I know I might appear to be quite demanding by expecting intelligent responses to this, but here's the question nevertheless.
What's so great about aiming at the lowest common denominator? Especially when it comes to arguing?
Let me explain: In most discussions/flamewars I read lately, there was this common characteristic that stood out: at some point, participants would stop tackling the argument and go against the arguing party instead.
Hell, some of BYOND's "greatest arguers" seem to regularly use that on a more subtle level, and people tend fall in their trap. This is completely idiotic, as most of the time, there was no substance in the attack, and it simply leads the "victim" out of the argument, thus making the attacker's argument look better than it really is.
However, don't those people realize how valid (or how invalid) this type of argument really is?
So I ask again: what's so great about aiming at the lowest common denominator when arguing?
Eh, yeah, it's a fallacy. I don't really like it either. Whenever people have arguments, it always boils down to our philosophies on certain subjects.
Since there are always two schools of thought, most people (especially those who you consider BYOND's "best arguers") treat those with an opposing view as complete numbskulls. For example, on Chat me and Fizz always have many arguments about how the world is, and what we make of it. Our topics can always start vary broad but in the end it always comes down to our epistemological philosophies: Fizz is an empiricist and I'm a rationalist. Now, there's nothing wrong with either opinion. They're both completely valid and it's entirely up to interpretation by those looking into the argument. But when someone decides to make clear fallacies to disprove the other side, things start to get ugly. Pretty soon we start a giant flame war, channeling our logical fallacies and unsound premises from our categorically syllogistic bazookas. It's pretty simple really, but if we /know/ something is a fallacy and refuse to use it for such, people wouldn't get these argumentative "low blows." But case and point, it's how people are anywhere. You're just going to have to deal with it, sadly. | |
Ad hominem attacks are only a fallacy in syllogistic logic. In other forms of debate, they may be appropriate. Consider that when presenting evidence, the credibility of the proponent may be important. If I am a well known liar, should you believe what I say? Likewise, if I gain in some way if the statement is believed, that may affect my credibility.
It also often appears when someone is arguing an absurd point, and may help illustrate the absurdity of the position, at least tangentially. For example, if I steadfastly maintain that a spaghetti monster lives in my sock from which he controls most of the western world, a response informing me that I am an idiot probably wouldn't be too far off the mark. | |
Jmurph wrote:
For example, if I steadfastly maintain that a spaghetti monster lives in my sock from which he controls most of the western world, a response informing me that I am an idiot probably wouldn't be too far off the mark. Yea, definitely. Everyone knows he's probably doing it from the beer volcanoes or hooker factories in heaven, and he controls most of the eastern world. Freaking idiot. | |
Because nobody ever gets convinced by some random duder over the internet. Without this satisfaction, I'll just take the most entertaining option.
| |
Oooh! Oooh! Am I one of BYOND's 'great minds'? How about if I call you an idiot, am I one then?
More seriously, sometimes people deserve to be made fun of. | |
Just for the record, folks... I was not just talking about the latest flamewar (although it pushed me to give this thought out loud).
Most of them end up this way. | |
Jmurph wrote:
For example, if I steadfastly maintain that a spaghetti monster lives in my sock from which he controls most of the western world, a response informing me that I am an idiot probably wouldn't be too far off the mark. Well, if you take Ad Hominem in its absolute definition, it would definitely indicate a fallacy as far as this example is concerned. What I mean is that it isn't the fact that you're an idiot which discredits the statement, as said statement just doesn't hold water to begin with. However, we all know nothing's absolute, let alone perfect, so the above quoted example has some merit nevertheless. Consider that when presenting evidence, the credibility of the proponent may be important. If I am a well known liar, should you believe what I say? Likewise, if I gain in some way if the statement is believed, that may affect my credibility. That I do agree to some extent. When the credibility of said proponent is compromised by facts that are proven to be true, that is. What I question the validity of are those Ad Hominem attacks which stem from either personal opinion, or simply frustration, with little or no factual value to boot. | |
GoodDoggyTreat wrote:
But case and point, it's how people are anywhere. You're just going to have to deal with it, sadly. Yeah, that I know. I was basically just thinking out loud. | |
With something like Xooxer's latest blog entry there are so many things that are wrong with what everyone is saying (not only on the crazy side of the argument, but the sane people are wrong on some stuff as well). Not getting answers, or not having your very reasonable answers taken into consideration, is very frustrating. Even just not being able to provide a reasonable answer is frustrating.
