Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

Necroposting in a thread that's been dead for over a year.

On the contrary, better to continue an old discussion than to start a new one without the useful information.

[Loud Whispers]

People who answer a question on Yahoo Ask just to point out that they think the question is dumb.

Don't answer it then, fucklord! Nobody gives triple shit about your cheeky smartass "answer".

If you see a mind bogginlgy stupid question there is no time for silence, THERE IS ONLY TIME FOR FUCKLORD

[hops]

People who answer a question on Yahoo Ask just to point out that they think the question is dumb.

Don't answer it then, fucklord! Nobody gives triple shit about your cheeky smartass "answer".

If you see a mind bogginlgy stupid question there is no time for silence, THERE IS ONLY TIME FOR FUCKLORD

B-but I want to know what state Hawaii is in.

[Arx]

As for habits that annoy me, excessive arguing takes the cake. Not every disagreement needs to be disputed until one is valid and the other invalid. People can just have different opinions on a topic and leave it at that. Not every point of contention deserves a 10-page frantic posting hell full of vitrol. Most of the time they don't change anyone's opinion on the topic, and leave everyone involved bitter.

Man, if people didn't do this the religion thread would be ten pages long and I'd have at least twenty hours more sleep.

[frostshotgg]

As for habits that annoy me, excessive arguing takes the cake. Not every disagreement needs to be disputed until one is valid and the other invalid. People can just have different opinions on a topic and leave it at that. Not every point of contention deserves a 10-page frantic posting hell full of vitrol. Most of the time they don't change anyone's opinion on the topic, and leave everyone involved bitter.

For that matter, and this is not exclusive to the internet, that every disagreement must end with one side being invalidated. Both sides can be partly correct, and both parties can walk away feeling satisfied they said their piece. The purpose of arguing is rarely ever to change the other party's mind, it's to convince onlookers. Being petty and going for the "Well your argument is invalid because X" only wins you policy debate, which is the stupidest system for having a discussion anybody has ever conceived of.

[Sheb]

PTW

[PTTG??]

As for habits that annoy me, excessive arguing takes the cake. Not every disagreement needs to be disputed until one is valid and the other invalid. People can just have different opinions on a topic and leave it at that. Not every point of contention deserves a 10-page frantic posting hell full of vitrol. Most of the time they don't change anyone's opinion on the topic, and leave everyone involved bitter.

For that matter, and this is not exclusive to the internet, that every disagreement must end with one side being invalidated. Both sides can be partly correct, and both parties can walk away feeling satisfied they said their piece. The purpose of arguing is rarely ever to change the other party's mind, it's to convince onlookers. Being petty and going for the "Well your argument is invalid because X" only wins you policy debate, which is the stupidest system for having a discussion anybody has ever conceived of.

On the contrary, a debate between informed people consists of those who have put a great deal of time and effort into calculating and deriving their position and studying their opponent's position. Everyone involved in the debate has likely heard and considered everything their opponent might say; simply presenting facts won't get you anywhere. The only people who aren't highly familiar with a case and who are likely to change or form opinions are the bystanders.

[Shadowlord]

My point is, not every discussion needs to turn into a victory or failure.

Indeed.

[Flying Dice]

It would have been much nicer if that had turned into an argument itself. 

[Dorsidwarf]

I agree with your point, although the fact that most of your post focuses on the last thing you said is kinda odd.

^{_{It also feels like you offhandedly called a few forumites (including myself) 'little dipshits', but whatever.}}

I think I may have gotten carried away there, especially since "little dipshits" was supposed to refer specifically to the kind of people who are like "I'm 12 and I listen to Queen I'm so cool"

TBH though Queen are one of if not the best bands of the 20th century.

[Graknorke]

My point is, not every discussion needs to turn into a victory or failure.

Surely that only stands if you thinking that every position is right and wrong at the same time. Otherwise there would be a right side and a wrong side.

[Antsan]

My point is, not every discussion needs to turn into a victory or failure.

Surely that only stands if you thinking that every position is right and wrong at the same time. Otherwise there would be a right side and a wrong side.

No, it only assumes that right and wrong aren't always determinable. Only because there is a right and wrong side it doesn't mean that we have a meaningful way of finding out which is what.

Also in a lot of cases what Ispil said is important. Some things are just subjective and many things discussed depend on subjective things.

[wierd]

Indeed.  It gets even more complicated, when you realize that based on prevailing circumstances, one course of action may be preferential to another-- but when those circumstances change, the desirability/correctness of that action can simply evaporate.

Take for instance:

If you have a fever (prevailing condition)- then taking an anti-inflammatory drug to make the fever go down may be beneficial, to avoid cooking your internal organs. 

However, if you are perfectly healthy-- taking the anti-inflammatory drug is probably not advisable, because they are linked with stomach and liver problems.

That's a pretty straight forward, and easy to follow example, but the real world is filled with far more difficult conundrums that are harder to sort out-- say for instance, the impacts of aggressive controls on carbon emissions in the face of climate change and the economic fallout of those controls. (This does not ask the question if climate change is real or not-- it assumes that it is-- it instead asks if aggressive emissions controls on carbon based fuels is more beneficial than detrimental. It's a complicated question, because there are many nuances to the details of the conundrum.)

When you throw in such ephemeral (but completely real!) factors as cultural bias, subjective bias, and destructive self-interests, you can land in a very untenable situation very quickly.

[Putnam]

I agree with your point, although the fact that most of your post focuses on the last thing you said is kinda odd.

^{_{It also feels like you offhandedly called a few forumites (including myself) 'little dipshits', but whatever.}}

I think I may have gotten carried away there, especially since "little dipshits" was supposed to refer specifically to the kind of people who are like "I'm 12 and I listen to Queen I'm so cool"

TBH though Queen are one of if not the best bands of the 20th century.

wow this is a year later and the only thing that's really changed is that my language has gotten less crass when talking about other people

anyway:

queen is one of the best bands in the 20th century, yeah, which is why it's not really cool to listen to queen

everyone listens to queen, they were ridiculously popular and good at the same time

in general i'd say liking popular, good rock isn't cool, like goddamn, rock is really dumb that way, all the "best" rock was the most popular rock too

see, i basically don't listen to music at all, which may in fact be a bad decision since music and listening to it more deeply than the average person is the closest thing to a livelihood i have right now ($2 over a month W A O W that's over 60x what I made in the previous few years) but whatever

[Bohandas]

*Youtube videos with the title and duration of a some full length movie but when you load it up it's just a two-hour long shot of another site's web address
*Other similarly disguised ads posted in other media

Also, does it have to be user habits. I've got a few habits of sites and corporations that piss me off too, including:

*Non-"Simple Machines" (nor Simple-Machines-esque) forums (ie, those in the style of Reddit or 4chan)
*Porn sites that ask for your specific age instead of jist having you click "Yes, I'm over 18"
*On a related note, any site that enforces age restrictions more than the minimum legally allowable amount. And the fact that there are such restrictions. It pissed me off when I was 16 and I see no reason to stop being indignant just because I'm no longer personally victimized by it.
*DMCA takedown requests, regardless of whether they're legitimate or not
*The fact that the DMCA exists in the first place
*All forms of intellectual property regulation
*Anything you need to create an account for
*Anything that asks for your name