
Conversational Terrorism: the ways people (consciously or unconsciously) conversationally cheat - akkartik
http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
======
cperciva
I was subjected to the variants of "YOU'LL GET OVER IT" many times when I was
young -- it seems to be a favourite fallback of 30- or 40- year olds when they
realize that they've been outreasoned by 10 year old.

Oddly enough, in spite of being 27 years old now, I still haven't "gotten
over" the notions that a schoolroom is a perfectly good place for a reasoned
debate; that English essays should be marked on the quality of the writing,
not on the conclusions reached; or that constitutional protections, including
due process rights, should extend to all places where government regulation is
enforced.

Maybe I'm just not old enough yet.

~~~
stcredzero
This is indistinguishable from the 10 year old just not getting it (because
they don't have the first-hand experience) and being so tiresome you don't
want to continue.

------
stcredzero
"Nit-Picking" is indistinguishable from someone trying to clarify what you are
saying!

~~~
apathy
Motive, not method.

------
jcromartie
These are great things to keep in mind for online communication. There are a
lot of logical fallacy fanboys online. Their M.O. is to look for the tiniest
gap in your _method_ of debate and then latch on to it like a terrier. Their
initial hope is that their wall of logical rules is impenetrable to you. Then,
even though they are accusing their opponent of logical fallacies left and
right, they end up on the _Sleight of Mind_ path rather quickly! Maybe now
this list can serve as a counter for that behavior (although they probably
won't respect these as "real" fallacies).

~~~
lbrandy
AD HOMINEM!

No seriously. It is. If you present an argument online, and someone points out
that you've committed a logical fallacy. They've undermined your argument and
rendered your conclusion unproven. If your response is to attack them as
"logical fallacy fanboys".. attacking their intentions and other non-salient
points... that doesn't change the argument at hand and consequently you've
committed an ad hominem!

I think I might be one of those logical fallacy fanboys.

~~~
jcromartie
I'm saying that all they do is point out logical fallacies, and that
eventually they point out ones that are merely their own inference, and were
not actually part of what you said. It becomes an endless meta-argument about
how to argue.

------
Hexstream
I finally grasped the concept of "Intellectual Dishonesty"!

------
username2
What isn't conversational terrorism?

~~~
zach
If you want the opposite extreme:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_communication>

