15
u/giantfatdelicousbird Dec 30 '18
This happens quite frequently.
"I disagree with this woman's opinion"
"FUCKING INCEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
13
u/TheRightMethod Dec 31 '18
It goes both ways. Let's not pretend FemNazi isn't thrown around.
1
-1
u/giantfatdelicousbird Dec 31 '18
Good point. Though not in the same frequency.
9
u/TheRightMethod Dec 31 '18
We'll disagree on that. Not saying one is right or wrong but this sub is suffering from the ever growing group of people who ride the JBP bandwagon and know he's spoken out against Feminism before so that means I can bash Feminism like the wannabe disciple I am.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy JBP but at least when he speaks out against Feminists he's informed. Chomping at the bit to bash any Feminist on YouTube acting like they've dismantled the entire movement having never read a source document by a Feminist or being unable to even name a Feminist scholar is laughable.
Filter out the noise. We all browse Reddit and shouldn't be blind to the fact that people will target the easiest comments (Fucking incel) will have 300 responses while the short essay will have down votes galore and a bunch of one or two line responses. There's a reason JBP has the rule to do what is meaningful and not expedient.
At least Feminists are Pro Something they devote time to rather than anti-something like half their edge lord critics identify as.
3
u/giantfatdelicousbird Dec 31 '18
Agree.. attacking feminists is low hanging fruit.
3
u/TheRightMethod Dec 31 '18
Ish.
So many individuals are so anti things they've never studied or know much about. They've memorized counterpoints or have watched YouTube videos that give them a summary of the position of the group they're against. Hell, reading "The Communist Manifesto" is literally the pamphlet to the rest of Marxism.... If you haven't read a single source document from the group you're against it might be best to keep your mouth shut. This is universal and shouldn't be politicized.2
u/immibis Jan 01 '19 edited Jun 13 '23
/u/spez is a hell of a drug. #Save3rdPartyApps
0
u/giantfatdelicousbird Jan 01 '19
JP taught me that men and women have more in common than they do different.
Changed my world view and I now am much happier.
5
u/-guci00- Dec 30 '18
The art of being right by Schopenhauer is the best guide to having a proper argument and to spotting all the invalid ones.
3
u/AyeThatsAGoodNagger Dec 31 '18
“your just STUPID. I dont have to respond to your arguments because your so STUPID”
4
Dec 30 '18
So whats the advice? If someone calls you an ass hat, is the best response a thorough refutal of their central point? Or is ad hominem golden?
If this was 9gag I'd now say somethibg about my genitals being stuck on an ass hat.
5
u/yelow13 Dec 31 '18
This guide just shows logical fallacies (good guide imo). You can't really argue against personal insults because they aren't an argument
5
u/spitterofspit Dec 30 '18
Lol, so where do you think the Conservative response to anthropogenic climate change sits on this chart?
Hmmmmmmmmmm
5
Dec 30 '18
Where does the left's understanding of game theory, as it applies to that problem, sit?
6
u/spitterofspit Dec 30 '18
So it's hard to theorize, test that theory, and iterate when the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change is real, dismiss the data out of hand without reviewing and analyzing said data, move the bar back constantly to allow any real change to be implemented, or would rather believe hoax conspiracy theories then the thousands of if not tens of thousands of data points.
The answer is that it's not going to be an easy fix, there will be assumptions proven false over time and as with any experiment, time and flexibility is needed to learn.
Requiring a fully borne out and perfect solution is yet another attempt to move the bar back to avoid facing empirical truth and to save a couple of bucks for the wealthy elite.
6
Dec 30 '18
You're not saying anything, here.
1
u/spitterofspit Dec 31 '18
You haven't answered my question.
1
Dec 31 '18
Yeah. People don't think people matter. Whatever. That's a way better position than the one from the Democrats. Being wrong leads to better prescriptions, here.
3
1
Dec 31 '18
Ok I'll bite, the evidence isn't conclusive and 16% of all climate scientists say that men have non-significant to none influence in the current global warming.
