None of this actually happens though and it actually plays into what is being said, it’s crazy that it goes right over your head.
Linking a google article that you read real quick with some numbers that bring down the national average, of say, a Nurse, isn’t exactly winning on argument if your entire goal is to try and debunk a claim that just threw numbers out there to make a point. The point still remains that the avenues for women are beginning to be better than for men. You want to argue a minuscule detail that’s fine but that’s not really tackling the fucking point.
This is what happens when a group of people try and dissect a comment in order to find errors instead of actually discussing the point of what is being said. Same with quoting someone and someone then saying “well let me tell you what I mean by this” and then you saying “well no no no no no no man you said this ! look you said this! I got you!”
Kinda like what cunt bags do to Jordan Peterson. He’ll say “forced monogamy” and the journalist won’t even know what that means, and you’ll have it quoted all over the place and people going nuts and then when he comes to try and explain people will just “well noooo YOU SAID FORCED” bleh .
It’s nonsense and it happens all the time in here. Just recently someone tried to say ESPN isn’t dying because LOOK THEY"RE Numbers! even though the company has bled subscribers or “omg look at the top ten games on this list” even though they don’t realize that doesn’t actually matter to the overall point that games are becoming more politically correct.
I love how you present the regular few that ALWAYS and ONLY post in this portion of the forum as not creating a mob atmosphere against posts you disagree with. Its the same fucking people lol
And the few people that have agreed with my sentiments in here have been hammered enough where they don’t even bother posting.
I think the choice of words, semantics, and grammar are important when it comes to an argument or when trying to get an important point across.
In fact, I think those factors are so important that getting them all as close to 100% right as possible should be a pre-condition–that should be the baseline.
Once we’ve made sure that everyone knows perfectly the meaning of all the words they are going to say and can actually form logically consistent statements, only then can the ideas actually shine and be understood. Our brains operate by putting words and ideas in a two-way relationship, that’s just how we evolved to use language as a tool to convey concepts.
Therefore, misusing grammar and semantics can create ambiguity and result in people interpreting the wrong ideas. Words are more than just words.
Now, like @T3hPwnisher said, pointing out logical fallacies for the sake of it is silly (also because the employment of a logical fallacy in an argument doesn’t imply the whole argument is false. Also known as the fallacy fallacy, or a basic fact of logic), but employing them is, in a sense, a crime to begin with. You’re deceiving people or, more often than not, you don’t know what you’re talking about. In which case you still shouldn’t be expressing your opinion because the world already has a screwed noise-to-signal ratio and nobody needs you to make it worse.
This is a very fair argument. I should dive a little deeper for the sake of discussion, now that we’re past the general conversation point. I was using examples, but I definitely unintentionally honed in on debates and arguments in my original post. When truly in a debate, I personally think any contraction takes away from the authority of the post; so I do have some grammatical and subjective preference. I also still think going out of your way to use dialogue and grammar that is obtuse and objectively unnecessary still takes away from the argument. The point of a debate is to make the other party see your side. Whether or not they agree, they should still be able to respect where you are coming from by the end of the discussion. Using obtuse adjectives for the sake of feeling intelligent and putting the other person down has no productive place in enforcing the whole point of the discussion. Its childish and disrespectful to all parties involved, as well as making that individual look like… well… a dick.
Once again, people should speak simply. Yes some discussions, especially those of political nature, could require some deeper understanding of language. That being said, political debates are far and away the worst offender of this subject. Once again, you can say lot of words without really saying anything at all. You can also say a lot, with not so many words, if you can keep your rationality and words very direct. As for the vast majority of general discussion or debate though, simple and concise is generally better.
However, the problem with appeal to authority is that, depending on the field, a perceived authority isn’t necessarily a “god.” There have been incorrect or downright stupid claims made by perceived authorities.
I believe that being perceived as an authority should, proportionally, be accompanied by a greater sense of responsibility and care for what you claim. If authorities (I’m generalizing for the sake of showing the concept) paid twice as much attention to the claims they make, maybe the people constructing arguments based on their claims would be right twice as often, still despite employing a fallacy.
Way too many times have I heard doctors say stuff that flew in the face of recommendations and claims purported by important institutes that base their work on peer reviewed scientific studies. I know it’s not a right thing to do, but whenever I hear someone say, “that doctor on TV said that…” I can’t help but instinctively roll my eyes (figuratively).
That’s something that always triggers me. If you insult your opponent instead of attacking their argument, you are doing no good to prove your point.
You look like a dick in most cases, and you may still end up being wrong (if you were to begin with).
This also answers the other thing that @T3hPwnisher said, on ad hominem. Yeah, there are cases where it’s worth it to attack your opponent instead (for example if, in doing so, you point out that they’ve been inconsistent and that might be a red flag), but in most logical arguments it’s no good and, if you ask me, that’s either a sign you don’t know how to have a civil debate or that you already realized you’re wrong.
That’s the beauty of propositional logic though.
“All claims made by authorities are correct” is false. Therefore, anything can be concluded when a claim is made by an authority. You could be right or wrong. But you are concluding something based on a false premise.
That’s vacuously true. Sure, your point might be correct but not because of the reasoning you used to get to it.
What, exactly, when reading a bunch of words, is one supposed to use when reading a bunch of words? If you rapid fire a bunch of drivel that has no point, we’re all supposed to ignore that?
How is that meaningfully different than training or diet advice from some random fat dude, who doesn’t work out?
@dt79’s point -this is a lie. Brickhead is most definitely one of your “supporters”, and I bet “likes” more of your posts than anyone. @Brickhead most definitely still posts.
Merely addressing the title of this thread, not directed at you.
Plus I think overall (obviously everyone messes up randomly), spelling and grammar do matter because it shows an attention to detail. Attention to detail equals results. People that have results usually have opinions worth reading and/or responding to.