Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Bronski]

I'm aware that there have been books, treatises, etc, written on logical fallacies, most of which I don't know the Latin names for. I'm also not entirely sure what a treatise is, but will be checking the dictionary after this post. Anyways, this thread is for discussing annoying strategies people use while arguing on the Internet. I find these strategies annoying, not so much because they're fallacious, but more so because they're clich�. I'm sure I'm guilty of some of these or others from time to time. To keep this from becoming personal, let's not quote examples specifically from this forum.

Okay, I'll start.

Quoting the Dictionary
This is a kind of appeal to authority and a good way to derail the thread by arguing about the meaning of a word. A poster can often defeat his own purpose, when contradicting definitions of the same word both exist on dictionary.com.

Smug Veteran
A poster who has either a. been a forum member for a long time, b. is old, appeals to his own self-proscribed authority. This is not the same as using one's experience and knowledge to assist and inform, or wistfully reminiscing about the old days. The smug veteran believes his age or experience are enough to end the debate or at least shame the young and naive.

Whatever, I Don't Care
A poster pretends he doesn't care about the argument, because he's got better things to do. He will often employ this argument when he is losing. It looks something like this:

"Anyways, whatever. You guys have fun arguing on the Internet. LOL. Haha. I'm gonna go hang out with my REAL FRIENDS and my GIRLFRIEND! LOL."

This poster may also claim to make lots of money at his important job. Somehow, however, he finds time to make 100 posts a day.

[Koveras]

Rebutting every single sentence individually.

[Goku]

There are so many fallacies on Dave's.

I don't even understand how a group of people could be so collectively illogical. I think the entire Vulcan race could be wiped at a glance of this forum.


Fallacy of source:
This person believes Aliens exist, therefore anything that comes out of their mouth is invalid. Incorrect. One can be an idiot, but can still be right.

Out of context:
Taking something said, and totally taking out of context to rebuttal it. For example, if we we said while arguing that in war "people will kill for survival" someone might come along and say "but we don't kill each other people on the streets or in civilized countries". War and civility are completely different settings and contexts, there are no solid rules of how to act in every situation.

NOT understanding the context. This leads to a slough of stupid topics. "Why are Korean women so emotional. ""Why is this man crazy? Is it because he is Korean?" "Why are Korean children so bad". They seem to not understand the larger and more pertinent factor. It's not that they are Korean, it's because women are emotional, the 1 man was just crazy, or just children are being children. They associate anything IN Korea, to be a Korean thing rather than accepting it as a human phenomenon or a logical one.

Using a premise that the poster assumes is accepted:
Someone has a belief, and thinks that everyone else will accept that belief. They don't accept or make explicit that the premise has been accepted by both parties.

Other people do it, that makes it ok (justification).
In most cases, just because a Korean co-worker drinks alcohol and goes to room salons does not make it okay to do it. Likewise, on the flip side, just because in America racism exists, doesn't mean that racism is ok in Korea either (HOWEVER, there is a subtly that people don't detect in the argument. In many cases, people claim that they have the right to claim Korea is racist because of this fallacy, however they fail to realize there is an inherent premise that in claiming Korea is racist... you are comparing it to another country. Therefore, if you state a comment such as "Korea is racist" there is an underlying comparison with other countries in making the claim. And thus, this fallacy is not a proper defense)

There's so much more...

[Bronski]

[Captain Corea]

[Bronski]

[Rteacher]

Someone (eg: a "new atheist") whose behavior fits the definition of "bigot" repeatedly calling a poster with different views a "bigot" - apparently hoping that the label will stick.

big�ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

[flakfizer]

I always disliked the "I'm winning/have won" tactic in the middle of a discussion. It's like at the end of a fight when the two fighters are awaiting the decision and there's always one guy who jumps around acting like he's sure he won the fight in the hopes that this will sway the judges or something. But on Dave's it's more like, "I just schooled you" or "everyone here knows that you just made yourself look like an idiot." Or, they just have their sock come on and say "pwned"

[cangel]

What about those people who have so little going on in their lives that they can literally spend hours researching, quoting, and typing up their arguments online... I mean, geez, how pathetic!

Additionally, having to explain things that are so basic, so elementary, annoys the heck out of me. People will often call you out on such simple things and then actually expect you to explain!

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/463c5922

[ChopChaeJoe]

I think I'm guilty of just about all of that.

So I'm a bad debater. Does that mean I should just shut up? Really, you aren't going to change my style. Why complain about it?

[JongnoGuru]

Let's go back to school!

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/

[ubermenzch]

[beercanman]

I think attacking the poster and not the message is a bad one, and bringing up stuff a poster said in the past. Anything to "win" like we're still on a playground.

Character attacks, basically. No matter if you think the poster is a jerk, just look at the message and forget the person.

[Kurtz]

Smug Veterans are the worst. One quick look at your join date, "newbie" and all your arguments are suddenly invalid, or that they are so cool and well read they only feel it necessary to write one cryptic sentence as a response.

Those who spend large amounts of time doing a full history check on you and backing out some quote from 12 months ago in an attempt to discredit you.

[beercanman]

^^

A good point.

The lines drawn between newcomers and veterans are silly. Views change with time. And a plane ride can easily change one to the other.