NationStates Jolt Archive

Note: The question is not whether Fass is right in the argument, but whether Fass is right in terms of semi-maliciously ignoring my (I admit) probably weak argument.

I understand that sometimes people get involved in arguments just to flame, post ridiculous arguments, and to generally be an ass. If someone posts an argument in good faith, it should be refuted, agreed with, or ignored.

But it should not be dismissed in a demeaning manner and without any actual evidence cited. If someone's calls someone else's argument ridiculous, I think that that person has a right to expect a brief summary of why their argument is so ridiculous, so their faulty logic can be corrected and they can learn from the experience and improve themselves as a rational, thinking being. That is the point of a debate, is it not?

Safer sex is doable and realistic, abstinence is not.


"Doable and realistic?"

Segregation in the USA was "doable and realistic", integration was "not".
Appeasement against Hitler was "doable and realistic", preventing him from invading a variety of countries was "not".
Feeding starving nations is "doable and realistic", controlling global population growth is "not".
Invading Iraq for oil, although no one dare say it, was the "doable and realistic" solution to the oil crisis. Alternative forms of energy and better fuel effeciency are "not".

"Doable and realistic" is a way of saying that you know what is best, but you don't want to try to do it, because it would actually require effort.


Were these analogies meant to be this flawed, or did you really think they were on point?


I threw the list together in 30 seconds. The least you can do is take 30 seconds to point out the flaws instead of merely suggesting that they exist without providing evidence.


They were so ludicrously off-topic, and so poorly constructed in their not having anything to do with the matter at hand, or being in any way comparable to what we're talking about, that picking them apart would have been an even bigger waste of time than reading them was.


I insist. This is a debate. In a debate, it is customary to refute the points of your opponent, as opposed to ignoring/dismissing them.


I am dismissing your analogies, because they are so far out there, that I am not going to waste my time refuting something that is already refuted on its own. Really, if your "argument" here is to throw out some cockamamie analogies and demand that someone pick them apart, you are far from a "debate" worthy adversary.


If it is so easy to pick apart my analogies, why don't you just do it to shut me up?

All your insistence that they are ridiculous means nothing without a supporting argument.


I'm not going to waste my time on something so off-topic and irrelevant.

Yeah...welcome to General. This will happen time and again, and not just with one poster. Learn to accept this happening and don't fret so much over it.

Indeed. Rather, ignore them. Don't waste time on people who waste yours.

I am just making sure that I am not in the wrong in this situation. I try to be aware of when I am doing things badly, for self-improvement.

I am just making sure that I am not in the wrong in this situation. I try to be aware of when I am doing things badly, for self-improvement.
True, but this isn't really a debating site per se. So not everyone acts accordingly.

I pity the man that argues with Fass.

Anyways, on topic, while I don't know what you were arguing about, your analogies all seemed rather politically random and if it was me you were having the debate with, I would have ignored them for being a tangent.

Although, I have no idea what you were talking about and like the first poster said, just get used to happen because it is going to happen many a time.

You've been Fassed. It happens to everyone who debates against him, sooner or later.

Fass wins, as Grand Maritoll invoked Godwin's Law (or rather the extension to the law that says whoever makes the comparision to Hitler loses the argument):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

Fass was write. Those analogies were terrible.

no grand, in this case you were wrong and fass was right.

all that would have happened if he had gone over each example piece by piece is that you (both) would have hijacked the thread away from the original topic and onto the appropriateness of your examples

your examples stand or fall on their own. its inappropriate to insist on changing the discussion to YOU rather than keep it on the topic.

*Holds up sign that says "Fass Pwns!"*

In fact, I'd say Fass is probably one of my favorite NSers.

Just put him on ignore. Fass is a bullshit artist; he'll criticize your posts by telling you how irrelevent, misguided, and uninformed they are without ever actually backing any of his points up. If you search for some of this guy's previous posts, you'll find that about 0% contain substance and logic.

Fass wins, as Grand Maritoll invoked Godwin's Law (or rather the extension to the law that says whoever makes the comparision to Hitler loses the argument):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
So this law states that even if you are right in your extreme examples, you will lose? From its description it seems so.

Just put him on ignore. Fass is a bullshit artist; he'll criticize your posts by telling you how irrelevent, misguided, and uninformed they are without ever actually backing any of his points up. If you search for some of this guy's previous posts, you'll find that about 0% contain substance and logic.

