There are so many people with ridiculously flawed logic on the internet - racist, sexist, homophobic idiots, whose very reasoning shows that they are illogical thinkers. I find it really annoying when people try to convince these people to think otherwise - I get that it's done with the best of intentions, but I mean, some people are just f**king stupid and all you are doing by engaging them in debate is allowing them to spread their views to other idiots. For example, a recent popular story on IIN about how "women and men" who don't appreciate men should be outcast from society. I mean, if you read that story it's just so stupid, ignorant, and flawed on every level that I can't understand why people don't just sit back and laugh. To do otherwise seems like a complete waste of time. Taking that kind of thing (that's just one recent example btw) seriously just adds weight to the argument.
Are You Normal?
Ask your question today!
Sometimes, I just have to throw my input in. Other times, like the story you mentioned, I did have to just shake my head and click onto the next story because I didn't even want to dignify it with a response. Especially if I sense that the person is trolling.
Sometimes I don't think the person is trolling though, and I feel compelled to say something in hopes of saving them from ignorance.
Chances are, they won't comprehend your response if they do decide to read it at all.
When I was a little kid and I used to see people saying stuff like that, with no one disagreeing with them, it used to upset me. So, I think it's worth it to just kinda confirm to the the sane people reading it that, yeah, other sane folks are wandering about.
It is all pretty stupid, though.
Would you lend someone your tools if they were disrespecting you to the masses? No? Then why should the male gender lend their "tools" to the people disrespecting them to the masses?
The reason why I get so many comments on polls that I make like those, is because a lot of it is true. Where as you never get the ammount of comments on peoples stories that involve hurting people. Why? Because it's obvious that it's wrong, where as my polls have truth to them, which is why people come to such polls, because they need to "prove" I'm wrong, simply because it isn't obvious that I am wrong that it "should" happen, not that it "will" happen.
If you can't prove me otherwise, then you haven't proved me "stupid".
I could say the same to you. "IIN that I find people stupid that they think people that disrespect the inventors have the right to use their inventions?"
Also, how stupid you are to not understand what was meant, yet you call me stupid. I never said women have to respect men, I said they should be removed if they "disrespect the male gender while using what they have made", not if they don't respect males (there's a difference). So for someone so smart, you couldn't even understand the description of the post that came from someone you claim as "stupid". Welldone.
If we sit back and allow people to think stupid things, we are encouraging people to let people remain stupid. So what do you have to do? Prove they're wrong.
But, ofcourse. I bet you're one of those people that thought they could prove me wrong on the subject, got shown they couldn't, so resulted to "just let them be stupid, because I couldn't prove them wrong, might aswell not try. And say the reason I'm not debating with them isn't because I tried to beat them in the debate and lost, but because I don't want to".
Answer me the question that should a person lend their tools to someone that has disrespected them to the masses, calling them inferior than the people calling them inferior. Answer me that.
Everyone (almost everyone) knows that if you were to make certain things unavailable to people who say things you don't like, it would only stop them from reaching their goals. And slow them down drastically...
People who have Ideas and want to progress don't waste time trying to stop people from believing what they choose to. Even if it is wrong.
Well, I would have to dissagree. People are allowed to believe religion, and if religion never existed, technology would of been advanced by about 30 or more years. So people believeing what they want to believe can be a plus just as much as it could be a negative, especially negative if their belief is wrong.
I don't mean to be a conspiracy theorist, but I believe our technological advancements are well 30 years in to the future. They just don't let everyone know about it. With government secrets and cover-ups we will never know for sure, though.
Yes, I would agree with the conspiracy theory, I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist myself. Although, what is done in secret shouldn't be linked with what is done that the population is allowed to use. If religion hadn't happen, public technology would of been evolved much further.
But I was more less saying that; keeping everyone around means more money and more attention. The more attention the more money the more money the more progress. As everything is based around money, like scientific advancements and so on.
And, I agree that if someone does something that should be respected it should be recognized as so.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that's fair, though. And, I'm not sure if fighting for fairness is worth. I wish we could educate the whole world to the point where segregation doesn't exist. If we could do that, the world would truly evolve then...
You would rather reply to something you didn't read with insults after claiming you wouldn't engage rather than read something and reply to it accuratly? Apply this post to yourself.
Kind of like saying "I'm better than you at this, you're terrible at it, but I can't be bothered to show you how better at it I am than you.
