Are we arguing for the sake of arguing?

[Czar]

After reading two threads this morning, both long, both turning out very stupid, are we just arguing because we like arguing?

threads in question
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1726785&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1727173&enterthread=y

 

[aidanjm]

Out of interest, how are you characterising an entire thread as 'stupid'?

I agree, tho, that this place is a cess pool, and seems to attract high numbers of a certain kind of distasteful male (devoid of empathy or 'humanity', apparently obsessed with scoring points against perceived political enemies).

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Out of interest, how are you characterising an entire thread as 'stupid'?

people stop discussing the topic at hand but instead go to nitpicking other's peoples responses and very often misinterpret the meaning for reasons I dont frankly know, to hell with the topic. This is why I ask, are we arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Out of interest, how are you characterising an entire thread as 'stupid'?

people stop discussing the topic at hand but instead go to nitpicking other's peoples responses and very often misinterpret the meaning for reasons I dont frankly know, to hell with the topic. This is why I ask, are we arguing for the sake of arguing.

What you have are a group of rather nasty, small-minded individuals (mostly male) intent on scoring points against people they perceive as political opponents. This point scoring behaviour is obsessive in nature. I perceive it as an illness. (Fortunately I have only a mild case. ) It precludes the possibility of deeper exchange where the aim is gaining understanding of another person's viewpoint on an issue.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Czar
After reading two threads this morning, both long, both turning out very stupid, are we just arguing because we like arguing?

threads in question
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1726785&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1727173&enterthread=y

Probably. What would you do differently in the second thread, however? We have an OP asserting "cBS" skewed the results of a poll, not based on his understanding of sound statistical science, but because of his partisan emotional need to reject bad news about the Bush administration. I did try briefly to refocus the thread on the poll's results, but most of the conversation has focused on the OP's assertion of impropriety. In essence, it's another variation of science vs. faith arguments.

 

[Aimster]

The first thread:
The OP's point got trashed when they found out it was just a street demonstration
then he posted an article/pics of hangings to go back to proving his point
then it was proven that those men were hung because they raped a boy and just happened to be homosexual.

So the first thrad is total crap and there is no point behind it anymore.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Out of interest, how are you characterising an entire thread as 'stupid'?

people stop discussing the topic at hand but instead go to nitpicking other's peoples responses and very often misinterpret the meaning for reasons I dont frankly know, to hell with the topic. This is why I ask, are we arguing for the sake of arguing.

What you have are a group of rather nasty, small-minded individuals (mostly male) intent on scoring points against people they perceive as political opponents. This point scoring behaviour is obsessive in nature. I perceive it as an illness. (Fortunately I have only a mild case. ) It precludes the possibility of deeper exchange where the aim is gaining understanding of another person's viewpoint on an issue.

hehe exactly true, its about personal victories, enlarging egos

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Aimster
The first thread:
The OP's point got trashed when they found out it was just a street demonstration
then he posted an article/pics of hangings to go back to proving his point
then it was proven that those men were hung because they raped a boy and just happened to be homosexual.

So the first thrad is total crap and there is no point behind it anymore.

true, but they found that out on page 1... its now up to page 5... 4 pages of nothing

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually many of these people are patients of mine who are in need of deep psychological release of there bent up embedded political views.

So I encourage them to register and post on these forums.

DR. Yoda professor of Psychological Medicine

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Aimster
The first thread:
The OP's point got trashed when they found out it was just a street demonstration

Um, the way I phrased the post indicated there was uncertainty as to what the pictures represented. Note the question mark in the thread title? Note my comments "not sure what to make of this"? I was not attached to a particular outcome. (Well, that's not true; I hoped the pictures were faked; I feared that they were the real deal). So please explain how my point got trashed. For that matter - please explain, precisely, just exactly what you think "my point" was.

Originally posted by: Aimster
then he posted an article/pics of hangings to go back to proving his point

I posted the pictures of the public hangings of two children in Iran in order to demonstrate that legal punishments can be 'public spectacle' in that country. This was relevant, because people were saying the presence of spectators indicated the pics of the kid were faked. My point is that the mere presence of spectators is neither here nor there.

The fact remains a child was still subject to an apparently quite painful procedure. The fact that this was for the purpose of making money (and not a legal punishment) hardly negates the barbarity of the act.

Originally posted by: Aimster
then it was proven that those men

Well, according to our definitions, they were not "men" or adults, but rather children or teenagers.

