Comments on: Evil Greedy Stupid Sheep: 4 Modern Ways to Win An Argument

By: kamichat (Kami Huyse)

kamichat (Kami Huyse) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:35:02 +0000

Twitter Comment

Classic Post: RT @ikepigott: @chrisheuer - Might be time to make people read this again: [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: barry_brown (barry brown)

barry_brown (barry brown) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:25:03 +0000

Twitter Comment

RT @kamichat: Classic Post: RT @ikepigott: @chrisheuer - Might be time to make people read this again: [link to post]

- Posted using Chat Catcher

By: Sam Grove

Sam Grove — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:35:00 +0000

Typo, “is” should be “if”

“Anyone (say a scientist who pursues a line of research) can be dismissed as a paid flack is we can properly assail the source of the funding as Evil.”

By: Prokofy Neva

Prokofy Neva — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:59:25 +0000

BTW, it’s worth pointing out that in your “satire,” you never modify what your mind-meme is here by saying “Of course, it’s ok to state a war criminal is evil if he kills people; just back up your claims.

In fact, you’ve set up a nice sheep-sheering activity here. Thousands of fanboyz will now link to this “4 arguments” like the Little Red Book the instant they detect anyone ever using any of these words like “greedy” or “stupid” on a forums — and triumphantly declare them to be “wrong”. So you’re contributed to the sheep farm of the Internet.

I prefer to go about this differently.
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2008/05/invalid-interlo.html

Rather than try to suppress or groom or cull somebody’s heartfelt speech about me or someone else on the Internet, I concede their freedom. It’s often quite valuable for someone to explain to me on a blog how a given politican or his actions are evil, or make him out to be a fool, and his voters sheep. It’s legitimate activity in a democracy; it is upheld Constitutionally-protected speech.

Instead, I simply find when I’m suffering one of these types of arguments used on myself endlessly without thought, merely to annoy and harass, I just say “invalid interlocutor”. If you are going to keep saying “stupid” or “evil” to me endlessly about my ideas, I don’t need to keep talking to you personally, but post away.

In short, when you try to set up this sort of “rule set” for “everyone” to adopt during robust electoral debates, you are trying to be a professional democracy manager, a geeky controller with code, in this case social code instead of techical code. And no one needs you to do that. People are free to call each other names until the cows — or sheep — come home.

If you wish to find this or that expression invalid, you can do your own thinking and explication about how it is so, without declaring global rule sets like a school marm.

By: 4 Modern Arguments that Suck « for a Better Discourse

4 Modern Arguments that Suck « for a Better Discourse — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:16:08 +0000

[...] Originally posted at Occam’s RazR. [...]

By: Now Is Gone � Evil Greedy Stupid Marketers

Now Is Gone � Evil Greedy Stupid Marketers — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:42:21 +0000

[...] couple of weeks ago, I outlined four very simple ways to win an internet argument. Cast your opponent as one of the following, and thereby carry the moral justification to ignore [...]

By: Kami Huyse

Kami Huyse — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:04:26 +0000

It’s amazing how often I see these arguments played out in comments. From now on I will just point that out and give them a link to this post. I just did it today. Outstanding!

By: Lynne

Lynne — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:23:35 +0000

As I get older, I realize winning isn’t everything. Except in selected battles. Got kids? Then you understand!

I also like to think of myself as a wolf, merely appearing as a sheep.

By: Ike

Ike — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:33:34 +0000

No Rich, you are not a Sheep.

Sheep are on the losing, non-Ike side of arguments. Anyone who agrees with me obviously arrived at those conclusions through superior intellect, sound judgment, and a set of core values that is consistent with true morality.

By: Richard Becker

Richard Becker — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:41:59 +0000

Hey Ike, you make me want to argue with you about this, but I find I cannot. Darn you! Now I look like a sheep on this point.

You know, it’s much easier to argue with Geoff. Critics are good. Cynics not so good.

Your last point Ike � Anyone who is not behind me is against me! � is the greatest observation of all. That said, I don’t feel that way. You can disagree with me anytime.

Best,
Rich

By: Ike

Ike — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:32:03 +0000

southtrek – in our new postmodern world, arbitrary concepts like “winning” are devoid of any meaning other than that we provide ourselves.

The point here isn’t to employ logic and reasoning that will satisfy the neutral observer – there are no neutral observers! Anyone who is not behind me is against me!

The very act of disagreeing with you makes the other person wrong – all that remains is some rational explanation for your opponents failure to think properly.

By: southtrek

southtrek — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:09:50 +0000

Does use of ad homenim attacks like this really lead to a winning or just the appearance of winning. It does pass for political debate these days but shouldn’t really pass as a discussion.

By: Geoff Livingston

Geoff Livingston — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:42:13 +0000

How about just go out there and succeed? That’s the way I prefer to “win arguments.” That’s the best way to prove critics wrong.