<p>the theory and the practice of MOST internet argumentation are entirely opposing, and that’s as far as i’m willing to get into it. </p>
<p>beyond that, evaluate your position, and be sure that an insult is warranted before making one. there’s always the possibility that what you say will make you appear foolish.</p>
<p>A little too late to step out of an “argument” isn’t it? If you refuse to tell me what makes the practice of arguing on the internet so different, then why bring it up in the first place? </p>
<p>You come in here and call half the people ■■■■■■■■ for arguing, and now you’re slowly backing out the backdoor. I mean come on, seriously? Mr. I don’t argue on the internet? Really?</p>
<p>hella funny</p>
<p>Curious about how arguing on the internet could be just as productive(or useless) as arguing in real life? Visit [Philosophy</a> Forums](<a href=“http://forums.philosophyforums.com/index.php]Philosophy”>http://forums.philosophyforums.com/index.php)</p>
<p>first of all, i was making light of the whole ‘arguing on the internet is ■■■■■■■■’ thing, because, admittedly, it is a little ■■■■■■■■. i thought it was obvious that i argue all too often on this forum, and my defense (for myself) was ‘don’t knock ■■■■■■■’. sorry if i didn’t make that clear enough for you.</p>
<p>and you’re right… it’s well too late for me to back off of this one, now. so, rather than defend my contention that argumentation in person and on the internet are, in fact, different to, let’s say, a ‘measurable degree’, i’ll point to the fallacies in your own argument that you can’t seem to find. </p>
<p>you said:</p>
<p>“If you’re going to make fun of arguing on the internet, might as well make fun of being on the internet at all. The only thing lacking is the possibility of physical confrontation, are you suggesting all arguments should be solved through violence?”</p>
<p>but what you really said was:</p>
<p>IF, it is the case that one mocks argumentation on the internet, THEN, it is the case that one mocks (simply) being on the internet.
^ slippery slope / composition </p>
<p>It is the case that the ONLY difference between argumentation on the internet and argumentation in the physical is physicality.
^ hasty generalization</p>
<hr>
<p>which makes your argument:</p>
<p>P1: IF, it is the case that one mocks argumentation on the internet, THEN, it is the case that one mocks (simply) being on the internet.</p>
<p>P2: It is the case that the ONLY difference between argumentation on the internet and argumentation in the physical is physicality. </p>
<p>Conclusion: All arguments should be solved through violence.</p>
<h2>^false cause</h2>
<p>i’m sorry, but that just ain’t flyin…
but, by all means, if you’re open to giving me any pointers in logic, i’d really appreciate it.</p>
<p>why dont you guys get each others AIM’s, chit chat on there, arrange a time at starbucks to meet, and stop having flame wars on teh CCforumz. kthnxbai.</p>
<p>oh, i’m sorry…
are you annoyed?</p>
<p>First of all, I’ve already cleared up that my remark about violence was NOT an attempt to prove a point, but an attempt to ask a question. I sincerely do not know what is so different about arguing on the internet, it’s just as stupid and just as productive if you ask me. The only foreseeable difference to me is the lack of physical confrontation, if you have any other differences in mind please let me know. </p>
<p>Most of the differences between arguing on the internet and arguing in real life can be said for the differences between being on the internet and being in real life. Thus there’s little difference between the two mediums of argument relevant to this particular debate. </p>
<p>If you’d like examples I can give some, I assumed it was up to the reader to come up with them, but apparently that is somehow a “fallacy”. </p>
<p>Anonymity for example, is something that can be said about practically any action on the internet as opposed to real life. People act differently on the internet because of it, regardless of whether they’re arguing or just browsing up some porn. (I’ve been in a “real life” porn shop once, it felt very very awkward.)</p>
<p>About pointers in logic, I’d try not to jump into conclusions about someone’s fallacies when they’re simply stating a question.</p>
<p>haha kkiiji </p>
<p>you’re a loser :)</p>
<p>I’m w/ pinker</p>
<ol>
<li>it’s quite possible to make an assertion when asking a question. i think that’s a pretty basic rhetorical concept that can be exemplified by the age old:</li>
</ol>
<p>Adam: are you gay?
