Are friends really that necessary in college?

[Hauteclere]

<p>

Let me guess, those minority of people (and you have no relevant data that backs your assertion, but let’s go with it for the sake of argument) are psychologically damaged and need help? Since, after all, they are the odd ones and can lose it at anytime, right? Do you not think they should be institutionalized since they are clearly odd and, ergo, a possible threat to society?

</p>

<p>There’s no need for data to back up my argument. It’s simply common sense that almost everyone wants social interaction, and stating that “omg you dont have data” is just beyond ignorance. It’s like saying I need data to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.</p>

<p>No, I don’t think so. I think your emotions get in the way of your logic too much, because I never even suggested that.</p>

<p>

Unlike you, I do have competent social skills and do not suffer from trust issues. But hey, how come your large network of friends has done nothing for your social skills? After all, according to you, social skills only come with having friends.

</p>

<p>

8. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM</p>

<p>Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker’s argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone’s character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial.

</p>

[enfieldacademy]

<p>

If you were saying that there are people who are friendless and want friends, I would have not disagreed with you. However, what you’ve been insinuating throughout this thread is that 99% of all friendless people want friends and are “settling”, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Then you cited some obscure study that may have found a correlation between longer lifespans and a larger network of friends, which really does nothing to credit your original statement that the majority of friendless people need friends and are settling and even compared it to homelessness.

</p>

<p>Okay, well I don’t think it’s 99% - I would guess somewhere between 30-70%. So I haven’t tried to insinuate that. And I do think an even greater number - maybe 80%, say, - settle for not having friends. They might not see it that way, they might see themselves entirely sufficient and happy without friends, but I would say they probably settled for not having friends because friendships didn’t work out, because other people hurt them, etc.</p>

<p>I am <em>not</em> claiming the people who have settled are deep-down depressed, or anything like that. I am saying they are like the homeless person who accepts his homeless lifestyle.</p>

<p>The study is not obscure. It was actually widely reported and cited…</p>

[OhioMom3000]

<p>Everybody - go outside and enjoy the rest of the day!</p>

[Majjestic]

<p>

There’s no need for data to back up my argument. It’s simply common sense that almost everyone wants social interaction, and stating that “omg you dont have data” is just beyond ignorance. It’s like saying I need data to prove that 1 + 1 = 2.

Did you just compare the stereotypical drivel you are spewing to mathematical axioms? Wow. </p>

<p>Also, FYI: There have been quite a few mathematicians who have spent years attempting to prove something as trivial as 1 + 1 = 2 without the axioms and just ironclad logic or “common sense” , and they have failed. Once again, whatever point you were trying to make is invalid and either provide experimental data or admit that this “fact” is no more than a simple opinion. Also, your use of “common sense” as valid evidence of your arguments just because it is accepted as fact by a majority of people is ad-populum fallacy. </p>

<p>

No, I don’t think so. I think your emotions get in the way of your logic too much, because I never even suggested that.

Never said you did, that was my inference. </p>

<p>Nice try at using the Ad-hominem card. My argument is not ad-hominem. I said you are wrong AND need psychological help, not that you are wrong BECAUSE you need psychological help. Ergo, not ad-hominem.</p>

[Hauteclere]

<p>

Did you just compare the stereotypical drivel you are spewing to mathematical axioms? Wow.</p>

<p>Also, FYI: There have been quite a few mathematicians who have spent years attempting to prove something as trivial as 1 + 1 = 2 without the axioms and just ironclad logic or “common sense” , and they have failed. Once again, whatever point you were trying to make is invalid and either provide experimental data or admit that this “fact” is no more than a simple opinion. Also, your use of “common sense” as valid evidence of your arguments just because it is accepted as fact by a majority of people is ad-populum fallacy.

</p>

<p>It’s incredible how ignorant someone so pompous can be. Why would humans be defined as social creatures if the vast majority of them didn’t want friends? It isn’t a simple opinion, it’s scientific fact that humans are social creatures that crave for social interaction. Denying it is one of the most stupid things you can possibly do.</p>

<p>

Nice try at using the Ad-hominem card. My argument is not ad-hominem. I said you are wrong AND need psychological help, not that you are wrong BECAUSE you need psychological help. Ergo, not ad-hominem.

</p>

<p>Thank you for admitting it. Stating that I need psychological help will always discredit my argument, it’s not possible to have it your way. Sorry, but you made a logical fallacy.</p>

[Majjestic]

<p>

Okay, well I don’t think it’s 99% - I would guess somewhere between 30-70%. So I haven’t tried to insinuate that. And I do think an even greater number - maybe 80%, say, - settle for not having friends. They might not see it that way, they might see themselves entirely sufficient and happy without friends, but I would say they probably settled for not having friends because friendships didn’t work out, because other people hurt them, etc.

But, you have no evidence to prove this? </p>

<p>

I am <em>not</em> claiming the people who have settled are deep-down depressed, or anything like that. I am saying they are like the homeless person who accepts his homeless lifestyle.

