How do you argue? What ticks you off?
 

We've had a little spike in argument temperatures lately. Everybody has a different approach which changes by mood or medication. :) I have a bad habit of ignoring input that doesn't fit my schema, like Obamas recent donut hole idiocy, and embracing stuff that fits, like the FOX News descent into racist commentary.

Right now tw is doing the lump everyone into the same bin thing with a cross-section of our conservative population. Attitudes and positions being taken by one are attributed to all. To me, it doesn't pass the sniff test. I can count on one finger (guess which one) the number of consevatives here who don't have a nuanced version of reality. Anyway, what pisses you off in arguments?

I try to go beyond the obvious, first-look analysis, and delve into possible deeper concepts at play, different interpretations, or deconstructing a possible bias in order to reveal a more clear view of things. Sometimes this is just playing Devil's Advocate, because I don't like it when there is a huge, assumed agreement on something, to the point that no discussion is devoted to exploration of the actual subject (when the first step has actually been skipped). Sometimes I do it because something bothers me that I can't put my finger on. Sometimes I do it because I know EXACTLY what's wrong with what is being espoused, and I can demonstrate a set of logical steps to that effect.

Almost invariably what happens, though, is that people are doggedly devoted to NOT taking a deeper look at things. I will get people "explaining" to me, ad nauseum, the same, obvious facts of the subject; or repeating the same, obvious method of analysis. Now, I'm taking these thaings as a given -- it isn't that I don't understand what you're saying. But let's just try to look at things in a DIFFERENT way and see what we get. Anyone, with very litte effort, can reach the OBVIOUS conclusion, but, isn't it the case that things are not always what they seem?

How do we ever get closer to what things really are if we refuse to look any further than our first impressions?

I've seen you doing that and I've seen folks totally miss the point, probably because they have a preconceived notion of where you're going to come down on something.

I've been reading brain theory stuff again and it has made me more attuned to habits or patterns in thought. Certain paths won't be followed to their obvious conclusion because the initial emotional or subconscious thought sets the mind on a habitual track that isn't easily switched from. That is where UT's reading point is so important, we won't break our own patterns unless we're willing to follow someone elses' argument to its conclusion. That is one reason why having Presidents who don't read is such a scarey idea.

If I say I believe A, don't make the assumption that I'm not smart enough to have examined B, C, and D, to come to that conclusion.

I guess I'd like to hear about the elimination of B,C, and D. We often get tired of repeating ourselves but if someone else is a C guy it might help him move on or adjust his argument or, God help us, start looking at E.

Well Who Ever Chooses E ,,,,,,, well their Just WRONG !!!!!

what ticks me off? discrimination against women and gays. and people who think arguing is a sport.

I believe what I believe because I've looked at all the facts and information I'm aware of at the time. I am fully aware that new information may change my opinion and I welcome that. I accept that another individual can look at the same data and come to a different opinion because that info is filtered through their experiences and value system, I only become irritable when that person announces that anyone who feels differently than they is an idiot worthy of death.

It also infuriates me when someone enters a discussion without an open mind to the possibility that they cannot possibly be wrong on any issue. That causes their posts/arguments to be completely onesided screeds rather than discussions for the purpose of learning.

What I'm talking about is this:

Poster #1: The answer is obvioulsy A.
Poster #2: Hmmm... But what about B, C, or D?
Poster #1: Let me explain point A to you.
Poster #2: I understand point A. Do you understand points B, C, or D?
Poster #1: I'll just go ahead and tell you all about point A.
Poster #2: I get it. I acknowledge point A as one possibility among several. Such as B, C, or D.
Poster #1: You're just not understanding Point A. I'll repeat Point A.
Poster #2: I'll do you one better: I'll make a better case for Point A than you're making. Surely then you will see that I understand Point A.
Poster #1: No, you don't understand Point A. The reasons you gave for Point A are all wrong.
Poster #2: Well, for the sake of not beating a dead horse, let's just say that I understand and acknowledge Point A -- as one possibility among many.
Poster #1: No, I can't accept that. You've shown that you really don't understand Point A, therefore I will explain it to you again.
Poster #2: So there's no possibility that you will ever give any consideration to points B, C, or D?
Poster #1: No. Point A is the right answer.
Poster #2: Can we at least entertain the notion of Points B, C, or D?
Poster #1: Have I told you about Point A yet?

(REPEAT)

It's a one-dimensional exchange. How goddamn boring is that? The world is full of surprising, counter-intuitive answers.

Example:Flint's sexist and a racist. I can tell......So white trash because he doesn't believe in the Constitution of the United States, along with all the other racist white trash around here that think that illegal immigration is wrong.


(the kind of stuff that pisses me off in an arguement)
How does this stuff further any point or give anyone a clue about a supposed insight? I never talk about anyone in real life that way. Nor do people have the guts to say this stuff in person so why do it here?

Flint's post made me think of this:

Well everyone knows the last one in wins, so i just repeat my point every time there's a lull.

LOUDER EACH TIME

UNTIL I'M THE ONLY ONE LEFT

:D

lol...I've noticed.

I habitually look behind the words to perceive that which drives them. The conscious output can tell you a lot about the subconscious or the unexpressed motives.

Q: How do you argue?

A: Over a spot of tea.

Q: What ticks you off?

A: They forget to bring the crumpets.