard is a windmill
 
2012-12-17 07:37:17 PM

Anderson's Pooper: Wow, Lore Sjoberg still exists. Who knew?



/Still misses brunching shuttlecocks.


Came here to say this.

/Ed's World was the best
 
2012-12-17 07:37:34 PM
img404.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-17 07:37:58 PM
There is no winning an argument on the Internet. The only winning move is not to play.

/you know how sure you are you are right and he's wrong and you're going to convince him with your next brilliant argument or piece of evidence? He thinks that, too.
 
2012-12-17 07:49:54 PM

js34603: There is no winning an argument on the Internet. The only winning move is not to play.

/you know how sure you are you are right and he's wrong and you're going to convince him with your next brilliant argument or piece of evidence? He thinks that, too.


Sometimes it's like chess, though. You make a few sacrifices.
 
2012-12-17 07:52:43 PM
I usually steer the argument with my friends such that the argument itself is the premise and say "The fact that youre still arguing just proves my point." then refuse to say anything else on the subject.
 
2012-12-17 07:55:03 PM
If you're caught reading the rules doesn't that mean you owe everyone in the hooch a beer?
 
2012-12-17 08:04:39 PM
minoridiot: I don't need to argue -- I'm never wrong.

MaudlinMutantMollusk : Are too


Hey guys, this is the multiverse, we're all right / wrong in some dimension somewhere.
 
2012-12-17 08:13:44 PM
Obvious Straw-Man. Didnt read that terrible Red Herring
 
2012-12-17 08:32:47 PM
WTF is with this new ad thingie?
 
2012-12-17 08:36:58 PM
Know who else liked to end arguments?
 
2012-12-17 08:39:06 PM
I am a huge fan of the Hal 9000 method of conflict resolution. I'm serious, watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, and then anytime anyone in your life causes you grief, ask yourself WWH9D? You'll hate yourself for not behaving this way sooner.

www.ozsticker.com
 
2012-12-17 08:40:10 PM

Meerlar: i thought the proper way to win an internet argument was:

i11.photobucket.com


/prove me wrong?


i.qkme.me
 
db2
2012-12-17 08:46:47 PM

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

It's been meta-mentioned. Please try to keep up with the group.


No it hasn't.
 
2012-12-17 09:05:47 PM
Ya know who else had a final solution to internet arguments?
 
2012-12-17 09:12:50 PM
Just tell everyone that you are a runner in the Special Olympics. You win automatically.
 
2012-12-17 09:14:54 PM

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


You know who else didn't read the headline?

/zipdog and OgreMagi, that's who
 
2012-12-17 09:31:54 PM

WippitGuud: [i.chzbgr.com image 492x430]


" I rabbit sandcastle"?????

WTF?
 
2012-12-17 09:34:13 PM

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


Study up on it.
 
2012-12-17 09:47:12 PM
That was a horrible article.

Look it up yourself.
 
2012-12-17 09:48:24 PM
FTFA:* If you claim to be winning, you lose.

Explaining why the Republican Party lost the last election... and all that other stuff...
 
2012-12-17 10:06:46 PM

downstairs: That whole thing was a red herring!


No, communism was a red herring.
 
2012-12-17 10:07:00 PM

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!
 
2012-12-17 10:31:45 PM
RIP MAZeR RACKHAM
 
2012-12-17 10:37:52 PM

StoPPeRmobile: WTF is with this new ad thingie?

So we're asking please...help us pay our bills. Whitelist us in your adblocking plugin. In Adblock Plus, you can select "Disable on fark.com" from your Adblock Plus menu. If you can't figure out how to whitelist Fark, please send us a "Tech question" Farkback.


Or you could clickie on the link to find out.

If none are animated I might consider it.

altscreen.com

altscreen.com
 
2012-12-17 10:51:13 PM
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
 
2012-12-17 10:58:59 PM
I have learned that describing a position as "common sense" is often considered a meaningful means of ending an argument by implying objectors to lack "common sense" regardless of any actual facts presented. As examples: "common sense" dictates that unions of one-man and one-woman are the only natural unions that have any benefit to society, thus "common sense" dictates that such unions be the only unions granted any legal recognition. Obviously, if you disagree with that position, you lack "common sense" and thus should not be regarded as credibel.
 
2012-12-17 11:25:54 PM

saturn badger: StoPPeRmobile: WTF is with this new ad thingie?

So we're asking please...help us pay our bills. Whitelist us in your adblocking plugin. In Adblock Plus, you can select "Disable on fark.com" from your Adblock Plus menu. If you can't figure out how to whitelist Fark, please send us a "Tech question" Farkback.

Or you could clickie on the link to find out.

If none are animated I might consider it.

[altscreen.com image 640x360]

[altscreen.com image 640x360]


Oddly enough the div itself: "abPleaBar" is easily blocked...
 
2012-12-17 11:26:28 PM
DIAF
 
2012-12-17 11:27:16 PM
EABOD
 
2012-12-17 11:59:15 PM

sprawl15: If you're arguing that your subculture created by a cartoon's marketing department should be treated as Serious Business, you automatically lose.


As a borderline member of that subculture, I emphatically agree with you.
 
2012-12-18 12:08:22 AM
why is this under Geek?

It should be under Main so more people will see it.
 
2012-12-18 12:18:06 AM
If you invoke the name of a logical fallacy without explaining its relevance, you lose.

Logical fallacies are not Harry Potter spells. You don't just get to shout them out and wiggle your wand to make magic happen. Plus, there's a logical meta-fallacy: Just because someone's making an error in reasoning doesn't mean they're wrong.



Wow, this one I run across all the time from liberal farkers and it really annoys me. It annoys me so much that I started using it just so I could annoy liberal farkers. I will now try to stop using it, but usually when I see someone point of the name of a logical fallacy without saying why it is one or explaining its relevance, 9 times out of 10 it's from someone I disagree with.
 
2012-12-18 12:26:54 AM

StoPPeRmobile: WTF is with this new ad thingie?


Unsure. Not like I am gonna click on any ad I see here, so why see them at all? Or does Fark somehow get money for merely displaying them?
 
2012-12-18 12:50:59 AM

ArcadianRefugee: StoPPeRmobile: WTF is with this new ad thingie?

Unsure. Not like I am gonna click on any ad I see here, so why see them at all? Or does Fark somehow get money for merely displaying them?


I couldn't figure out a way to make it go away. I had to click on another part of the site.
 
2012-12-18 12:59:56 AM
What a shiatty article.
 
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 134 of 134 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report