Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#2Oddly enough, in spite of being 27 years old now, I still haven't "gotten over" the notions that a schoolroom is a perfectly good place for a reasoned debate; that English essays should be marked on the quality of the writing, not on the conclusions reached; or that constitutional protections, including due process rights, should extend to all places where government regulation is enforced.
Maybe I'm just not old enough yet.
Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#3I was subjected to the variants of "YOU'LL GET OVER IT" many times when I was young -- it seems to be a favourite fallback of 30- or 40- year olds when they realize that they've been outreasoned by 10 year old. Oddly enough, in spite of being 27 years old now, I still haven't "gotten over" the notions that a schoolroom is a perfectly good place for a reasoned debate; that English essays should be marked on the qualit…
Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#4Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#5Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#6These are great things to keep in mind for online communication. There are a lot of logical fallacy fanboys online. Their M.O. is to look for the tiniest gap in your method of debate and then latch on to it like a terrier. Their initial hope is that their wall of logical rules is impenetrable to you. Then, even though they are accusing their opponent of logical fallacies left and right, they end up on the Sleight of…
No seriously. It is. If you present an argument online, and someone points out that you've committed a logical fallacy. They've undermined your argument and rendered your conclusion unproven. If your response is to attack them as "logical fallacy fanboys".. attacking their intentions and other non-salient points... that doesn't change the argument at hand and consequently you've committed an ad hominem!
I think I might be one of those logical fallacy fanboys.
Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#7Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#8I was subjected to the variants of "YOU'LL GET OVER IT" many times when I was young -- it seems to be a favourite fallback of 30- or 40- year olds when they realize that they've been outreasoned by 10 year old. Oddly enough, in spite of being 27 years old now, I still haven't "gotten over" the notions that a schoolroom is a perfectly good place for a reasoned debate; that English essays should be marked on the qualit…
Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#9Re: Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat
#10What isn't conversational terrorism?