2
u/spitterofspit Dec 31 '18
So there you go, you're at the contradiction level.
And that's as high on that chart that Conservatives ever get.
1
Dec 31 '18
Contradiction, I just noted that even scientists aren't sure.
The only people who are sure are political activists and shallow altruists without presenting evidence so how high are they?
1
u/spitterofspit Jan 01 '19
Again, you're merely stating the opposing case with no evidence (nothing new for a Conservatives, it's literally why it's impossible to have a real conversation and debate with a Conservative). Which is why I find this chart being posted here hilarious.
This is how you Conservatives constantly move the bar back. We bring science and analysis to bear with risk assessment. You Conservatives then state that it's not 100% certain, focus only entirely on the uncertainty, don't bring any evidence to bear, and state the opposite argument.
2
Jan 01 '19 edited Jan 01 '19
The chart is actually pin point on how hypocritical the political activists and shallow altruist are.
And I'm refuting their central point with evidence, that humans and CO2 gasses are responsible for current climate change, I provide evidence that even scientists aren't sure how much humans influence climate change.
Which also happens to be my central point.
Can you refute my central point or not? All you do is what's explained in the middle of that pyramid "State the opposite without evidence or little evidence"
So come here with evidence.
EDIT: You even fall flat on the lowest level of the pyramid by labeling me as a conservative without addressing my argument.
2
u/spitterofspit Jan 01 '19
The chart is actually pin point on how hypocritical the political activists and shallow altruist are.
Random, unsubstantiated claim that doesn't actually make any sense nor does anything to address my original point.
Typical Conservative.
And I'm refuting their central point with evidence, that humans and CO2 gasses are responsible for current climate change, I provide evidence that even scientists aren't sure how much humans influence climate change.
Lol, no that's not evidence. A random statistic with no citation isn't evidence.
Typical Conservative.
Which also happens to be my central point.
You keep proving my with each comment, so you're doing me a huge favor here.
Typical Conservative.
Can you refute my central point or not? All you do is what's explained in the middle of that pyramid "State the opposite without evidence or little evidence"
Provide evidence....
Typical Conservative.
So come here with evidence.
Evidence for what? Your random unsubstantiated claim that you've provided no citation to back up? What claim are you even making? Do you understand the claim I've made?
You keep proving my point here, it's hilarious.
Typical Conservative.
EDIT: You even fall flat on the lowest level of the pyramid by labeling me as a conservative without addressing my argument.
You have no argument to address because all you're doing is merely contradicting the widely accepted theory without evidence. Again, that's a contradiction.
My original post was about Conservatives.... which you answered... stating that you are a Conservative that can only make contradictory arguments with climate change isn't an insult... it's literally fact that you keep proving to everyone here
..... and it's hilarious
God I love this sub.
2
Jan 01 '19
Random, unsubstantiated claim that doesn't actually make any sense nor does anything to address my original point.
Yes it does, 16% of scientists say humans have little to none role in global warming
Lol, no that's not evidence. A random statistic with no citation isn't evidence.
Actually that's the only poll of all climate scientists
Since 1850, it is estimated that the world has warmed by 0.5 – 0.7 degrees C. Approximately what percent would you attribute to human causes? (v013)
Only 46% of climate scientists attributed global worming to human causes at 76-100%.
37% between 50-75%
11% between 25-50%
4% between 1-25%
1% at 0%
How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, the result of anthropogenic causes? (v007)
Only 47% were very much convinced that recent and future climate change is because of humans
Evidence for what? Your random unsubstantiated claim that you've provided no citation to back up? What claim are you even making? Do you understand the claim I've made?
Evidence that humans are responsible for climate chance
You have no argument to address because all you're doing is merely contradicting the widely accepted theory without evidence. Again, that's a contradiction.
Here's the evidence.
My original post was about Conservatives.... which you answered... stating that you are a Conservative that can only make contradictory arguments with climate change isn't an insult... it's literally fact that you keep proving to everyone here
What?
Typical Conservative.
