Does anyone get annoyed when people bring up their own odd/unique/special circumstances in a thread, apparently with the opinion that their specific situation invalidates everything being discussed?
For example, in a thread about the practice of asking their party guests to remove their shoes in the host’s house, someone else posts a frothing complaint to the effect of “Well, a friend of mine has a permanent disability and needs to wear a leg brace and special shoe, and your policy is insensitive to the needs of people like her, and you’re all horrible people and your parties suck and God kills a kitten every time you tell someone to take off their shoes.”
I mean, come on. Obviously, in the special case of your friend, she wouldn’t be forced to remove her leg brace and hop around the party all night. A small minority of situations where a policy or position doesn’t make sense doesn’t invalidate the whole thing, it just means that there must be gasp exceptions!
I can’t think of any more examples now because I’m dead tired, but does anyone know what I’m talking about? It seems like I’ve been seeing people do this more and more lately, and not just on this board.
I have a special case that invalidates a general rule, therefore your general rule that special cases don’t invalidate general rules has been invalidated.
I think it’s mainly when people take a hardline position and say things like “I would NEVER EVER EVER” that makes other people say, “Oh yeah? Well, what if THESE were the conditions?”
I think this is why some of the transsexual threads get so heated. You have a transsexual (or budding transsexual or proto-transsexual, whatever) make very firm pronouncements about transsexuality, not just about their case in particular. Then someone challenges them. That someone is typically on the same side of the argument as the OP, but this of course only makes matters worse and not better. The fights we have with people like ourselves are far more vicious than those we have with people who hold “opposite” views. (Who often don’t anyway, but that’s another issue.)
Personally, I’m fascinated by Kaitlin’s threads, and bewitched by her personality and impressed by her knowledge. So thanks for providing the opportunity to say that all my quips about the stria terminalis and all my teasing of her are just my way of saying that I treat her the same as everyone else I like and respect.
Which is what she wants and how it should be. Same goes for all the weirdos who believe in evolution and a gay gene.
Preach it, baby. To me, this constant chorus makes it virtually impossible to take any sort of moral stance on the boards without someone telling you that you are a judgemental asshole.
“I think crack-addict welfare whores who pop out a kid every year are bad for society.”
Response: “Oh, yeah? Well my sister was a crack-addict welfare whore with five children, then she cleaned up her act, went back to school, and is now in a good job paying her own way and contributing to the tax base. Are you trying to tell me that my sister is bad for society? Hmmmm???”
“Picky eaters are irritating and often inconvenience non-picky eaters.”
Response: “Oh yeah? Well not only am I diabetic and lactose intolerant, I literally have gagged on everything put into my mouth since infancy through absolutely no fault of my own. Are you seriously trying to say that I’m irritating and an inconvenience? Well, fuck you!”
“Women who kill their own children have committed a heinous act and should be punished accordingly.”
Response: “What about postpartum depression, asshole? After I gave birth I literally could not go to the toilet because it was too emotionally overwhelming and often felt that if I didn’t have more help with the baby I could snap and kill someone. Are you saying that society should lock up someone like me and throw away the key? Huh??? Geez, what you’re saying is tantamount to recommending we lock up every new mother right here and now just as a preventive measure. Asshole.”
I could go on. This topic just strikes a chord with me. Carry on.
Thank you for bringing this up, Absolute. It is one of those insidious things that bug me but I can’t quite put my finger on.
I think we need a word like “Offenderati” for this type of poster. I think what is going on is the poster making the “unique situation” post is basically feeling sorry for themselves, and fishing for pity.
There are certain scenarios where arguments from anecdotal evidence can be considered valid. They are rare, but they do exist. The most common example of one would be a situation where a poster is making an absolute statement; a claim that something is always or never the case.
Scenario One Poster X: No fnords eat chicken. Poster Y: Bullshit. I have a fnord, and I just gave it some chicken, and it ate it.
If you trust Poster Y’s word, then his argument is valid. If his fnord ate chicken, then the assertion that “no fnords eat chicken” is disproven. Of course, whether or not you should trust Y’s claim is a personal judgement, and Y would do well to provide us with further evidence on which to base our assessment (for example, a picture of his fnord eating some KFC).
Now, this does not translate to situations where Poster X’s case is anything less extreme.
Scenario Two Poster X: Most fnords, in general, eat broccoli and cheese. Poster Y: Bullshit. I have a fnord, and I just gave it some broccoli and cheese, and it didn’t eat it.
In this case, Y’s argument is invalid (and he’s an idiot), because even if you believe his statement, the fact that one fnord does not eat broccoli and cheese does not necessarily mean that the majority of fnords also do not.
The difference between Scenarios one and two is vast in regard to the validity of anecdotal evidence. The fact that this distinction seems to escape some people, however, does not mean that there are no situations where a single instance of personal experience can be of value to the discussion.
Jeez, Roland, after reading that post, I’ve come to realize that Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was a master alchemist who, after gaining the key to the absolute and personal immortality, used “Malaclypse the Younger” as one of a series of whimsical nom de plumes, the last of which is apparently “Roland Orzabal.”
I always watch for this in the monthly ‘Durned SUVs!’ thread. It’ll be a somewhat reasoned rant about bad parking jobs, poor visibility leading to the near-smushing of said poster, or (this month’s) ill-aimed headlights blinding drivers of smaller cars. You can count that someone will post saying that they live on a farm and regularily haul the local church choir, a half-dozen rescue puppies and a bale of hay through rock-filled marshland, and how hurt they are that the OP thinks they should eat broken glass and die.
