From now on, all my GD replies will consist of "So you think (insert mischaracterization)?"

[jpgray]

It seems the best way to foment discussion is to purposefully misinterpret someone's argument in a radical way and then force him or her to laboriously parse every word of the original statement. Usually you can get that sort of tedious argument to go on for several posts, and post counts are important here. Plus it fits in well with the standard contempt everyone has for different ideas, since clearly that wins arguments. Unless of course they're -labeled- as "different ideas," then everyone who disagrees is prejudiced and their disagreement means they are trying to force you to shut up. Or something.

O8)

[gmoney]

1. So you think people in GD are being contentious for the sake of being contentious?

Actually, might be better to not use a question mark, but rather a period to make it a statement of fact...

"So, you think Saddam personally flew that airplane into the north tower."

:hide:

[NC_Nurse]

2. Sounds like a plan.

I have been frustrated by that sort of shit in GD lately.

The one about a DNA database being just like gun registration comes to mind....

"So you don't want to solve crimes?" :wtf:

[triguy46]

3. You need to add the obligatory use of either, nazi, freeper, or "you're on my ignore list."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. It's also a key phrase in the Socratic method.

Which is among one of the best ways to win an argument.

[jpgray]

5. Its use here isn't redolent of Socrates. Though it does make me want to drink hemlock

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Not if it's being used as a strawman, no.

But you often see both uses in GD, don't you think?

[jpgray]

11. Well, it can be used to clarify or better understand an argument.

More often it is used to force somebody to bat down an endless series of radical purposed misinterpretations. Having to constantly explain one doesn't mean what one didn't say by any standard of basic English isn't exactly productive, and hardly Socratic. You have to be responsible for the perceptions of others differing from your actual intent when you make a statement, but having to leave extensive qualifiers all over an argument is de rigueur in GD. If you disagree with an impeachment that doesn't convict, for example, you have to first point out that you care about the Constitution and have never been a PR operative for Nancy Pelosi, etc. None of that follows from the argument, but people will show up and say "So you don't care about the Constitution?" otherwise. As if anyone really believes that DUers are out there saying "The Constitution? Who gives a shit?"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Sure.

It can also be used to underline how stupid a comment or suggestion is a person just made, and there are plenty of those in GD. It can also be used to get a person to contradict themselves, thereby losing the argument.

"Do you care about the Constitution?" Yes, the obvious answer is yes. And therefore if you expressed an opinion that is blatantly un- or anti- constitutional, then you'd have contradicted yourself, thereby losing the argument.

[Mojambo]

6. Don't they call that a strawman argument? n/t

[jpgray]

8. In GD -everything- is called a strawman argument.

[skygazer]

9. I think mine will consist of "I'm going back to the Lounge"

Actually, I'll just think that while I do NOT post and slowly back away.

[Lyric]

10. Ah, the Strawman.

Steps to construction of a perfect Strawman:

1. Listen to a reasonable position. ("I am against the "War on Terror" because we're causing more problems than we're solving")

2. Completely distort that position into something awful. ("So you want to let the terrorists win??")

3. Finally, attack your own distortion. ("If the terrorists win, we'll all be bowing to Mecca at the point of a sword within a decade. That would be awful. Therefore, you are EVIL AND WRONG, and I am righteous and patriotic in my support of the War on Terra!!")