For example the 'you can see the nose of the plane thing' drives me nuts. I can't offer a reasonable explanation. I don't understand how a plane would react to hitting a building in that position. So when someone is suggesting that magic CGI was being used in a massive media conspiracy I'm stuck. Even though I can think of thousands of more reasonable answers, I don't know enough on the topic to say that any of them are correct. In that situation anyone is bound to reach the point where they want to just grab the guy and shake the crazy out of them. | |
you're wondering why people use ad hominem attacks, but you've answered your question without knowing it! :-)
some of BYOND's "greatest arguers" seem to regularly use that on a more subtle level, and people tend fall in their trap. if i set a trap and you fall in it, who is the fool? However, don't those people realize how valid (or how invalid) this type of argument really is? its not about having a completely valid argument, its about setting a trap and seeing if your opponent falls for it. on the internet, its easy to form a decent argument. without having any knowledge on a topic you can piece together wikipedia articles and other people's arguments and come up with something decent. there are ways for dumb people to make non-terrible arguments and reasons why smart people may make non-perfect arguments. this means that most arguments fall into some gray area. however, as your opponent, i can't tell why your argument falls into that gray area. are you not an idiot but you just worded something poorly? or are you an idiot trying to pass off a regurgitation of 8 wikipedia articles, 3 forum posts, and 2 high school teacher's speeches as your argument? i can write a rebuttal, but you can write another argument that falls into this gray area. what do i do? one thing i can do is set a trap. if you fall for it, its more likely that you're an idiot. if you keep on the issue, you're probably genuinely concerned with the issue and are forming your own arguments. | |
OneFishDown wrote:
if i set a trap and you fall in it, who is the fool? Is arguing really about who is a fool or not? Or is it just the decent, reasonable way to compare your ideas to mine? I'd rather go for the second option, personally. its not about having a completely valid argument, its about setting a trap and seeing if your opponent falls for it. So according to your conception of arguing, it's really all about who wins and who loses? Well, to each his own! on the internet, its easy to form a decent argument. without having any knowledge on a topic you can piece together wikipedia articles and other people's arguments and come up with something decent. there are ways for dumb people to make non-terrible arguments and reasons why smart people may make non-perfect arguments. this means that most arguments fall into some gray area. Well, one can agree that such a "decent" argument can easily be dismantled by someone knowledgeable on the matter, which is how any logical argument should go. Debating ideas is about being constructive. however, as your opponent, i can't tell why your argument falls into that gray area. are you not an idiot but you just worded something poorly? or are you an idiot trying to pass off a regurgitation of 8 wikipedia articles, 3 forum posts, and 2 high school teacher's speeches as your argument? i can write a rebuttal, but you can write another argument that falls into this gray area. what do i do? Well, in any event, you can always ask the person to elaborate on his argument. If said preponent knows what he's talking about, he'll be able to develop on the matter. one thing i can do is set a trap. if you fall for it, its more likely that you're an idiot. if you keep on the issue, you're probably genuinely concerned with the issue and are forming your own arguments. That's certainly one way to get out, but it won't bring out productive results; it'll just start a flamewar. | |
its not about winning, its about knowing your opponent. in an online setting you typically know very little about your opponent. every thing that you learn will help you to better understand them and their argument.
Is arguing really about who is a fool or not? Or is it just the decent, reasonable way to compare your ideas to mine? I'd rather go for the second option, personally. that's the problem: you don't know if the other person is trying to compare ideas in a reasonable way or if they are just trying to win. if they fall for this trap, odds are that they are just trying to win and aren't really interested in comparing ideas. That's certainly one way to get out, but it won't bring out productive results; it'll just start a flamewar. its only a flame war if you continue flaming them. since you're using it as a trap, you wouldn't bother flaming them back. as i mentioned above, if they do fall for it then they probably aren't interested in having an actual argument, so its probably not worth your time continuing the conversation at all. its not a way to get out of a legitimate argument because you lack an actual defense or rebuttal. its a way to tell that the other party is not interested in having a good debate and get out of it because its not worth your time. | |
I just generally have little respect for a few positions - in some cases, I'll argue in an entirely respectful manner - see, for example, my post on the irrationality of religion - in other cases, I don't think whoever I'm arguing with deserves it, which is when the subtle and not-so-subtle digs start coming in.
Alternatively, I just think some comment is far too funny to let it pass. For example: if i set a trap and you fall in it, who is the fool? YOU'VE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD | |
Jp wrote:
YOU'VE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD NOT SO FAST KAIBA | |
yeah.. well.. you guys are fags!
| |
As to your question, though, you answered it yourself. It works most of the time. If you can't argue a point, you can always argue the person.
It's the same reason people lie, it works. It's not right or decent, but who cares about such trivialities as that in this day and age of anonymous online debate?
~X