So you decide to reply to something you didn't read just to tell someone you didn't read, then insult. Great way of not engaging. Way to go for showing that "I'm" the one showing idiocy.
If you're going to say you won't engage, then don't engage. Or is replying to such "idiocy" not a form of engaging? Do I need to inform you of the definition of the word "engage"?
*EDIT*: But watch. You'll call me the idiot for correcting you on how you engaged, even though the definition of the word engage clearly states I am right here. I have to put up with just as much idiocy, maybe even more so on this site, and that includes you, champ.
This story wasnt about you, didnt even know you wrote that other story, was not interested in discussing your story, or talking to you. I was just using you as a random example of internet idiocy.
Don't worry, you demonstrate your point by your own contribution to our little talk.
You can't call something idiocy if you can't prove it to be idiocy, and you think you can, which is why you are a fine definition of an idiot.
Welldone, champ.
*EDIT* Not to mention, for someone that's so idiotic, I sure do know how to correct you. If an idiot is correcting you, I wonder what that makes you.
Also, you can keep on going calling me an idiot, it does nothing, proving I'm an idiot, that is something different. But if I have to correct you on your own inputs, then you really don't have what it takes to prove me wrong, champ.
What a joker!
The only thing being corrected here is your spelling darling. I've made it quite clear I'm not interested in talking to you, or engaging in an argument with you.
I do this all the time when I'm "encouraging" someone to reply to me in a manner they believe they could mock me on, just to prove my point that they aren't ignoring because they want to, they are ignoring me because they have to if they want any standing in a discussion.
My spelling does need improvement, and I am sure there are some other than "incourage" in there that you could of picked from, but sadly, the "incouraged" one wasn't a mistake, it was an intentional spelling mistake. I have done this to over ten people on this site, people like you. I'll give you an edge, I'll spell something wrong that is obvious to notice so that the person that doesn't want to "engage" thinks "Ha, what an idiot, here is the chance to prove he's an idiot" and engages to correct me. That then opens it up for me to say "If you don't want to engage, then why did you just correct me to mock me?"
So now, given by your response, it isn't the fact that you don't want to show me as an idiot, because when I give you an oppurunity to do so, you jump at the chance to do it, it's that you just have nothing to prove I am an idiot without being given an oppurtunity to do so.
How proud you must of felt, just to realize you were being manipulated. The sad part is that you can actually be manipulated by text alone.
I made a small mistake while doing this to you. You see where I first went to spell encourage is "Incourage"? That's when I got the idea. I quickly deleted the "en" to ad "in", but missed the "n".
So, you done exactly what I wanted and expected. You just proved that you are happy to read, reply (engage) and mock me on things that have obvious (intentional) errors, yet refuse to read, reply (engage), and mock me on the actual matter.
I am still smirking over how proud you must of felt, that all that proudness was in vain, "darling".
You made me giggle. I hadn't done it in a long time, and I was 60% sure you would of picked up on it, nice to see that regarless of how stupid I thought you are, you're even more stupid than what I originally thought. I forgot how good it felt to do this.
Give up man, I really couldn't care less, go argue about something worthwhile
Don't worry, that last reply wasn't really only for you, mainly so that the people viewing our little talk can see how easily led you are.
You're number one, I'm apparently being number 4, this is predictable and stupid and exactly what I wanted to avoid.
Embaressed? This is the internet, and you have by no means embaressed me. Spelling mistake? Just yesterday someone corrected a spelling mistake I didn't intentionally make, and I accepted it, apologized for thinking they were wrong on correcting me, and then I finished by thanking them for correcting me, and at the time I wasn't having a friendly debate with the person. So why would I happily admit to being corrected by someone I was having a heated debate with but not another? Because what I did was intentional.
To prove some sort of point they can't seem to explain? Funny, my second last reply explaines exactly the point of it, not my fault if you didn't read it.
Flailing uselessly making their original argument? You haven't engaged at all in my original argument, so how would I have to be "flailing"?
Master puppeteer? Nope, I'm no master at it, I'm good at it, but no master, you're just easily manipulated.
The title alone shows that I am not number one "Winning by losing". I have in no manner lost this. Everything you have said has been flipped on its side. But, I will give you the chance to prove that wrong. Take any part of our little talk and see if there is any part you have proved me wrong on, then tell me what comment it is on.
Now on to your number four. I never corrected your grammar, I corrected the definition of the word you uses, and if you need that explained to you on how they are two different things, then...Well, it's obvious at this point.
