ForumsWEPRWait, why am I arguing you again?

10 1947
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

So the other day I was arguing with an acquaintance of mine over an issue relating to LGBT rights. The things is, we were weren't arguing over gay marriage or anything like that; we were arguing over how incorrect an image she posted was.

The image was a pro-Obama image wherein text stated that Obama would legalize gay marriage. He can't promise that right, because that matter is decided at a state level and was obviously created by Obama's campaign to give him a better name and win the vote of LGBT voters.

Even still, I still had no issue with the image. I quietly left a short comment saying that Obama couldn't promise it, it was biased garbage, and etc. and etc. The acquaintance came back a few hours later, with literally pages and pages full of nonsensical, biased slurs to try to damage my reputation and "win" the argument by going off-topic, stating "What-Ifs," and creating information about Romney with no sources to back herself up whenever I started defeating her.

All that, and I hadn't ever questioned anything but the correctness of the image, nor did I ever use religion to argue, supported Romney in the argument, or question her sexuality and opinions.

Man, people are dumb. For laugh's sake, I might even post the argument later.

Ever have something like this happen?

  • 10 Replies
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

When I was new on AG, this happenned alot, same happens to me on Kong

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Ever have something like this happen?


On Facebook, I've had run ins with people saying how Romney has integrity and doesn't flip flop and Obama isn't American.

"The only charges against Romney have been by innuendo and his character and integrity is fully intact if you look at his history."

Have had run ins with anti-vaccers with this.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/150538_424579337603931_682642352_n.jpg

Asked for reliable sources on these claims. Got statements from questionable quakes and anti-vaccer sites rather than peer review papers.

They also believed the pyramids are made by aliens.

Been told how God "owns" me.

After a while this song really fits.
The Skeptic in the Room
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

From our Romney is great and Obama isn't from America we get climate change denialism.

"Nature has a way of recovering; fear not. This is not climate change in any sense of the word."

Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

@MageGrayWolf
Haha, nice image. My favorite claim has got to be when the opponent says, "Getting flue shots causes runny noses, mild nausea, and other minor flue symptoms."

Well, of course that's going to happen. A flue shot is essentially a weak mutation of the flue virus, and your body's training to beat it. How does it beat viruses? It pulls them out of the body through snot and other lovely things.

VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
800

I am curious to see the whole argument Salvidian. I say this because you need to see the whole argument to understand what it really is about and who is right. I'm not calling you a liar and I'm not saying what you said is false in any way, just that when one person says something it usually not always is slightly biased and doesn't say the full scope of what really happened.

So in summary I won't and don't think anyone should draw conclusions from the OP (I'm not saying it's wrong or that you aren't honest Salv) without having seen the argument for themselves.

Haha, nice image. My favorite claim has got to be when the opponent says, "Getting flue shots causes runny noses, mild nausea, and other minor flue symptoms."

When people say you get sick from the flu shot, thus you shouldn't take it, it makes me laugh a little inside

I guess they don't understand how to improve an immune system.
VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
800

just that when one person says something it usually not always is slightly biased and doesn't say the full scope of what really happened.

Sorry if that comes off as confusing, I meant to say:

just that when one person says something it usually (not always) is slightly biased and doesn't say the full scope of what really happened.

Forgot to bracket the not always part =.=
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

I am curious to see the whole argument Salvidian. I say this because you need to see the whole argument to understand what it really is about and who is right. I'm not calling you a liar and I'm not saying what you said is false in any way, just that when one person says something it usually not always is slightly biased and doesn't say the full scope of what really happened.

So in summary I won't and don't think anyone should draw conclusions from the OP (I'm not saying it's wrong or that you aren't honest Salv) without having seen the argument for themselves.


I completely agree with you, but I hope you'll understand that I prefer to keep some private stuff private, because there were a lot of personal details.

I can give an example though:
If you are a friend or family member of any gay person or even if you believe that all people deserve to love and be loved and enjoy equal rights, then you'd better not vote for him [Romney]. He has said that marriage is between one man and one woman...and I'm sorry; but that is hate speech, and that should automatically make Romney a terrible candidate.


That pretty much incorporates almost everything I said. We were talking about how the state votes on legalization of gay marriage. After that I asked for a source on him saying that marriage should be between a man and women (Which I know he said), just to see what she would do. She ignored me.
VonHeisenbourg
offline
VonHeisenbourg
377 posts
800

I completely agree with you, but I hope you'll understand that I prefer to keep some private stuff private, because there were a lot of personal details.

I can certainly understand that, that is a good reason not to disclose information.

That pretty much incorporates almost everything I said. We were talking about how the state votes on legalization of gay marriage.

I don't mean to doubt your integrity or anything, but if he was typing pages and pages of writing it wouldn't be to hard to find one part of it to make this acquaintance of yours look bad. Without the full/majority of the argument from a sited source, I do not think I could or anyone else should come to a conclusion that the guy you are arguing with is delusional and or idiotic.

I am not prying or trying to get you to disclose the argument (certainly don't if you're uncomfortable with it). I'm just saying I can't come to a proper conclusion with these statements alone.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

I don't mean to doubt your integrity or anything, but if he was typing pages and pages of writing it wouldn't be to hard to find one part of it to make this acquaintance of yours look bad. Without the full/majority of the argument from a sited source, I do not think I could or anyone else should come to a conclusion that the guy you are arguing with is delusional and or idiotic.

I am not prying or trying to get you to disclose the argument (certainly don't if you're uncomfortable with it). I'm just saying I can't come to a proper conclusion with these statements alone.


Yep, and I understand that. I'm just going to leave it at that example alone because, frankly, I kind of regret posting that even now. It's up to you whether or not you want to conclude about the other person, but I was just giving you a little of my opinion.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,373 posts
24,445

Just chew him up with Obama speeches and plain facts. Like how only a handful of states have legalized it, showing it can't be a federal issue.

Its all part of the Internet. It gets worse on newspaper and editorial sites. Especially those Nate Silver has written.

Showing 1-10 of 10