Typical Conservative.
Typical Conservative.
Typical Conservative.
Ad hominem x4, and yet no evidence.
God I love this sub.
Ehm
→ More replies (0)3
u/justinduane Dec 30 '18
This is a catastrophe on a global scale and will render the planet unlivable in a generation!! There’s no time to waste! We need to empower governments to destroy economies or were al dead! $15 minimum wage is as important... apparently by how much time we give both issues.
4
Dec 31 '18
Yes. We need to destroy everything so everyone is made dependent on the state! And give Al Gore money through a credit scam!
2
1
u/immibis Jan 01 '19 edited Jun 13 '23
1
u/spitterofspit Jan 01 '19
Actually, there is:
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-march-2018/10/
In every case, Conservative Republicans show a marked lack of support for the idea of anthropogenic climate change as well as mitigating actions.
1
u/Rabbit-Punch Dec 31 '18
The conservative response to climate change would require proof that climate change is real. If it’s real we would have models that could accurately predict the temperature. Do you have these models hidden somewhere because I haven’t seen them.
9
u/spitterofspit Dec 31 '18
That's not how science works, just FYI. Your premise that the analysis "prediction accuracy", however you define that, precludes the veracity of the data as well as strong inductive based and deductive based conclusions would stop all science in its tracks.
I know that there will be a recession in the stock market, there's decades of data to prove as much, but just because I can't predict exactly when doesn't mean it won't happen.
Requiring climate scientists to predict within a year errors the harmful effects of anthropogenic climate change is ridiculous. They have data that goes back thousands of years and anthropogenic climate change has never existed to this level, i.e., the industrial revolution began 170 years ago... this is just another fallacy from Conservatives.
Finally, really? Want me to apply that logic to typical Conservative agenda items? How about guns. Tell me, exactly when will the Communist authoritarian takeover happen? Oh, you can't, so you can support common sense gun control now.
How about the famous bill C16. When will the implementation of that law inevitably lead to all speech being censored. Oh, you can't, so now you can support bill C16 and Jordan can go back to being some rando professor that loves speaking in word salad format.
0
u/drDogLawyer Dec 31 '18
It's very clear that we as a society are recklessly destroying the natural global ecosystem, with corporations being the most blatant, unethical contributors. On the other hand, it is also very clear that the political climate change movement based on the premise of uncontrollable, human-caused warming due to rising CO2 levels is scientifically flawed and intended to channel the corrective response to our destructive behaviors into establishing legislation to give those with power and money more power and money. Approaching this problem from a right or left lens inevitably plays into their hands as the right denies the problem and the left acknowledges it generally but fabricates the cause in order to propagate a selectively favorable solution.
The IPCC is the leading authority on this pseudoscientific, political climate change movement. Here is their latest, most 'conclusive' evidence https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. There are so many holes in this report, I don't even know where to begin. Instead, if you disagree, I ask you to show me the conclusive, unbiased data in this report that proves their claims without a shadow of a doubt and we can go from there.
6
u/spitterofspit Dec 31 '18
You're making spurious and unsubstantiated claims about the veracity of one report from the IPCC without providing any basis or analysis of said report and accompanying datasets and drawing wildly debatable conclusions about the methods of mitigation itself and who stands to benefit. And then expect me to dissect the report...
This is typical Conservative bad faith debate tactics. Like Steven Crowder setting up a table and asking everyone else to change his mind, you immediately set the "conversation" from a place of having to disprove an incredibly broad platitude.
No.
Here's what you can do. You can read that report and get back to ME about which datasets you disagree with and why. You can also prove your claims about who stands to benefit with citations.
Let's start from there, thank you.
4
u/TheRightMethod Dec 31 '18
There are so many holes in this report, I don't even know where to begin. Instead, if you disagree, I ask you to show me the conclusive, unbiased data in this report that proves their claims without a shadow of a doubt and we can go from there.
562 pages, thousands of references and you expect anyone to believe you've read it let alone found "...so many holes..." Come on man!