If this was predictable, yet you engaged in it, engaged in something you predicted to happen, regardless of me taking down all of your points. You're a smart one. I like your whole "I'll say I don't want to engage, yet I'll engage" tactic...Not really.
And I find it funny that you actually went on to such a thing to explain argument tactics...Why you would look something like that up is...interesting?
You lost this, and that was "predictable".
You need to learn to make your points more succinctly. Or alternatively, get a fucking job bruvvvvvva
TL;DR? Were you asking me that it is too long and you didn't read it...? And you tell me to learn to make my points more succinctly.
You must not read books much, if you can't read simple things that wouldn't even be considered as long as a page in a book.
"God almighty", don't ever go in to any career that requires opposing opinions, you have clearly stated that everything you don't want to hear, and everything you can't prove wrong is something you avoid paying any attention to. My, my. How terrible the world would be if people like you were in control. Avoid engaging in anything to do with the topics, but engage in trivial matters.
But, what amazes me is that if it was too long and that you didn't read it, how in the world would you know if I need to make my points more succinctly or alternativly? Surely someone not reading what is sent to them wouldn't know. So that means two things, that you're either reading what I'm saying regardless of you saying you haven't in hopes to indirectly say "you're typing all this out, and I'm not reading it" in attempts for me not to type out so much, or you are simply saying it without even reading anything I am saying, showing that you don't know if I need to learn to make my points more succintly or alternativly yet say it simply because I am against you on the subject, meaning you will say I'm wrong, yet you have not read the opposing points and can't prove them wrong. "I'm right because I said so, you're wrong because I said so"...Oh, you so smart, you so smart, Hamich. ;)
Don't blame me for your lack of simple understanding, "Bruva". Let me guess, "TL;DR" yet read every word? Pityful. Atleast there is entertainment in the IIN community.
Surely if you have the higher standing in this, you would have no problem showing what user you are?
-Waits for excuse not to show what user you are-
Not to mention, the page doesn't at all have any value to this discussion. I've "asked" you to explain your point, then I have asked you what area you believe yourself to have made more logical sense than me, and when I have given you the ball to say "go ahead, your turn" you decide to say "TL;DR" and ignore it completely.
This is getting beyond funny, it's actually becoming quite pityful...In a funny way.
You started something, now you can't finnish it. Not to toot my own horn, but you really should of gotten a second opinion on if targeting someone such as me is a good idea on your posts, and as you can see, it wasn't a good idea.
You're not reading my "essays", yet you say I need to work on how to explain my points...? Great logic. So if you are not reading them, then you just admitted that you don't take any opposing opinions in to account, and you think your opinion is the only right one.
If it isn't worth engaging in, then why does my story have the most comments a story has had in a long while?
You're not going to argue with me because you can't. It's boring? I'm not asking you to reply to me. We'll never agree? Then why engage?
Take your own advice and "do something else", because if it hasn't dawned on you yet, if you reply, I reply, that's how it works. If you don't reply, then I don't reply. Like I said, you simply won't get the last word.
If you want it to stop, make it stop, don't reply. You are the one talking about not engaging, yet when all you have to do to not carry this on is to not engage, you seem to not be able to not engage.
Practice what you preach. "Jeez".
I'm really appreciating the first line of your essays dude. If you want me to read the rest (which you clearly do, based on the length of them and the effort you seem to put into them) then try boiling what you're saying down to three succint points ;)
Remember: "If you can't sum up all the aims in the first line, then they're too diffuse"
So, if you can't explain all the things you're going to adress in the first line, then nobody is going to be interested?...That line alone would say people aren't interested in books. Welldone, genius. Anymore great, intelligent, and genius lines you want to throw out there? I mean, you just ooze genius...
The funny part being that you think what you say is offensive. You got a long way to go if you think you can insult anyone correctly on IIN, let alone insult me.
But when it comes to anything else, no, arguing with someone that refuses to see another person's point of view or does not have the intellectual capacity (as it may seem) to see the other side of the argument that they are trying to make or to see that the other person is making a valid point is often a huge waste of time. Especially on the internet.
Classic case of someone taking the internet way too seriously.
Anyhow, I don't mind. And I like to read most of the comments. Especially form NueroNeptunian.
If you are annoyed by it, I think it is normal :\
...to see an idiot troll poster argue in the comments.
Master Troll is being far more appropriate.
I should have phrased it as Trolling Idiot instead of idiot troll.
But I'll go with Master Troll now that you've chosen a better label.