Are we arguing for the sake of arguing?

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: 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.

"ok so to sidetrack the original topic of this thread" Bingo. Now you see what Bowfinger was doing in my thread? I did to this thread what he did to mine. I did it to this thread to show him(and you) what he did.

Political affiliation has alot to do with people's stances and opinions. To use an over sample of one(or rather drastinc undersample) you may still have the proper generic demographics but if you are taking a political poll - you can't ignore political affiliation - which cBS seems to have done.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: 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.

"ok so to sidetrack the original topic of this thread" Bingo. Now you see what Bowfinger was doing in my thread? I did to this thread what he did to mine. I did it to this thread to show him(and you) what he did.

Political affiliation has alot to do with people's stances and opinions. To use an over sample of one(or rather drastinc undersample) you may still have the proper generic demographics but if you are taking a political poll - you can't ignore political affiliation - which cBS seems to have done.

I am just making a point here, arguing for the sake of arguing like we are doing right now in this thread.

I'll post in your thread where this belongs

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: 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.

You are making threads because of a street performance and blamming it on the govt, people, religion, etc.. whatever.

What is the point of that?

That kind of crap happens in every country in that region.
Welcome to being poor and desperate.

 

[imported_Condor]

Of course. That is why we are here. You surely don't think anything else is accomplished, do you?

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
. . .
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.

This thread is a classic P&N. Not only do we have aidanjm directly and promptly giving an answer right on point with the first half hour, but the thread continues along for multiple posts off-topic, which posts basically amount to the "arguing about arguing" that the original poster was commenting on.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: aidanjm
. . .
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.

This thread is a classic P&N. Not only do we have aidanjm directly and promptly giving an answer right on point with the first half hour, but the thread continues along for multiple posts off-topic, which posts basically amount to the "arguing about arguing" that the original poster was commenting on.

I say we just duke it out.

*raises hand*

I call Sultan.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
I say we just duke it out.

*raises hand*

I call Sultan.

Motion seconded

Now we've got to get the brackets arranged :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Steeplerot]

Go duke it out in iraq tough guys... :roll:

 

[chcarnage]

Speaking for myself, I don't discuss the big ideological questions online, neither do I the party fight. The reason for the former is that never was an ideology fully implemented, there are always specific historic backgrounds, contexts... and I don't have time to write down a complete argumentation in a foreign language anyway. For the latter: Each party represents a broad part of the political spectrum, more than usually in two party systems. And sometimes their politicians are inconsequent or view things differently.

I'm fine with the discussion of news or concrete questions and I think I get enough new points of view on this level. I also post when I think that I can provide some information or an opinion which isn't already in the thread, this of course excludes US domestic politics.

 

[Tab]

Anyone want to take me on in Civ4?

 

[Cerb]

Oftentimes, yes, argument is for the sake of argument.
This is not to say--well, OK, some people might get so deluded as to thinking they're doing some real political debating--but anyway, is there not merit in discussing alternative views and experiences, to gain insight into other's views, and one's own? I can't decide whether thread #2 is doing that or not, but yeah, #1 just derailed...it happens.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is all Clinton's fault.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is all Clinton's fault.

It is not you imbecile.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is all Clinton's fault.

It is not you imbecile.

Is too you, pea-brained twit.

 

[Lanyap]

Some of you really have way too much time on your hands. How many hours a day do you spend arguing here? And do you realize that you accomplish nothing? Absolutely nothing productive comes out of P&N. You hardcore debaters need to take a break and spend your time more wisely while you can. Really!

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is all Clinton's fault.

It is not you imbecile.

Is too you, pea-brained twit.

You're a moron, it's all Bush's fault. Take off the partisan blinders.

 

[daniel49]

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

are not!

 

[Kibbo86]

I argue for it's own sake. I enjoy encountering arguments for which I have no answer. It's how I learn. Often all I learn is how to counter it, but sometimes I learn more.

I've heard good, sound, reasonable arguments on this forum against almost all of my own opinions. (The gay marriage opinion is the only real exception.)

What I've learned, from these rare jewels, is that differences in opinion stem from two main areas:
1. What you believe
2. Who you believe

The first is hard to resolve, but one can often find a point where you can agree to disagree. Also, these differences are rare. The second is easier, because there is a right or wrong answer to it. Too bad that right answer is often obscured to us. And who you believe is often clouded by who you want to believe.

Example: some people think that redistribution is the best way to better the lot of those who are less fortunate. Others beleive that fostering a culture of independence and allowing the market to operate unfettered is the best way. And yes, I do think that some believe that genuinely. This is an empirical question. And I could cite economic models supported by empirical evidence that support both. At the end of the day, however, one is right, and one is wrong. It's difficult to sort that out sometimes.