And, how do you know this? Isn’t this just your personal opinion? I am also still baffled you are comparing homelessness to friendlessness, despite the fact that comparison was blown out of the water a few pages back. Friends are not a basic human need, while shelter is. Apples and oranges. </p>

<p>

The study is not obscure. It was actually widely reported and cited…

Then, why isn’t the study peer-reviewed? If it is as widely reported as you claim, surely it shouldn’t be hard to post a couple of other studies that confirm the same conclusions?</p>

[DrewCollins]

<p>“Everybody - go outside and enjoy the rest of the day!”
I plan to as soon as I can and then go to sleep early, I’m beat.</p>

[Majjestic]

<p>

It’s incredible how ignorant someone so pompous can be. Why would humans be defined as social creatures if the vast majority of them didn’t want friends? It isn’t a simple opinion, it’s scientific fact that humans are social creatures that crave for social interaction. Denying it is one of the most stupid things you can possibly do.

Classic example of tautology. Sure, humans may be social creatures, but in what context? Of course humans have socialized and need to for society to keep running, but to extend that to say “It is unhealthy for a person to not socialize” is patently incorrect. Social skills are needed to thrive in society, I am not denying that. But, there is no scientific evidence that shows that a lack of friendships is detrimental to one’s health. That is, unless you can cite some studies? </p>

<p>

Thank you for admitting it. Stating that I need psychological help will always discredit my argument, it’s not possible to have it your way. Sorry, but you made a logical fallacy.

Your first assumption is incorrect, seeing as your psychological state has no bearing on the points made in your argument. That is ad-hominem and I clearly did not do that. I called out the “facts” you made in your posts AND then commented on your mental health, which was really in retaliation to your implication that I am the one who is to seek psychological help. A logical fallacy would be to dismiss your argument on the simple fact that you suffer from trust issues and are lacking in social skills, and as stated above, I did not do that. </p>

<p>Perhaps you should learn what a logical fallacy is before attempting to apply it?</p>

[Slylingual24]

<p>True, you would survive without friends in college. The truth of the matter is that is just unreasonable. Why would you want to go through 4 years of solitude? Why would you want to subject yourself to that kind of monotonous lifestyle? It’s not the healthyist lifestyle emotionally, you need some kind of socail stimulus outside of the class room.</p>

[Mojo91]

<p>so what are you trying to say?</p>

<p>lol</p>

[NervusBreakdown]

<p>Majjestic,
fyi - THIS ISN’T A GODDAMN SCIENTIFIC FORUM. i’m sorry but MOST people don’t spend their days looking up “evidence” for this ■■■■■■■■ argument with someone as arrogant and annoying as you.</p>

<p>people gave you their opinion. you say “thank you, i disagree, but understand there are some truths to what you are saying. good day.”</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>^ Best response yet lol.</p>

[Slylingual24]

<p>That you you should have some semblence of a social life.</p>

[Majjestic]

<p>

fyi - THIS ISN’T A GODDAMN SCIENTIFIC FORUM. i’m sorry but MOST people don’t spend their days looking up “evidence” for this ■■■■■■■■ argument with someone as arrogant and annoying as you.

When you make bold claims and assert your opinion as truth, it is not unreasonable for me to ask for evidence. You may take everything at face-value, perhaps, but I am not as irrational and simple minded. If you cannot provide evidence, then your opinion is no more valid than mine. </p>

<p>

people gave you their opinion. you say “thank you, i disagree, but understand there are some truths to what you are saying. good day.”

</p>

<p>Have you seen me argue with other posters that say “Personally, I can’t imagine how people can live without friends”? That is their personal opinion and I respect that, they did not try to pass their opinions off as fact. However, when other posters imply that those who do not want friends are always depressed and psychologically unhealthy and stating it as “common sense”, I’m going to ask for some evidence to support their facts.</p>

[AGKCHS]

<p>Actually, various studies have shown that friendship is beneficial to health. For example, a study that can be found on webmd.com, tested people over the age of 70 for 10 years and found the ones with the closest friend networks lived the longest… </p>

<p>So: “It is unhealthy for a person not to socialize” is NOT patently incorrect.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>I’m genuinely curious- those of you who have no friends “by choice”- do you ever want to get married or have kids?</p>

[Majjestic]

<p>

Actually, various studies have shown that friendship is beneficial to health. For example, a study that can be found on webmd.com, tested people over the age of 70 for 10 years and found the ones with the closest friend networks lived the longest…

Can you post a link to this study? I am not attempting to discredit you, I am just curious and interested in reading the results of these studies.</p>

[Slylingual24]

<p>That is a good question. I would think after awhile of not socializing, one would become socially inept and therfor making it extreamly difficult to find a significant other.</p>

[Majjestic]

<p>

I’m genuinely curious- those of you who have no friends “by choice”- do you ever want to get married or have kids?

Judging by the way you put “by choice” in quotations, you are not genuinely curious and are just looking to ridicule anyone who actually decides to answer.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>No- I was doing that to differentiate those who said it was by choice and those who just can’t seem to make any friends.</p>

<p>If I say I’m genuinely curious, I am genuinely curious.</p>