Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

argumentation - the validation problem

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Jakeman, Aug 1, 2008.

  1. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Exercises in stealing validation.

    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=10043091564&sid=1&pageNo=1

    Here is a little exchange from a recent altercation of mine on the wow forums. It was a case of raw trolling where I was criticizing a mage talent. I was making a serious argument and they tried to exploit that seriousness as an opportunity to provoke me.

    Notice how I immediately turned it around by planting seeds of accusation as to their intentions while at the same time protecting my own intentions with a show of sincerity. I then proceeded to lecture them on how to best accomplish their goal of griefing me to which they responded in a manner that validated my accusation as to their intentions. In the end their intentions were exposed and my position was validated. By martyring my ego their attacks became my own.


    Babylon - lol jaden prolly hates us. but I <3 you teen.

    Jaden - Would you like me to hate you? I'm sorry I don't do hate very well. :(

    Business - Hate me todayyyyyyyyyyyyy Hate me tommorowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

    Jaden - Your humor is too forced. It needs more context to play well.

    Jaden - If you want to grief me then I recommend you make passing references to my failures with women. That is my most vulnerable spot.

    Kokanie - You have a big nose, and as a result women are naturally repelled

    Babylon - Don't let that get you down. /therapy

    Jaden - My nose is slightly crooked, but that's not the reason. Try again.

    Kokanie - You're short, bald, fat, wear glasses, and have the last name: Costanza ???

    Jaden - I said to make "passing references." Direct attacks are so crude and amateurish. The truly skilled troll takes a more insidious approach.

    Kokanie - I'm still just a padawan :(

    Salesmann - women dislike you for the same reason you rolled a gnome.

    Also, exercise in denying validation from the same thread:


    Affix - You're complaining about spending 5 points to get a 5% damage increase, so you can get to the 51 point talent which has a stun component that is entirely worthless in PvE raiding as well... WHY ARE YOU DEEP FROST THEN?

    Jaden - Why would you advocate tier 11 frost for raiding?

    Notice how she assigned an argument to me and attacked it when I never made that argument. A simple reversal is all that is required there. The answer to my question is invalidating of her original post... that answer being, "I never advocated that," which is the answer I refuse to give. If she has any sense she won't reply to that. But if she feels compelled to defend her ego then she may accuse me of being a troll or something.
     
  2. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
  3. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    I have always advocated that you never attack a person's motivations. Too often motives are used as abstractions for real arguments. You get a logic gap something like...

    - Person A committed observed action.
    - Here is a likely motive for observed action.
    - The likely motive is bad.
    - Therefore the action and person are bad. Proceed on that basis.

    You can't know some one's motives for certain so you end up with a subjective determination that is often based on what the prosecutor wants to see. And then when those motives are used as a primary argument you end up with an argument that is purely subjective. It's a bit of a slippery slope.

    That's is not to say that motives are irrelevant. A classic counterargument that I get is the fact that courts always look for motives. The difference there is that possible motives are used to establish plausibility of the charge. Motives of the accused are not an end. They don't know for certain what motive is correct if any, and they still confine their arguments to the facts as they should.

    Anyways, I am posting this here because I realized this problem with motives is also a validation problem of sorts in that invalid attacks on motivations are often met with validating rebuttals such that the discussion is immediately hijacked by purely subjective arguments.
     
  4. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    hyjal hasn't changed

    I don't post on the hyjal forum much anymore. I recently posted this little joke:

    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=21333614437&sid=1

    Notice how people personally attack me first. Then when I don't properly validate the attacks they relent and acknowledge my joke. For example:

    I find it fascinating. I have gotten into this rhythm lately where I embrace all personal attacks and express appropriate hurt. This kind of reaction has an almost 100% success rate at eliciting the kind of response shown above where the attacker is totally neutralized. If it doesn't work the first time then you can usually make it work by adding a sweetener, like a token of your apology, which triggers their sense of guilt.
     
  5. Calendryll

    Calendryll MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,336
    Likes Received:
    52
    Market Rating:
    0
    First of all, I have to give credit to the guy whose name is Assmanass. lol.

    Secondly, MSC will never be dead. This guild has been around for a very long time. I'm sure it will still be here long after WoW is dead.

    Jaden, I know you post on there specifically to grate people's nerves. I love you for it though.
     
  6. Elbereth

    Elbereth MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    14
    Market Rating:
    0
    Yup.
     
  7. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    Perfect example of what not to do:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbKQ-h3J4Ks

    Notice how Geithner is fashioning his responses around her insinuated and unstated arguments. She never launched any propositions of her own. Rather she just asked a bunch of questions designed to insinuate her point and provoke a defensive response. In defending himself against her unstated arguments Geithner effectively made her arguments for her. Many people would also take his defensive posture as a small admission of guilt.

    Instead of validating his opposition by refuting unstated arguments he should have asked a very simple question, "What is your point?" There are no good outs when faced with this question. She can either back down or she can make the proposition that Geithner is in cahoots with private banks. Such a proposition is extremely difficult to make, hence why she needed Geithner to make the argument for her. Once again, bad arguments often require validation from the opposition to have any credence at all.
     
  8. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,756
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16

Hitometer: 53,597,525 since 1995