• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Muddying the water...

What’s your favourite discussion tactic?

  • Making vague or obscure statements that sound really “deep”.

    Votes: 17 48.6%

  • Confident authoritative assertions on topics about which you know almost nothing.

    Votes: 16 45.7%

  • Using quotes by eminent thinkers out of context in order to obfuscate the issue.

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • Conveniently ignoring the need to be rational, as this would undermine your argument.

    Votes: 17 48.6%
  • Total voters
    35
#3
bassybill said:
What’s your favourite tactic for making yourself sound profound in Off Topic philosophical discussion here on TB? :D
Click to expand...

Bill, I didn't recognize any of these "tactics" in my own writing, but I do recall a few discussions with you............:D

Actually, my favorite tactic didn't make the list. I like to exaggerate for impact and it's sarcastic effect. Not to make fun of another poster (at least thats not my intention) but to make fun of the "upside down" logic that (in my perception) has become accepted thinking in many circles these days. I think this comes from the admiration I have for my favorite author, Political Satirist and former Rolling Stone columnist PJ O'Rouke. I like to think my writing can sometimes be a bad imitation of his.:p
 
#5
burk48237 said:
Bill, I didn't recognize any of these "tactics" in my own writing, but I do recall a few discussions with you............:D

Actually, my favorite tactic didn't make the list. I like to exaggerate for impact and it's sarcastic effect. Not to make fun of another poster (at least thats not my intention) but to make fun of the "upside down" logic that (in my perception) has become accepted thinking in many circles these days. I think this comes from the admiration I have for my favorite author, Political Satirist and former Rolling Stone columnist PJ O'Rouke. I like to think my writing can sometimes be a bad imitation of his.:p
Click to expand...
That's odd. I expected you to vote for number two. ;)
 
#10
I've noticed this tactic being used quite often:

Insisting upon more and more evidence, and your evidence will NEVER measure up to standards. Tie up the argument with red tape.

Poster 1: I am making 'assertion x'.
Poster 2: Link?
Poster 1: *Posts link*
Poster 2: Look at the source. Based on my political leanings, I will summarily dismiss anything from that source. Please let me know of any studies.
Poster 1: *Posts studies*
Poster 2: That's not a peer reviewed study.
Poster 1: *Posts peer reviewed study*
Poster 2: That organization was tied to the *insert discredited study here* from 1967. They got it wrong once; you can't believe anything from that source...

ad nauseum...
 
#11
Diggler said:
I've noticed this tactic being used quite often:

Insisting upon more and more evidence, and your evidence will NEVER measure up to standards. Tie up the argument with red tape.

Poster 1: I am making 'assertion x'.
Poster 2: Link?
Poster 1: *Posts link*
Poster 2: Look at the source. Based on my political leanings, I will summarily dismiss anything from that source. Please let me know of any studies.
Poster 1: *Posts studies*
Poster 2: That's not a peer reviewed study.
Poster 1: *Posts peer reviewed study*
Poster 2: That organization was tied to the *insert discredited study here* from 1967. They got it wrong once; you can't believe anything from that source...

ad nauseum...
Click to expand...

This is the whole reason I stay out of those god threads. :rollno:
 
#13
Diggler said:
I've noticed this tactic being used quite often:

Insisting upon more and more evidence, and your evidence will NEVER measure up to standards. Tie up the argument with red tape.

Poster 1: I am making 'assertion x'.
Poster 2: Link?
Poster 1: *Posts link*
Poster 2: Look at the source. Based on my political leanings, I will summarily dismiss anything from that source. Please let me know of any studies.
Poster 1: *Posts studies*
Poster 2: That's not a peer reviewed study.
Poster 1: *Posts peer reviewed study*
Poster 2: That organization was tied to the *insert discredited study here* from 1967. They got it wrong once; you can't believe anything from that source...

ad nauseum...
Click to expand...
Yup, that's fairly common. I should have put something about this in the poll. "Disputing the validity of perfectly good evidence if it disagrees with your position." :)
 
#20
I'm thinking about adding "cuz Jesus said so" to the end of every one of my statements. It should carry some weight with those that haven't found out I'm an athiest/agnostic :D
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back