4 ms·

What hyperbole are you objecting to? On net, do you think Rogan's political commentary favors the status quo or a more equal society? Imagine you think fire t

by hsod 9y ago

What hyperbole are you objecting to? On net, do you think Rogan's political commentary favors the status quo or a more equal society? Imagine you think fire trucks are an eyesore, so you start an advocacy campaign trying to ban them from the road. Someone might accuse you of not caring if people's houses burn down. You might reply that deep in your heart you are 100% against houses burning down and you're just weighing in on the way fires should be fought. And maybe you're being honest that in your heart of hearts you don't want houses to burn down. But that's only relevant to you. From everyone else's perspective, your politics are pro-houses-burning-down.

ryguytilidie 9y ago
"What hyperbole are you objecting to?" Your entire first post. 1) He doesnt "spend a lot of time railing on SJWs". 2) He absolutely talks, with almost every single guest, about how to potentially change the world for the better. 3) I never indicated that I thought he wasn't right wing because of how he felt about legal pot, yet, you throw that in there anyway, i guess to belittle an argument I never made? Fun... So yeah, two sentences and every single point is either incorrect or not useful. That's not exactly how one starts a useful debate. Also wow that is an atrocious analogy.
- hsod 9y ago
  > wow that is an atrocious analogy For a guy so concerned with the rules of debate, you sure do like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ryguytilidie 9y ago
    So, just to see if I follow: You make really bad claim that has 3 parts and all 3 parts are either made up, exaggerated or irrelevant. I explain, part by part, how these things are made up, exaggerated and irrelevant, and at the end of my post, marvel at how poor your followup analogy is. Your takeaway? "Who gives a shit about that point by point argument he just made to me? I'm going to totally ignore that! The one interaction we've ever had, where he made point by point critiques of my argument, has shown me that he "sure does like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.""...? I'm curious how a human brain is capable of producing that kind of logic? It is just simply a case that you're lashing out because you're embarrassed your initial point was made to look so bad? I'm not getting what's happening here.
    - hsod 9y ago
      Your incredulity perplexes me. I offered a simple premise (that Rogan is vocally more anti-SJW than in favor of an alternative path to social justice) and a simple conclusion from that premise (that Rogan can fairly be considered right-wing). You seem to disagree with either the premise or the conclusion, but rather than making an argument to that effect you have made 3 (three!) meta-posts about it, all while waxing on about the virtues effective debate. Maybe you disagree with my premise, or maybe you disagree with my conclusion, but your posts so far amount to a whole lot of grandstanding and a vanishingly small amount of argumentation. Your insistence on talking about me and your meta-view of my argument rather than the argument itself reveals a lot more about you than it does about me. I still stand by the argument (both premise and conclusions) I made in my original post. I wish our conversation could have been about that, as I think it would have been much more interesting.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - ryguytilidie 9y ago
        "I offered a simple premise (that Rogan is vocally more anti-SJW than in favor of an alternative path to social justice)" Why are you re-explaining your premise to me after I already made a point by point post about why it's nonsense? "You seem to disagree with either the premise or the conclusion, but rather than making an argument to that effect you have made 3 (three!) meta-posts about it, all while waxing on about the virtues effective debate." I'm shocked that youre sitting there with a "you seem to disagree with..." type attitude. I told you exactly what i disagree with and why. Point by point. I did this while explaining that lying to further your point wasnt a great debate tactic and you seem to have latched onto this and continue acting like I've given you some long lecture on the "virtues of effective debate" when literally all i did was tell you why your point was wrong...which somehow leads you to conclude that I'm making a "small amount of argumentation" versus you, who simply said some thing that was wrong. "Maybe you disagree with my premise, or maybe you disagree with my conclusion" This is exactly how you started the paragraph before. Do you know any debate tactics beside saying "you seem to disagree with..." about the things I very clearly have explained why they are incorrect. Either way, are you under the impression that making the same awkward "I'm not seeing what you disagree with here..." When i told you point by point exactly what I disagreed with will somehow make others stop downvoting your posts? "your posts so far amount to a whole lot of grandstanding and a vanishingly small amount of argumentation." You said this exact same thing in your last post as well. Right before I reminded you that it was pretty strange to say that I'm adding a "small amount of argumentation" when I responded point by point to your original post, which you're lamenting not being able to discuss further. (which is weird, because the only reason the subject changed was because you decided that making insane, made up points wasnt enough, but that you needed to pair them with the worst analogy I could possibly imagine. Are you going to add some original content soon or just repeat the stuff I've already made it clear you're wrong about? "I still stand by the argument (both premise and conclusions) I made in my original post" Breaking news, person who made a bad point is STICKING TO IT, EVIDENCE BE DAMNED. "I wish our conversation could have been about that, as I think it would have been much more interesting." You had every opportunity to do this, but you chose to feign outrage at the fact that after explaining why your first post was bad, I didn't bother to explain why the second was bad.