Originally posted by: Aimster
were hung because they raped a boy and just happened to be homosexual.

Proven by the religious hitlers who control the legal apparatus of that country? Sources that I consider more reliable (than the murdering mullahs you are in effect defending) indicate the two teenage guys were lovers, and that the rape charges were trumped. Even assuming a rape did occur, hanging a child for raping another child is mere barbarity.

Originally posted by: Aimster
So the first thrad is total crap and there is no point behind it anymore.

Thanks for your intelligent and civil comments.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Aimster
The first thread:
The OP's point got trashed when they found out it was just a street demonstration
then he posted an article/pics of hangings to go back to proving his point
then it was proven that those men were hung because they raped a boy and just happened to be homosexual.

So the first thrad is total crap and there is no point behind it anymore.

Actually, this is what I was talking about in my earlier posts in this thread. Nasty, distastful individuals, lacking any insight into their own motivations, and apparently quite devoid of any kind of 'humanity', who are obsessed with scoring points against their imagined 'opponents'. It would be laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic & sad.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Are we arguing for the sake of arguing?


Yeah - so what ? What ya gonna do about it ?

Nyah nyah !

 

[Bitek]

Are we arguing for the sake of arguing?

No. Why would you say something like that?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
After reading two threads this morning, both long, both turning out very stupid, are we just arguing because we like arguing?

threads in question
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1726785&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1727173&enterthread=y

Probably. What would you do differently in the second thread, however? We have an OP asserting "cBS" skewed the results of a poll, not based on his understanding of sound statistical science, but because of his partisan emotional need to reject bad news about the Bush administration. I did try briefly to refocus the thread on the poll's results, but most of the conversation has focused on the OP's assertion of impropriety. In essence, it's another variation of science vs. faith arguments.

No, you tried to divert the thread from it's obvious focus on bad sampling. The thread was never about the individual supposed "results" of the polling questions.
The amount of willing ignorance in that thread, especially by you, is amazing. But yes, I agree with the OP that people like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have had nothing to offer that thread and have only served to divert it.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
After reading two threads this morning, both long, both turning out very stupid, are we just arguing because we like arguing?

threads in question
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1726785&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1727173&enterthread=y

Probably. What would you do differently in the second thread, however? We have an OP asserting "cBS" skewed the results of a poll, not based on his understanding of sound statistical science, but because of his partisan emotional need to reject bad news about the Bush administration. I did try briefly to refocus the thread on the poll's results, but most of the conversation has focused on the OP's assertion of impropriety. In essence, it's another variation of science vs. faith arguments.

No, you tried to divert the thread from it's obvious focus on bad sampling. The thread was never about the individual supposed "results" of the polling questions.
The amount of willing ignorance in that thread, especially by you, is amazing. But yes, I agree with the OP that people like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have had nothing to offer that thread and have only served to divert it.

please dont... I read the thread, you are just as guilty of arguing for arguings sake as he is, even when totalcommand posted their polling methood

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
After reading two threads this morning, both long, both turning out very stupid, are we just arguing because we like arguing?

threads in question
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1726785&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1727173&enterthread=y

Probably. What would you do differently in the second thread, however? We have an OP asserting "cBS" skewed the results of a poll, not based on his understanding of sound statistical science, but because of his partisan emotional need to reject bad news about the Bush administration. I did try briefly to refocus the thread on the poll's results, but most of the conversation has focused on the OP's assertion of impropriety. In essence, it's another variation of science vs. faith arguments.

No, you tried to divert the thread from it's obvious focus on bad sampling. The thread was never about the individual supposed "results" of the polling questions.
The amount of willing ignorance in that thread, especially by you, is amazing. But yes, I agree with the OP that people like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have had nothing to offer that thread and have only served to divert it.

:roll:

I believe you've just proven the OP's premise. You are arguing with me for saying the same thing you did. Here, let me highlight it for you:

• "I did try briefly to refocus the thread on the poll's results, but most of the conversation has focused on the OP's assertion of impropriety."

Re. the rest of your comment, I'll keep it in the other thread.

 

[Tangerines]

And you're a regular Saint Peter.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
After reading two threads this morning, both long, both turning out very stupid, are we just arguing because we like arguing?

threads in question
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1726785&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1727173&enterthread=y

Probably. What would you do differently in the second thread, however? We have an OP asserting "cBS" skewed the results of a poll, not based on his understanding of sound statistical science, but because of his partisan emotional need to reject bad news about the Bush administration. I did try briefly to refocus the thread on the poll's results, but most of the conversation has focused on the OP's assertion of impropriety. In essence, it's another variation of science vs. faith arguments.

