The Rant Thread/My Life Sucks Topic [Don't be pricks]

[Sebastian]

i have such a hate/love relationship with discussing politics, like i enjoy it but it makes me mad SUPER quick but i still feel obligated to defend myself and my arguments get shittier as I get madder and don't take the proper time to respond with a well-thought-out argument and then i get upset and cry and it's really dumb.

Eh, I don't know why I partake in those threads so much. The only interesting debate we've really had here was the evolution one, everything else is either a shit fest or just bantering that dies in 1 to 2 posts.

[Tobbeh99]

When it comes to politics, I hate that I need well-based logical arguments, and that I can't go with something like "I want it so" or "it should be so". And since politics is always about arguing, that's why I really hate politics.

[mikey]

In case most of you couldn't tell, I don't know crap about politics, so I take a similar approach to Bird's approach to TWG.

[Ruto]

i have such a hate/love relationship with discussing politics, like i enjoy it but it makes me mad SUPER quick but i still feel obligated to defend myself and my arguments get shittier as I get madder and don't take the proper time to respond with a well-thought-out argument and then i get upset and cry and it's really dumb.

Eh, I don't know why I partake in those threads so much. The only interesting debate we've really had here was the evolution one, everything else is either a shit fest or just bantering that dies in 1 to 2 posts.

*reminds you the people you're arguing with can't vote, has never lived without their parent(s), uses high school books that are biased or haven't been updated since the Bronze Age.

When it comes to politics, I hate that I need well-based logical arguments, and that I can't go with something like "I want it so" or "it should be so". And since politics is always about arguing, that's why I really hate politics.

In America, they deliberately ignore facts that don't support their dumb arguments. Ever seen a debate on gun ownership? The people making those arguments saying why everyone should have access to guns like candy are so ignorant and terrible people that they would have to have it actually happen before they change their minds. Like the sherriff that was sent to the latest college shooting posted these pro-gun, anti-Obama, Sandy Hook conspiracy stuff on Facebook. But when it happened in HIS town, he stfu and deleted the shit off Facebook because he realized mass shooting actually happen and deniers like him exist.

[SlowPokemon]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Waddle Bro]

*reminds you the people you're arguing with can't vote, has never lived without their parent(s), uses high school books that are biased or haven't been updated since the Bronze Age.

to be fair though, the arguments themselves are separate from the people, but it's understandable. like if the people are uneducated, it doesn't necessarily mean their arguments are garbage, but one can say there's a correlation.

[Dude]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FireArrow]

to be fair though, the arguments themselves are separate from the people, but it's understandable. like if the people are uneducated, it doesn't necessarily mean their arguments are garbage, but one can say there's a correlation.

That's basically every informal fallacy right? Any logic that doesn't specifically adress the argument has some fancy shmancy name.

@ruto I don't want to start another flame war, but I think there are some opinions that you have to be uneducated/sheltered about to have.

[blueflower999]

Yes yes all the law abiding citizens should have their guns confiscated and the government should keep all the money and anyone who sees things any differently is uneducated and dumb

[FireArrow]

Yes yes all the law abiding citizens should have their guns confiscated and the government should keep all the money and anyone who sees things any differently is uneducated and dumb

No one is suggesting that.

[Waddle Bro]

Yes yes all the law abiding citizens should have their guns confiscated and the government should keep all the money and anyone who sees things any differently is uneducated and dumb

No one said anything even remotely close to any of those things, you should try to view things rationally instead of hastly overgeneralizing like that ._. overgeneralization doesn't substitute for actual arguments.

listen well fren cuz i'm bout to drop this knowledge on you
Gun control doesn't mean every citizen should have their guns confiscated, it means that a citizen can apply for a licence for a gun and that you can't bring guns to public places. If you have a valid reason for a gun, you are mentally healthy and your background is clean, you would get your licence for a gun without any problems. Gun control is globally proven to be an effective method to lower the amount of homicides.
(here's a link to finland's wiki page on gun politics and I can say that they are effective)

you're overgeneralizing the liberal view again, which you have admittedly done in the past as well. literally no one has said or implied that you shouldn't have money. besides i'm pretty money would lose all value if only government had it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You're saying that people should respect other people's views but you still talk about it condescendingly, don't you think it's hypocritical to expect someone to respect fe. your views if you're condescending towards others? Also I literally made my previous post on this thread about how if you're "uneducated"(notice how this adjective can be replaced with any other adjective), it doesn't mean your arguments wouldn't be as valid as anyone else's. And you're talking like there is some universal definition to "dumb" or "uneducated". You assume some people here can't view other people's opinions rationally, but sorry to say it, to me it looks like you're the one with that problem.

That's basically every informal fallacy right? Any logic that doesn't specifically adress the argument has some fancy shmancy name.

What is "basically every informal fallacy"? (I didn't get your point exactly! D:)
I was specifically talking about ad hominem, but in general, names for informal fallacies tend to help people to adress the argument properly.
(For example, if we take "any logic that doesn't specifically adress the argument has some fancy shmancy name.", you can say that's it's an essentialistic generalization, because it's based on you defining any term in context with logic as "fancy shmancy".)

[Nebbles]

Well said, Waddle.

[MaestroUGC]

Please keep the political debates in the proper thread.

Thank you,
M

[Waddle Bro]

^technically that post wasn't "debatey", but reasonable dialectics.

Spoiler

The term dialectics is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgement. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent; proving one's argument correct; or proving the opponent's argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however clear winners are frequently determined by either a judge, jury, or by group consensus. The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. Concepts, like "logos" or rational appeal, "pathos" or emotional appeal, and "ethos" or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience.

[close]

[FireArrow]

No one is safe from waddle's knowledge.