People are arguing with Fass!
Quick take cover before we get caught in the sarcastic crossfire!

You are only going to get flamers here, and I have requested that this thread be locked. And be assured that I do not care what a majority may or may not think.

Just put him on ignore. Fass is a bullshit artist; he'll criticize your posts by telling you how irrelevent, misguided, and uninformed they are without ever actually backing any of his points up. If you search for some of this guy's previous posts, you'll find that about 0% contain substance and logic.

Where is Fass when you need him...

Just put him on ignore. Fass is a bullshit artist; he'll criticize your posts by telling you how irrelevent, misguided, and uninformed they are without ever actually backing any of his points up. If you search for some of this guy's previous posts, you'll find that about 0% contain substance and logic.
It's actually a debating technique used to aggravate the person you're debating with and throw them off guard. If you want a powerful debater, Neu Leonstein or Cat Tribes are far more skilled in that regard. Fass is often on point by the way.

Just put him on ignore. Fass is a bullshit artist; he'll criticize your posts by telling you how irrelevent, misguided, and uninformed they are without ever actually backing any of his points up. If you search for some of this guy's previous posts, you'll find that about 0% contain substance and logic.
Fass is right on this point. The OP made an analogy that compared the unwillingness of people to abstain from sex to the unwillingness of southern US whites to integrate with blacks. The analogy is bullshit because it relies on emotion rather than a comparison of similar ideas.

It tries to invoke the emotions attatched to racism to blur the issue. In fact, segregation is unlike refusal to abstain because abstinance is a private and personal decision that falls within the rights of an individual. Segregation is an infringement upon the rights of the individual by the society.

You are only going to get flamers here, and I have requested that this thread be locked, since I do not think it is appropriate of you to try to attack me like this. And be assured that I do not care what a majority may or may not think.

Firstly, it is of course your right to petition that the thread be locked.

With that having been said, I did not find it appropriate that you attacked me in the other thread. I have tried to make this thread as minimally offensive to you, and to focus on the idea of ignoring bad arguments vs. refuting them.

Note: The question is not whether Fass is right in the argument, but whether Fass is right in terms of semi-maliciously ignoring my (I admit) weak argument.

If your argument is weak, then there is no point in debating it. He was right in semi-maliciously (even though I fail to see how it was malicious) ignoring your argument, becasue it was a weak argument.

If you're going to say someone's points are irrelevant, you should say why they are irrelevant.

If your argument is weak, then there is no point in debating it. He was right in semi-maliciously (even though I fail to see how it was malicious) ignoring your argument, becasue it was a weak argument.

But I would like to know how my argument was weak. I am currently assuming that my argument was probably weak because no one else has seen merit to it so far, but I would like to learn more about how, specifically, it is weak.

If you're going to say someone's points are irrelevant, you should say why they are irrelevant.
That post is totally irrelevant to this discussion because well, no reason really I just wanted to be a wise-ass. Got it?

If you're going to say someone's points are irrelevant, you should say why they are irrelevant.
Agreed. Otherwise it seems like you're using sophistry rather than any form of logic.

Well, I did not find it appropriate that you attacked me in the other thread.

Ignoring your silly analogies is not attacking you. Starting a thread about it, inviting people to go "oh, look at that Fass, he's such a big old bed-wetting doodie head" is just ridiculous.

I have tried to make this thread as minimally offensive to you, and to focus on the idea of ignoring bad arguments vs. refuting them.

You could have done so without this infantile inclusion of my person. I do not care what they think, nor do I care that you bitch and moan about how I don't want to waste my time discussing your irrelevancies. And this is all I'm going to say in this thread, which will hopefully be locked soon.

Fass is right on this point. The OP made an analogy that compared the unwillingness of people to abstain from sex to the unwillingness of southern US whites to integrate with blacks. The analogy is bullshit because it relies on emotion rather than a comparison of similar ideas.

It tries to invoke the emotions attatched to racism to blur the issue. In fact, segregation is unlike refusal to abstain because abstinance is a private and personal decision that falls within the rights of an individual. Segregation is an infringement upon the rights of the individual by the society.

Thank you, I understand now, and I will be careful to avoid such appeals to emotion in the future.

Fass is right on this point. The OP made an analogy that compared the unwillingness of people to abstain from sex to the unwillingness of southern US whites to integrate with blacks. The analogy is bullshit because it relies on emotion rather than a comparison of similar ideas.