No, you tried to divert the thread from it's obvious focus on bad sampling. The thread was never about the individual supposed "results" of the polling questions.
The amount of willing ignorance in that thread, especially by you, is amazing. But yes, I agree with the OP that people like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have had nothing to offer that thread and have only served to divert it.

please dont... I read the thread, you are just as guilty of arguing for arguings sake as he is, even when totalcommand posted their polling methood

Well this thread is about my thread so according to Bowfinger logic you want to talk about the substance of my thread here. So tough.

BTW, their claimed polling method has been exposed - which is what my thread is about. They took a political topic, did a poll, then weighted the results and IGNORED party affilitation in doing so. They have a bad sample - period.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Czar
please dont... I read the thread, you are just as guilty of arguing for arguings sake as he is, even when totalcommand posted their polling methood

I'll ask again, and I mean it as a sincere question. What do you think I should have done differently?

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
please dont... I read the thread, you are just as guilty of arguing for arguings sake as he is, even when totalcommand posted their polling methood

I'll ask again, and I mean it as a sincere question. What do you think I should have done differently?

Stuck to the topic instead of diverting to something other than what the OP was discussing.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Czar
are we just arguing because we like arguing?

yep. Most in here like to argue right along their party line wighout giving it much thought

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
please dont... I read the thread, you are just as guilty of arguing for arguings sake as he is, even when totalcommand posted their polling methood

I'll ask again, and I mean it as a sincere question. What do you think I should have done differently?

not sure but total command did an excelent job, pointing out their polling methods which is exactly what the thread was about

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
After reading two threads this morning, both long, both turning out very stupid, are we just arguing because we like arguing?

threads in question
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1726785&enterthread=y
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=52&threadid=1727173&enterthread=y

Probably. What would you do differently in the second thread, however? We have an OP asserting "cBS" skewed the results of a poll, not based on his understanding of sound statistical science, but because of his partisan emotional need to reject bad news about the Bush administration. I did try briefly to refocus the thread on the poll's results, but most of the conversation has focused on the OP's assertion of impropriety. In essence, it's another variation of science vs. faith arguments.

No, you tried to divert the thread from it's obvious focus on bad sampling. The thread was never about the individual supposed "results" of the polling questions.
The amount of willing ignorance in that thread, especially by you, is amazing. But yes, I agree with the OP that people like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have had nothing to offer that thread and have only served to divert it.

please dont... I read the thread, you are just as guilty of arguing for arguings sake as he is, even when totalcommand posted their polling methood

Well this thread is about my thread so according to Bowfinger logic you want to talk about the substance of my thread here. So tough.

BTW, their claimed polling method has been exposed - which is what my thread is about. They took a political topic, did a poll, then weighted the results and IGNORED party affilitation in doing so. They have a bad sample - period.

ok so to sidetrack the original topic of this thread

people who vote are not the same as those asked in the poll. The poll went to everyone registered or not and when they decided to add a bigger sample they decided so because of age, race, sex, education and so on so it fits the census over the whole country.

not how they voted last time or who they support.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
please dont... I read the thread, you are just as guilty of arguing for arguings sake as he is, even when totalcommand posted their polling methood

I'll ask again, and I mean it as a sincere question. What do you think I should have done differently?

not sure but total command did an excelent job, pointing out their polling methods which is exactly what the thread was about

Fair enough. I agree he made an excellent post. I certainly approached it from a more confrontational angle, challenging the OP to support his claim rather than refuting it directly as totalcommand did.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Czar
please dont... I read the thread, you are just as guilty of arguing for arguings sake as he is, even when totalcommand posted their polling methood

I'll ask again, and I mean it as a sincere question. What do you think I should have done differently?

not sure but total command did an excelent job, pointing out their polling methods which is exactly what the thread was about

Fair enough. I agree he made an excellent post. I certainly approached it from a more confrontational angle, challenging the OP to support his claim rather than refuting it directly as totalcommand did.

thats probably it, I'm guilty of it as well

we all to often try to let other people find the evidence of their opinion instead of searching for it ourselves, after all, most of us are probably male computer geeks who naturaly are lazy