Internet argument
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert has formulated some fantastic rules for internet arguments:
1. Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)
2. Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.
3. Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.
4. Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people CAN eat pebbles if they try hard enough.
5. Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.
6. Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.
7. Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.
November 24th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
I would add….
1. The strength of an argument against a church is inversely proportional to the size of the church. (The larger the church - the weaker the argument, because ‘God must really be blessing this church’).
2. All criticisms of the church can be deflected by the all-purpose statement ‘but no church is perfect’.
3. Undisputed facts backed by mountains of evidence are meaningless if they conflict with a churchgoer’s belief system.
4. If you pull up a churchgoer about their blatant sin, you are an ‘accuser of the brethren’., and therefore considered to be ‘Satan’ for causing division.
5. Speaking the words of Jesus to a churchgoer is meaningless, because ‘you are not Jesus’.
November 24th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
try this
8. If you can’t argue facts, becasue your your an idiot, call the other party names, such as, but not limited to, wanker, d_ck head, {edited for content}- (for more common names to call people refer to signposts.org.au)
9. Accuse anyone you don’t agree with, of being a pharisee, or a pharisee wanker.
10. Threaten to do an expose and humiliate them for doing such things as being nice enough to let someone use your computer.
11. Accuse them of knowing Leigh Cartwright.
November 24th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
i think homer saw this before the rest of us did…
November 24th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Hallucinate entirely different points. Bec - this describes the net arguing process soooo well
November 24th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
kevin, i’m laughing my head off, and everyone’s wondering why because i’m supposed to be drafting submissions…
November 24th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Good night Bec - Happy Thanksgiving!
November 24th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
hmmmmmmm
November 25th, 2005 at 3:21 am
well said rev
November 25th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Lance, although I agree with Kevin re the swearing (it isn’t my cup of tea although I understand the passion / frustration behind it) in regards to your post:
“1. The strength of an argument against a church is inversely proportional to the size of the church. (The larger the church - the weaker the argument, because ‘God must really be blessing this church’).
2. All criticisms of the church can be deflected by the all-purpose statement ‘but no church is perfect’.
3. Undisputed facts backed by mountains of evidence are meaningless if they conflict with a churchgoer’s belief system.
4. If you pull up a churchgoer about their blatant sin, you are an ‘accuser of the brethren’., and therefore considered to be ‘Satan’ for causing division.
5. Speaking the words of Jesus to a churchgoer is meaningless, because ‘you are not Jesus’.”
Posted by Lance | 24/11/2005 at 1:26 pm
My response is yes, yes, yes & amen. Well put - especially point no. 1. After all who are you to question such “success?”
November 25th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Yeah Lance, your point no.1 is a good one. I have heard that argument used more than a few times at Phil Baker’s blog by certain individuals…. It is ridiculous logic.
November 25th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
Lance
Have the leaders actually said point No.1 to you or did they
imply it by their attitude
November 26th, 2005 at 12:58 am
“Have the leaders actually said point No.1 to you or did they
imply it by their attitude”
I have never heard a church leader use the (large) size of a church as a rationale for what their doing being right and blessed, but it’s a very common argument used by members of those cults, oops, large churches.
Of course, using that logic, then AFL matches, the Big Day Out, and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras all have the blessing of God.
However, all it means is that large numbers of people who don’t think about things very hard, gather together in one cult/church, instead of being spread through cults/churches across a city.
November 26th, 2005 at 6:56 am
“Have the leaders actually said point No.1 to you or did they
imply it by their attitude”
Ned, I have had a “senior” pastor say this to me in regards to the other churches he was in network with & was trying to model after.
November 26th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Absolutely Jane. This was the argument that was continually flung in the face of genuine dissenters