Does this really matter? If someone says “As a vegetarian, I eat a lot of Quorn”, they’re not asserting a universal - they’re claiming that X arises or depends from Y, not that Y will always bring about X.
It’s bad enough even when the topic is political. If the argument is unsound, attack the argument. If you need to rant about your opponent’s political bias/motivation that is not in evidence in the thread, you just lost the debate.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This one drives me crazier than any other example in this thread. I see this especially in threads about someone’s negligence, for example:
Poster 1: (News story about a child drowning in the bathtub because his babysitter was on the phone and not paying attention.)
Poster 2: That’s terrible and such!
Poster 3: We don’t know all the particulars! Maybe the child had been stung by a bee and was having an allergic reaction, and the babysitter was on the phone with the hospital! Did you ever think of that?
Yeah, this one kinda bothers me.
My problem is this:
- I’m having a conversation with people…presumably a friendly one.
- somewhere along the line, things changed to DEFCON 1 and I should have been using Lincoln-Douglas debate rules.
- But it doesn’t matter, because no matter what you say, no matter what your background, the response is Well that just doesn’t make any sence!
I wrote about something similar here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=553262&highlight=tl%3Bwd
Someone challenges the OP, not because they have information about the particular topic, but because they can’t believe it.
Someone pops into a sympathy thread and turns it on its ear, usually using the above method.
A thread becomes converted into yet another feminist rant.
Typical male.
Amen and amen. People do this to me incessantly.
Most applications of 'My post is my cite."
Using unrelated data to support a conclusion. ie. We’ve removed sugar loaded sodas from schools so the Mexican Timber Wolf population is rebounding.
Cherry picking statements from an argument and quoting them out of context to attempt to prove a point.
Any thread that goes like this:
OP: I’m looking for feedback/opinions on X.
1: I really dislike Y.
2: Yeah, Y sucks.
3: Y is stupid.
OP: Um, okay, but I asked about X.
1: Well, you should have asked about Y.
2: I know everything about Y. Y is more important.
3: Who cares about X? We know what you need better than you do.
If the OP has to repeat their question more than once, I’ve quickly learned that the real question will never get answered. Although there will be a lot of dogpiling while everyone insists that the OP never needed to know about X, anyway.
Irrelevant “experience” tangenetially related to but in lieu of the real deal. [/aside]I mean, we are on a message board, and anyone can make claims to expertise. Usually after a while one does figure out whose bullshit at least is coherent, logical and consistent. [end/aside]
Something along the lines of “well, I won the stock picking contest in my high school home economics class, therefore I’m pretty good at all this stock markety stuff and therefore have a valid opinion on the Goldman Sachs fiasco.”
Sheesh, turns me off to no end. Especially when the opinion is completely asine to anyone with a modicum of real experience on said topic.
It sucks that there’s no easy way to quickly show your Curriculum Vitae online. There’s no way you can know if I’m full of shit, or a career expert, successful in my field.
Cafe Society specific:
whenever someone says anything like, “anyone who doesn’t like this just didn’t understand it”.
One I just saw that absolutely irritates the hell out of me: condescension.
“Oooh, I can’t believe you feel so strongly about little old me. I feel so sorry for you. Your life must be so sad.”
Which inevitably leads to: “No, I couldn’t care less about you or your stupid little posts. I was just trying to help you not embarrass yourself with your pitiful little baby arguments…”
Repeat again and again and again, each trying to outdo the other in the lack of caring department until I lose it and shove broken glass into both sides’ eyes.
‘‘The magnitude of my uncaring is so immense that it should be perfectly obvious by the last 342 posts I have made in response…’’
Yeah.
Personally, I can’t stand people who argue based on a single (usually anecdotal) exception. Like someone might say “A college degree is really important to getting a good job,” and then invariably someone says “Not true, Bill Gates never finished college and he’s a billionaire.” Or, “My uncle Jethro never went to college and he’s rich, so that’s clearly untrue.”
Ugh.
“I insist on a retraction or acknowledgment of the sub-sub-counterpoint made on page 16 of this thread. Until you do so it is futile to continue”
…
“I’m still waiting for response to the page 16 sub-sub-counterpoint that I asked for on page 23 of this thread. Are you deliberately avoiding the point?”
…
“Your continued refusal to address my repeated requests for acknowledgment are not worth my time. I declare you unfit to engage in the particulars of my debate procedures and am leaving this thread”
…
“Why do you continue to address these recent current questions and topics occurring presently on page 38 of this thread while still refusing to answer my page 16 sub-sub-counterpoint!”
“Experts” can be wrong.
Indeed, since “experts” sometimes disagree, some of them must be wrong.
That’s not the point. If I tell you using DOT 5 fluid in an ABS system is a Bad Idea, and you tell me it’s fine because you’ve done it, and I’m a Braking Systems engineer for GM where does that leave things?
Following the example further, I know it’s wrong based on testing that show when the ABS unit actuates it can foam the fluid causing a compromise to the braking system…or corrosion that shortens the life of the system, or whatever.
You’re left with:
“Don’t use DOT 5 fluid.”
“I’ve used it, works fine, you’re a poo poo head”
Long laborious justification of Expertise ensues. (and I believe you’re exhibiting Reticulating Splines gripe.)
One need not be a braking system engineer to know this, just as one need not be an expert in any particular field, necessarily, to be right on a particular point. Therefore “expertise” and credentials aren’t the point. (That’s my point.) If you happen to both both an expert and right, you should be able to readily document this with evidence on the point at hand, which is much more relevant than your credentials, and better reading than any “Long laborious justification of expertise.” See what I mean?
deleted.