Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument...
    #8872997 -

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:






Ordinarily, when arguing on an online message board such as this one, it's typical to quote a certain phrase or paragraph in a previous poster's text, and then say something in response.  When done well, this can easily point out the irrational contradictions inherent in a person's argument by isolating the logical fallacy, and it can ease the flow of a coherent argument by not making you have to scroll back up to the previous post to figure out what the current one is responding to.

However, this tactic also has its downsides.  If used too often in reply to a single post, it can give the impression that the responder has nothing original to say and has instead resorted to the sophist tactic of trying to nitpick every sentence in the post.  In addition, this method of exploding the original post into component sentences tends to lose the original context of each sentence--something which is crucially important when such underlying qualifiers as body language and tone are completely lost through an online textual medium.

It's truly a divide-and-conquer tactic; and perhaps that's why quite a few posters feel impelled to use it.  By ripping apart a single argument into many individual pieces and countering each of these separately, the original poster is forced to respond to every objection--derailing the thrust of the main argument, and inevitably forcing the OP into a defensive position.  Not only this, but the tactic of multiple recursive quote boxes invariably extends each post to astronomical length--and when other posters are interested in countering the OP's original argument, they're forced to scroll through pages of nested counter-quotes that only of interest to the OP and the divide-and-conquer post dissector.  The discussion bogs down, and what could have been an equal-opportunity free-for-all has now been relegated to a 1v1 that only serves to develop rhetoric skills over true thought.

To solve this problem, simply try to refrain from excessively over-using that handy quote feature.  A single quote is okay, maybe even a few when overly necessary.  But if you have a true objection to the OP's argument, try formulating your own monologue in response--your ideas will not only be clearer, but they'll be arranged in a persuasive essay format that shows you're capable of original thought and the ability to conjure your own rhetoric without having to resort to post dissection.  I've noticed far too many threads get derailed in this fashion and at the detriment of the ideas themselves--and I'm sometimes guilty of this myself.  But in the interests of the true exchange of ideas, as this forum was meant to provide, just take a few moments to think next time your mouse pointer pauses over that quote button.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8873037 -

The Cypher said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:





the original poster is forced to respond to every objection


Forced  to respond....?    :tongue:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8873038 -

I cast my vote for Cypher as the Quote Sheriff. :pirate:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8873066 -

Quote:
Forced  to respond....?    :tongue:


And once again we return to the 'Free Will' question...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8873083 -

PhanTomCat said:
Forced  to respond....?    :tongue:


Hah, ya caught me.  Ignoring might be a better policy in the long run.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8873114 -

I took your post about refraining from using quotes, and sidetracking, and nitpicking as a challenge,
and tried to respond with as few words as possible while still meeting the challenge....  :lol:


I did learn that there was a quote limit that I had previously not known about....!


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8873205 -

I avoid it by writing posts that are immune. :yesnod:


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8873381 -

Haha, yeah, I do this, not just here but on other forums so this isn't directed at you directly (since you are the only person here I've done this to LOL).  It is a good suggestion and I will try to take up the challenge. 

It is sometimes necessary to quote IMO, and you even leave room for this in the OP. Usually, the reason would be if, as you said, there were contradictions between posts and a poster was caught in a lie. 

I am not being argumentative but more wondering if the general consensus is that the method of response suggested by the OP is preferable in all circumstances to dissecting a post point by point. 

Also - I am wondering if you think (or anyone who read the thread: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/8842732/an/0/page/0) thinks that the conversation would've been better had I responded with monologue rather than quotations. 

I mean, I thought it went well because going through point by point allows for a lot of information to be presented.  The downside is that the posts quickly get the the point where it takes longer than it is worth to reply to them and the main point can get diminished while flawed points tend to get magnified.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8873440 -

Dissecting a post with quotes is more like stream-of-consciousness replying I guess.  It can get messy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #8873452 -

Tchan909 said:
I avoid it by writing posts that are immune. :yesnod:


Or by writing posts that are only a single sentence long.  :tongue:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: rba]
    #8873463 -

rba said:
Also - I am wondering if you think (or anyone who read the thread: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/8842732/an/0/page/0) thinks that the conversation would've been better had I responded with monologue rather than quotations. 

I mean, I thought it went well because going through point by point allows for a lot of information to be presented.  The downside is that the posts quickly get the the point where it takes longer than it is worth to reply to them and the main point can get diminished while flawed points tend to get magnified.


I thought it went well, but that's an exception rather than the rule IMO.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8873474 -

The Cypher said:
Tchan909 said:
I avoid it by writing posts that are immune. :yesnod:


Or by writing posts that are only a single sentence long.  :tongue:


Hey, I've always held that concision is a virtue.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8873584 -

The Cypher said:
the original context


Claiming to be God, are we?


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8873635 -

Quote:
ExplosiveMango said: Claiming


Hardly.

Quote:
ExplosiveMango said: to be


What is this, Hamlet?  Get this passive grammar construction out of here.

Quote:
ExplosiveMango said: God


Do you have any sources for this?

Quote:
ExplosiveMango said: are we?


No.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8873684 -

:rofl2:  :shiftyeyes:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8874204 -

The Cypher said:
Quote:
ExplosiveMango said: are we?


No.


If we are not...
And I am...
Who have we divided,
and what have I conquered.


--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.

The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: ExplosiveMango]
    #8874225 -

ExplosiveMango said:
The Cypher said:
Quote:
ExplosiveMango said: are we?


No.


If we are not...
And I am...
Who have we divided,
and what have I conquered.


You have divided I into we, and conquered loneliness.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: Sleepwalker]
    #8874307 -

yeah, i think it shows a real effort to avoid any attempt at arriving at a mutually beneficial synthesis, and only works to win over the viewers of an argument.


--------------------
You can check the last post in my journal for contact info.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: Sleepwalker]
    #8874587 -

Oweyervishice said:
You have divided I into we, and conquered loneliness.


HHhhmmmmm..... 
It is because of the quotes that we are all not "one"....    :sherlock:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: On the divide-and-conquer post dissection method of argument... [Re: deCypher]
    #8874624 -

Great post!  The quote fests are very tiring for me to read, I rarely bother.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Argumentation thePatient 973 8 09/23/02 09:12 PM
by chodamunky
* post by someone else on a different forum... Smack31 1,259 7 09/19/02 12:14 PM
by In(di)go
* Argument by Design Bullfrog1 1,670 10 12/09/07 07:38 PM
by Holly
* Daily Dream Post
( 1 2 all )		 Droz 3,573 20 06/11/02 08:57 AM
by MuShi_KiNg
* Saturn Ascends...(not another lyrical post) GRiMBLe_GRuMBLe 8,405 2 02/15/02 08:31 AM
by KeepAskingTime
* Comments on Fliquid's posting ... HB 2,244 17 09/19/02 06:04 AM
by uno
* Why is there only around ten people who post here?
( 1 2 all )		 World Spirit 3,936 35 10/15/02 03:33 AM
by infidelGOD
* IF YOU ONLY DO ONE THING TODAY, READ THIS POST Anonymous 1,786 19 11/04/01 06:04 PM
by D_Tox

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,009 topic views. 1 members, 317 guests and 17 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.