<p>"you asked me a question that doesn’t merit an answer: “are you suggesting all arguments should be solved through violence?” "</p>
<p>You could have easily answered no, I’m suggesting Blah blah blah, and that’s why arguing on the internet is ■■■■■■■■ as opposed to real life. You’ve still yet to back up your claim, it’s becoming very clear that you’re incapable of doing so. </p>
<p>Saying that it’s a stupid question doesn’t exactly prove your point now does it? Once again, the only foreseeable difference to me is the lack of physical confrontation, that’s the only thing that would make one medium of argument more ■■■■■■■■, but it turns out it makes arguing in real life the handicapped culprit.</p>
<p>“You claimed that arguing on the internet is ■■■■■■■■,”
in jest, and also admitted that i, myself, am not exempt from this conclusion. </p>
<p>“and you implied a distinction against arguing in real life.”</p>
<p>how about this, i’ll formulate an actual thesis for you:</p>
<p>It is my learned opinion that to argue about WHETHER OR NOT there are “measurable differences” – that is to say, differences that can effect the outcome of any given argument in which matters are not ABSOLUTELY grounded in factuality. eg, ‘the capital of the united states is Washington, D.C.’ – between argumentation over the internet and argumentation in the physical is entirely frivolous due to the overwhelming evidence in favor of the assertion that there are, in fact, such measurable differences.</p>
<p>You’re missing the point completely my friend. It’s about differences relevant to the stupidity of arguing on the internet as opposed to arguing in real life, not just simply differences between the two mediums. Any differences you name has to make one of them more ■■■■■■■■ than the other, you’ve yet to name even one. </p>
<p>To Iamlegendary, the burden of proof is a very well known fallacy, I could have pulled that out of any old philosophy text book.</p>
<p>In my defense my question was only in reference to why one medium is more stupid than the other, thus you absolutely have to back it up, since it is your whole point.</p>
<p>the burden of proof doesn’t apply here because i’m not trying to argue in favor the differences themselves… rather, only that it’s frivolous to argue over them because they’re so obvious…</p>
<p>i fully understand that disproving your argument doesn’t prove the one i’m not trying to make. thanks.</p>
<p>“In my defense my question was only in reference to why one medium is more stupid than the other, thus you absolutely have to back it up, since it is your whole point.”</p>
<p>if it was well known, then theres no need to drop a link…just use it within your argument providing a link makes you sounds…well you you know…</p>
<p>and also by the definition of “stupid” in this thread…i dont suppose it follows your assertion pinker…and by your definition, the one stupid should be the one saying the question, not the question itself, dont you agree??</p>
<p>My argument was a question in response to the argument you apparently are not trying to make, thus this whole debate has been void. </p>
<p>Recap: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>You made a joke statement about how arguing on the internet is ■■■■■■■■ as opposed to real life. </p></li>
<li><p>I’m very sick of people making that joke because it’s so old, so I decided to burst your bubble by asking you to back it up. In doing this I claim that I know of no real differences between the two mediums that make one of them more ■■■■■■■■. </p></li>
<li><p>You tell me I’m generalizing, when I’m just responding to your generalized claim by demanding an actual argument. </p></li>
<li><p>Now you tell me you never wanted to argue for the stupidity of arguing over the internet in the first place. </p></li>
<li><p>I’m laughing my ass off right now.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>i love how the title of this thread is - “My CC has the most annyoing morons” with people ranting about how people at their CC are morons (despite not being able to spell annoying correctly). Now we have people arguing OVER ARGUING. </p>
<p>Maybe the title of the thread was supposed to be - “CC has the most annoying morons” (oh my bad, i mean “annyoing”) </p>
<p>they need to hurry up and release another batch of decisions. can we all agree on that?</p>
<h2>It is my learned opinion that to argue about WHETHER OR NOT there are “measurable differences” – that is to say, differences that can effect the outcome of any given argument in which matters are not ABSOLUTELY grounded in factuality. eg, ‘the capital of the united states is Washington, D.C.’ – between argumentation over the internet and argumentation in the physical is entirely frivolous due to the overwhelming evidence in favor of the assertion that there are, in fact, such measurable differences.</h2>
<p>let’s now review the definition that i gave for ‘measurable differences’:</p>
<h2>differences that can effect the outcome of any given argument in which matters are not ABSOLUTELY grounded in factuality. eg, ‘the capital of the united states is Washington, D.C.’</h2>
<p>i can’t give you examples of such ‘measurable differences’. you’ve got to understand that… </p>
<p>it’s my aim to get you to admit that you can’t find EVEN one such difference</p>
<p>BECAUSE</p>
<p>once you’ve admitted that, something will be made apparent:</p>
<p>you formed an opinion, and continued to defend that opinion before giving basic consideration to your argument, which, i think, is ridiculous and should so be ridiculed.</p>
<p>Actually you’re completely wrong there pinker. I’ve already found one such difference, but it favors argument over the internet. Arguing in real life can in fact lead to violent confrontations, but that is utterly impossible if one stay on the internet and don’t take it to the streets. </p>
<p>Resorting to violent means is often moronic, thus that makes arguing in real life more prone to ■■■■■■■■ actions. </p>
<p>Thus such differences are most definitely possible, you just have to find one that favors your argument.</p>