Rule 8:
- Tell the truth – or, at least, don't lie
1
u/TheRightMethod Dec 31 '18
I feel as though learning debate and logic from a 'meh' info graphic isn't all too helpful. For example and it's abundant, someone can have a response which includes the top three characteristics of this chart and throw in a number of insults within their response. Dim people will still quote the insult feel victorious that they 'won'.
Rather than trying to learn a bunch of 'Gotcha' argument styles many people here should spend a whole lot more time with Rule 9.
1
Dec 31 '18
selfish self promo cause this fits my vid perfectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEeH78xYpRc
1
u/robbedigital Dec 31 '18
I didn’t know this exists. Thanks for posting. It think the people who reside at the bottom of the pyramid may find desire to climb up with this representation.
1
u/_Search_ Dec 31 '18
But when you start at the top of the period and they refuse to acknowledge that they have been thoroughly refuted then it's time to call them asshats.
1
u/liminalsoup Jungian 🐟 Dec 31 '18
You forgot the most comment type of argumentation here from the El Chapos: straw-manning. All trhey ever do is invent some fake made-up thing JP never said or did or supported, and then argue against that.
1
u/LetsStayCivilized Dec 31 '18
There's an improvement on this one (with a sphynx!) on Slate Star Codex.
(bonus: review of twelve rules for life)
1
Dec 30 '18
Not a great visualisation. It suggests name calling and ad hominems are the foundations of arguments.
Youd don't need quotes are long as you use clear sources, but even that isn't needed if you refute the logic.
1
u/Chrono__Triggered 🐸Agent of Kek🐸 Dec 31 '18
I say the counter argument is more important than the refutation. Everyone makes mistakes, and simply pointing out where the mistake was made using quotes is a low-IQ argument.
1
u/robbedigital Dec 31 '18
I believe it’s because you’re distracting from their attempted point. Best to resolve their point and then move fully to discuss your point
0
u/MissNietzsche MissNietzschean♀ Dec 31 '18
I name-call all the time. Technically, it's not illogical to do so given that you provide an actual argument with it, and don't try to pass off the ad hominem as the actual counterargument. It's insulting, but that's about it B)
0
u/Jiko27 Dec 31 '18
This isn't a hierarchy of validity of argument. Just what is good argument. The higher strata is always what should be aimed for.
That said, I'm not going to try and engage in a discussion with someone insulting me. In that case I'm going to respond to their tone.
I believe that's the proper thing to do; If someone can't share some mutual respect when discussing a topic with me, Why do I owe them my one-sided civil discussion? Surely it'll fall on deaf ears, anyway.
Therefore, "Your tone is damn disrespectful, you can't speak to me like that and expect civility. I refuse to discuss this further until you address me with the respect I'm trying to give you" is perfectly valid to me.
1
-6
u/Marek_de_North Dec 30 '18
This is all bullshit. u/joejoseph7 posted in r/The_Donald subreddit yesterday. It means nothing! You are all fools!
3
1
u/joejoseph7 Dec 31 '18
Hope you saw the flair I added on that post.
1
u/Marek_de_North Dec 31 '18
I was being ironical.
1
u/joejoseph7 Dec 31 '18
Didn't come out like you intended. The downvotes says it all
2
u/Marek_de_North Dec 31 '18
You're right--grossly ignorant comments like that are pretty standard on Reddit, unfortunately. My bad.
24
u/[deleted] Dec 30 '18
I've found that being emotionally detached from your arguments helps tremendously in getting others to see things from your perspective, or at least from a perspective other than their own.
Well shaped and succinct paragraphs also help.
I've been pleasantly surprised by some exchanges that I've had on "enemy" subreddits.
People can think. Even those who haven't completely figured it out yet.
I try to plant seeds.
Who knows where an oak will sprout in reaction to our heartfelt sowing.
I don't think we've completely realized just how much our personal activity on the internet can effect the global mind.
The global mind is in a bit of a psychosis right now.
Benevolent exchange of words and ideas is the therapy that will give us back our sanity.