by hsod 9y ago

ryguytilidie 9y ago

"What hyperbole are you objecting to?" Your entire first post. 1) He doesnt "spend a lot of time railing on SJWs". 2) He absolutely talks, with almost every single guest, about how to potentially change the world for the better. 3) I never indicated that I thought he wasn't right wing because of how he felt about legal pot, yet, you throw that in there anyway, i guess to belittle an argument I never made? Fun... So yeah, two sentences and every single point is either incorrect or not useful. That's not exactly how one starts a useful debate. Also wow that is an atrocious analogy.

hsod 9y ago
> wow that is an atrocious analogy For a guy so concerned with the rules of debate, you sure do like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ryguytilidie 9y ago
  So, just to see if I follow: You make really bad claim that has 3 parts and all 3 parts are either made up, exaggerated or irrelevant. I explain, part by part, how these things are made up, exaggerated and irrelevant, and at the end of my post, marvel at how poor your followup analogy is. Your takeaway? "Who gives a shit about that point by point argument he just made to me? I'm going to totally ignore that! The one interaction we've ever had, where he made point by point critiques of my argument, has shown me that he "sure does like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.""...? I'm curious how a human brain is capable of producing that kind of logic? It is just simply a case that you're lashing out because you're embarrassed your initial point was made to look so bad? I'm not getting what's happening here.
  - hsod 9y ago
    Your incredulity perplexes me. I offered a simple premise (that Rogan is vocally more anti-SJW than in favor of an alternative path to social justice) and a simple conclusion from that premise (that Rogan can fairly be considered right-wing). You seem to disagree with either the premise or the conclusion, but rather than making an argument to that effect you have made 3 (three!) meta-posts about it, all while waxing on about the virtues effective debate. Maybe you disagree with my premise, or maybe you disagree with my conclusion, but your posts so far amount to a whole lot of grandstanding and a vanishingly small amount of argumentation. Your insistence on talking about me and your meta-view of my argument rather than the argument itself reveals a lot more about you than it does about me. I still stand by the argument (both premise and conclusions) I made in my original post. I wish our conversation could have been about that, as I think it would have been much more interesting.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - ryguytilidie 9y ago
      "I offered a simple premise (that Rogan is vocally more anti-SJW than in favor of an alternative path to social justice)" Why are you re-explaining your premise to me after I already made a point by point post about why it's nonsense? "You seem to disagree with either the premise or the conclusion, but rather than making an argument to that effect you have made 3 (three!) meta-posts about it, all while waxing on about the virtues effective debate." I'm shocked that youre sitting there with a "you seem to disagree with..." type attitude. I told you exactly what i disagree with and why. Point by point. I did this while explaining that lying to further your point wasnt a great debate tactic and you seem to have latched onto this and continue acting like I've given you some long lecture on the "virtues of effective debate" when literally all i did was tell you why your point was wrong...which somehow leads you to conclude that I'm making a "small amount of argumentation" versus you, who simply said some thing that was wrong. "Maybe you disagree with my premise, or maybe you disagree with my conclusion" This is exactly how you started the paragraph before. Do you know any debate tactics beside saying "you seem to disagree with..." about the things I very clearly have explained why they are incorrect. Either way, are you under the impression that making the same awkward "I'm not seeing what you disagree with here..." When i told you point by point exactly what I disagreed with will somehow make others stop downvoting your posts? "your posts so far amount to a whole lot of grandstanding and a vanishingly small amount of argumentation." You said this exact same thing in your last post as well. Right before I reminded you that it was pretty strange to say that I'm adding a "small amount of argumentation" when I responded point by point to your original post, which you're lamenting not being able to discuss further. (which is weird, because the only reason the subject changed was because you decided that making insane, made up points wasnt enough, but that you needed to pair them with the worst analogy I could possibly imagine. Are you going to add some original content soon or just repeat the stuff I've already made it clear you're wrong about? "I still stand by the argument (both premise and conclusions) I made in my original post" Breaking news, person who made a bad point is STICKING TO IT, EVIDENCE BE DAMNED. "I wish our conversation could have been about that, as I think it would have been much more interesting." You had every opportunity to do this, but you chose to feign outrage at the fact that after explaining why your first post was bad, I didn't bother to explain why the second was bad.