Steve: no.
Adam: do your parents know that you’re gay?
Steve: uhhhh, **** you. </p>
<ol>
<li>i think i explained the fallacy thing pretty well. if you still don’t get it, you probably either don’t understand them, or just can’t recognize them. </li>
</ol>
<p>“Most of the differences between arguing on the internet and arguing in real life can be said for the differences between being on the internet and being in real life. Thus there’s little difference between the two mediums of argument relevant to this particular debate.”</p>
<p>^ sweeping generalization / you just significantly broadened your argument. </p>
<ol>
<li>i don’t have to argue for my own opinion if i can keep showing the faults in yours.</li>
</ol>
<p>Glad to know you’re a spectator capable of taking sides! That’s a handy skill to have.</p>
<p>admit you’re full of it.</p>
<p>he won’t</p>
<p>stubbornness is a childish quality</p>
<p>It is entirely possible yes, but that was not my intent. My intent was to have you respond by telling me what other differences there were, hence it was a question, not a rhetorical question. </p>
<p>Perhaps it is you are too hasty to label everything a fallacy in order to mask your own lack of a point. It works in a debate if no one calls you out on it, but here I am, calling you out. </p>
<p>My whole argument has been “there seems to be no difference, if you disagree please name some”. All you’re saying is “OMG YOU’RE GENERALIZING!” Well sweeping generalizations are only worthless when you name the blatant exceptions, so name some.</p>
<p>I’m full of it? I’m not the one who doesn’t actually have an argument and is only capable of saying stuff like “you’re generalizing too much.” You’re the one that started the claim, the burden of proof is on you.</p>
<p>then again, so is my desire to see him admit it…
so, once he admits it, my desire will be satisfied, he’ll have overcome his ego , and we’ll both get past our childish ways!</p>
<p>win / win!</p>
<p>My only desire is to see you actually state an argument for once. I mean it’s like arguing with a politician, what the hell? You’re the one attempting to draw a distinction between arguing on the internet and in real life, not me.</p>
<p>ok fine i’ll be the ref…</p>
<p>pinkerfloyd sees this as harmless fun…</p>
<p>as for kkiiji…she wont compromise…so tell her your argument pinker…</p>
<p>and for me…this is funny</p>
<p>Here’s a quick refresher course for you:
[Fallacy:</a> Burden of Proof](<a href=“http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html]Fallacy:”>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html)</p>
<p>You claimed that arguing on the internet is ■■■■■■■■, and you implied a distinction against arguing in real life. It is not up to me to make the arguments, it’s up to you.</p>
<p>in reverse order:</p>
<p>i think it’s the other way around… in saying that there AREN’T any (or many) differences between the two forms, you’re the one who’s got something to prove. i think the differences are overwhelming and that it would a frivolous waste of time to go through them.</p>
<p>what i don’t think is a frivolous waste of time: harshing your mellow. </p>
<p>now, </p>
<p>it doesn’t matter what your intent was… i’ve said it before, and i’m sure i’ll say it again, but particular words in particular orders used with particular tools of punctuation DO IN FACT have contextual meanings that cannot be dismissed by simply saying, “that’s not what i meant.” ambiguity is one thing… but not all statements are ambiguous.</p>
<p>if i ask, 'do you think hitler was a great man, or just a good man?" my intent is to make you admit one or the other. a reasonable person has to reject the premise that hitler was either good or great in order to keep face, which is exactly what i did, and will continue to do. </p>
<p>you asked me a question that doesn’t merit an answer: “are you suggesting all arguments should be solved through violence?”</p>
<p>if you meant your question to be something like: “can you cite the differences?”</p>
<p>my answer would be, “that’s a stupid question.”</p>