Trying to argue with conservatives.
All that they’re great at is detouring, distancing, playing down, doubling-tripling down, disassociating, strawmen and more illogical fallacies. They can’t take up an honest debate unless there are rules in place that gives them any outs from being pressed when confronted with questions they can’t give truthful answers to.
99% of all arguments on the internet. Someone is almost always going to engage in some kind of pedantry, butwhatabout, technicality, argumentative fallacy, etc. to try to make themselves right and/or imply the OP was wrong in some way. They are not open to having their mind changed. Especially when it comes to politics, and there’s essentially no hope for religion at all. This generally applies to IRL discussions, too. At least the internet argument you can just walk away, block, or unsubscribe to any replies to the thread.
In the same vein…expecting anyone to change. People have to change themselves, and it’s not up to you. You can’t make it happen except maybe in the most extreme situations, and even then it might be iffy.
And I hate to say it, apologizing on the internet. Once the downvote train starts and shitting on the offender’s posts there’s almost no way out and any apology isn’t worth the effort. I find this kinda hypocritical seeing as there are numerous internet posts about the value of admitting you don’t know something or might have it wrong, and how we shouldn’t shame people for admitting that, yet if someone screws up and apologizes they’re usually hosed. Just reinforces not apologizing.
arguing online isn’t a liberal arts classroom.
why would you expect people to know what argumentative or logical fallacies are? those are rules setup for academic debate. they don’t apply to most arguements outside of the academic setting.
ad hominenems, for example, are totally valid in political/personal conversation. it’s totally valid in life for people to dismiss me and my ideas based on what clothes I’m wearing. It’s not if we are in the context of a debate club.
Trying an argumentative fallacy yourself? A little red herring or straw manning? Nobody said anything about a classroom.
In no way did I suggest the opponent should know what fallacy they are using or that there are rules for the rabble online, the fallacies are mentioned so that you, the reader, would know what people do in an argument that make it not worthwhile, and that the opponent is using them to avoid conceding anything.
One can also infer that using those techniques, even unknowingly, are still common bullshit arguments by an opponent that isn’t discussing in good faith when presented with objective facts. Again, why it’s a lost cause to argue online.
You completely miss my point. It’s not a fallacy if you don’t agree it’s a fallacy.
There is no universal set of rules for argumentation. They are agreements of convention that are context dependent.
Like in philosophy we don’t accept arguments from authority/precendent. But in law argument from authority/precedent is completely valid. It’s almost as if different disciplines have different rules.
But hey, if you want to go try to score points in football by throwing the ball in a basket, and telling everyone else they are fucking idiots for not having a basket on the football pitch… good luck with that.
it’s only a ‘fallacy’ if all participants agree to the rules that declare it as such.
Argument by hyperbole.
and you are just a bad faith actor.
Brutha I didn’t change the subject and argue points my opponent wasn’t trying to make in order to make myself right about something. You are literally an example of what I was talking about.
Honestly I’ve had a different experience. I’ve been wrong, as anyone ever has, on the Internet. And usually the person I’m arguing will accept an apology with grace, and will even get upvotes for doing so. But the apology doesn’t need to be accepted, to still be good to do.