It tries to invoke the emotions attatched to racism to blur the issue. In fact, segregation is unlike refusal to abstain because abstinance is a private and personal decision that falls within the rights of an individual. Segregation is an infringement upon the rights of the individual by the society.

Why didn't Fass take the time to explain this to the poster? That's what makes Grand Maritoll's argument legitimate. Look man, if all you do is go around telling people you're right and they're wrong, without providing any supporting arguments or facts, it makes you look like an airhead. If you're going to take the time to belittle someone's argument, you should also take the time to explain why. What if we all went around debating without actually putting forth an opinion or facts or logic? No one would know anything.

Ignoring your silly analogies is not attacking you.

Ignoring would have been fine. It is the posting about ignoring it that bothered me.

Starting a thread about it, inviting people to go "oh, look at that Fass, he's such a big old bed-wetting doodie head" is just ridiculous.

Fair enough. If the mods allow, I will start a new thread focusing on the concept rather than the individual.

You are only going to get flamers here, and I have requested that this thread be locked. And be assured that I do not care what a majority may or may not think.

And you are asking it to be locked because...you can't stand the criticism? What about those here that are supporting you, don't they deserve to see the thread continue?

Ignoring your silly analogies is not attacking you. Starting a thread about it, inviting people to go "oh, look at that Fass, he's such a big old bed-wetting doodie head" is just ridiculous.

The way you went about 'ignoring' his analogies was unusually rude. You were basically calling him incompetent and painting him as an idiot through everything you posted.

They were so ludicrously off-topic, and so poorly constructed in their not having anything to do with the matter at hand, or being in any way comparable to what we're talking about, that picking them apart would have been an even bigger waste of time than reading them was.

That doesn't seem in anyway malicious to you?

You could have done so without this infantile inclusion of my person. I do not care what they think, nor do I care that you bitch and moan about how I don't want to waste my time discussing your irrelevancies. And this is all I'm going to say in this thread, which will hopefully be locked soon.

You need some thicker skin, man.

Firstly, it is of course your right to petition that the thread be locked.

With that having been said, I did not find it appropriate that you attacked me in the other thread. I have tried to make this thread as minimally offensive to you, and to focus on the idea of ignoring bad arguments vs. refuting them.

Many good and most bad arguments in these threads get ignored. :eek: It is a fact of life in this world, so don't feel bad that Fass ignored you.

Why didn't Fass take the time to explain this to the poster? That's what makes Grand Maritoll's argument legitimate. Look man, if all you do is go around telling people you're right and they're wrong, without providing any supporting arguments or facts, it makes you look like an airhead. If you're going to take the time to belittle someone's argument, you should also take the time to explain why. What if we all went around debating without actually putting forth an opinion or facts or logic? No one would know anything.
beause it would be hijacking the thread

i hate it when someone takes an almost interesting topic like "does the availability of birth control encourage promiscuity?" and turns it to "is grand's analysis of the mechanism of american segregation correct?"

fass left it where it should lie. if those topics need discussing, they should be discussed in their own threads.

Fass is right on this point. The OP made an analogy that compared the unwillingness of people to abstain from sex to the unwillingness of southern US whites to integrate with blacks. The analogy is bullshit because it relies on emotion rather than a comparison of similar ideas.

It tries to invoke the emotions attatched to racism to blur the issue. In fact, segregation is unlike refusal to abstain because abstinance is a private and personal decision that falls within the rights of an individual. Segregation is an infringement upon the rights of the individual by the society.
I believe the point of Grand Maritol is that Fass should have replied this: actually refuting the arguments, instead of dismissing them as irrelevant without any further explications.

And you are asking it to be locked because...you can't stand the criticism?

I am asking for it to be locked for the same reason other flame threads directed at a single user have been locked. You want to criticise me? Do so in the discussion. Do not start a separate thread asking others to pile on with their inanities.

What about those here that are supporting you, don't they deserve to see the thread continue?

They are included in the group about whose opinions I do not care.

Many good and most bad arguments in these threads get ignored. :eek: It is a fact of life in this world, so don't feel bad that Fass ignored you.

I can live with being ignored. But it is the insulting manner in which he ignored me that is the problem. If he had simply ignored me like others, there would be no problem.

...but I would like to learn more about how, specifically, it is weak.

You are not going to get that on NS. Accept it and move on. :rolleyes:

Since both Fass and GM agreed that this should be locked, and I think GM has gotten his answer somewhat, it's time to stop this before it goes to farther into attacking either of them.