Or in other words "Don't wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."

Edit: s4711 logged out also described it well as

"Don't try to argue with someone who doesn't understand the rules of engagement with respect to rational discourse (or whose interest is in argument and not coming to a knowledge of the truth, as it were)."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2013 03:09PM by nickson.

So, you are saying that someone who likes to argue is a pig? Socrates and the entirety of ancient and modern philosophy would disagree with you.

There is a difference between someone who likes argument for the sake of debate and intellectual stimulation, and someone who likes to argue in order to cause tension and hostility.

Unless someone is trying to intentionally troll someone else, I bet that this is more of a perceived problem, or perceived tone, than a real problem. I'm not saying that you are making this up, I'm just saying that it is nearly impossible to perceive someone's intentions. In most cases I bet people are arguing because it is mentally stimulating even if it seems like something else.

But, I'm just trying to be contradictory. I'm arguing purely for the sake of arguing in a thread that was started with the advice that we shouldn't argue. Crazy meta, right?

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2013 03:03PM by nickson.

Psst...mine was meant to be funny too.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unless someone is trying to intentionally troll
> someone else, I bet that this is more of a
> perceived problem, or perceived tone, than a real
> problem. I'm not saying that you are making this
> up, I'm just saying that it is nearly impossible
> to perceive someone's intentions.

Since we don't have a specific reference, my first thought is to agree with you. It's hard to tell without an example of what the OP means. Perceiving tone and intentions through writing, and without a frame of reference is quite subjective.

Personally, I do have an actual troll, always here on Saturday, hating on me and making hostile, hateful, personal comments to me under an anonymous handle. I find it hilarious that this person hates me so much, someone they've never met, and yet, I've probably never given that person a second thought other than to think, "gee what a passive aggressive (word that rhymes with runt).

But there does seem to be a timid tone here, one that I think is left over from being Mormon. Debating is perceived as arguing. It's the whole 'avoid the spirit of contention" type of thinking. I believe that very concept is responsible for a lot of passive aggressive behavior that's left over from leaving the morg. The way I see debate is as long as it's conducted without personal insults, it's still a debate. IMO, when insults start flying, that's when it crosses over into an argument. Hint: the one who has been personally insulted in many cases, has won the debate; the opponent who doesn't have the big boy/girl words to express themselves, resorts to personal insults, showing themselves to be poor losers.

I think that is a really good explanation of why we act sometimes the way we do.

Also, sorry about your passive-aggressive c*nt troll. :(

Hard to define but you know it when you see it.

Hahaha +1 :)

I'm not sure if that was meant as an insult or as a joke. :/

Idk, but either way, what you said was ironic and it was funny whether it was a joke or not, but you said it was a joke, so I'll go with saying it's a compliment :)

Well, at least I thought I was being funny. :)

Don't try to argue with someone who doesn't understand the rules of engagement with respect to rational discourse (or whose interest is in argument and not coming to a knowledge of the truth, as it were).

This is a better version

It is a drastically different version too.

Well, sometimes rational discourse does not end with coming to the truth, because perspective is relative. I'd rather end that sentence with "not learning anything." Even if you agree to disagree, you both learned something about the other's perspective or each other's truth, as it seems to you.

Also, irony is easy to define. It's a situation where the outcome is the opposite of what's expected. Rain on your wedding day is not ironic, it's just a crappy coincidence. The Gift of the Magi = irony. Alanis Morrisette song = mostly circumstance and coincidnce.

Fair enough.

Of course, perspective may be relative but objective facts are not. With that said, I'm aware that plenty of (semi-)rational discourse is really about subjective matters--the trick is distinguishing the two.

Can an argument about a subjective question be said to be truly rational? I tend to think not.

Is this the right room for an argument?

While visiting my fundie Fox news viewing brother, I sat with my laptop in my lap as he spouted forth about many subjects. Less than a minute on google revealed the truth many times.

Lead is magnetic.
Ozzie Osbourn is Australian.
Smallpox is rampant in the southern states.
Reagan did not sign the no fault divorce law in California in 1969.

If you're yelling at an idiot, make sure he/she is not doing the same thing.

Hahahaha!

The prime case of people who like to argue are those skilled in formal debate. They know the ropes of that form, and so even people who are complete liars and intellectual criminals like William Lane Craig can win, even though they are full of Sh!t.

For argument's sake, I'm posting this:

Monty Python's Argument Clinic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

:-)

Those are the best people to argue with. I especially enjoy arguing with people who don't care about the truth. It's like sharpening your sword.

Eventually you ARE going to be in a crowd, arguing with someone who just loves to argue, and it's a thrill to wipe the floor with them in front of their friends.

Just sayin'..

No it isn't.

I worked for attorneys for over 25 years. Debate team winners -- all of them and very argumentative.

Someone who likes to argue is a great target...and I very much winding them up. Great sport!

Ron Burr