Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I really don't like the idea of people being notified when I look at their journal, nor do I really care who looks at mine (and really, why would I want people to worry about whether I can see them looking at my journal?). So I turned that option off, but I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions on the matter.

Today I pulled a sickie. I was up 'till 4 last night coughing (and watching movies, since I wasn't able to go to sleep anyway), and though I was a lot better in the morning, I was still pretty shit. Ah well.

I have been arguing on an okcupid forum thread where some people are trying to rationalise their bestiality. It wasn't so much the bestiality that got me annoyed (yeah, it's rape and animal abuse, and frankly, psychologically unhealthy, but it happens and will continue happening), but more the way they argued. Some people seem to think quoting the name of a logical fallacy is all they need to do in arguments. IT makes me want to write a logical fallacy FAQ:

Q: someone used a logical fallacy in their argument! Does that mean they're wrong?

A: Unless they claimed that their argument is a proof, not necessarily, and it doesn't even necessarily show that it's a bad argument either - you need more than the fact that a logical fallacy applies to show that. For example, showing that something is an appeal to authority shows that it's not a proof, but appeal to authority is actually an argument that carries some weight unless you can show where that authority is wrong.

Q: someone mentioned Hitler/the Nazis in an argument. This automatically makes it a bad argument, right?

A: no. You do know that the Nazis and Hitler actually did do bad things, right? If the argument is of the form "X is bad because the nazis did it" then that is a poor arguement, but, for example "Sure, you can rationalise your actions to yourself, but that doesn't mean you're not being immoral - even Hitler and the Nazis were able to rationalise their immoral actions to themselves" is actually a good argument, using Hitler and the Nazis to illustrate the point that people are perfectly capable of deluding themselves about their own immoral actions.

Q: I sometimes don't even bother to respond to an argument, just finding an appliccable logical fallacy and saying that and nothing else. Does that make me look stupid and/or like a douche?

A: yes and yes.

So anyway... Monday I went to chess and played the new guy that's been beating everyone else. We played two games, in the first he was easily winning, but overlooked a one move checkmate, so I managed a lucky win there. In the second game, we played an extremely close game - I'd say I had the advantage for most of it, but I didn't quite manage to convert that to a win. It was definitely the best draw I'd played. So my semaphore chess champ status is safe for another week. I'll admit he's probably got more skills than me, but I'm more savvy, so it's probably pretty even altogether.

AUCS - I'm taking this concert off. I've already missed a shitton of rehearsals, camp, and my voice still is only maybe 70%.

Last thing - the table tennis team I coach won on Friday 24-0. I was so proud :D There was only really one close game, with my most inconsistent player, but he won his next game easily.


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 5th, 2009 09:54 am (UTC)
That is what Julian Baggini calls the 'fallacy fallacy'; the belief that, because you can identify the form of a logical mistake used in an argument, that the entire argument can be dismissed out of hand.
Aug. 5th, 2009 10:11 am (UTC)
I like that :D I'll have to remember it.

It's very possible that these people are trolls that are just using the thread as a playground for their new logic 101 knowledge. They rather fail at trolling though.
Aug. 5th, 2009 10:29 am (UTC)
I'd say if they've got people arguing with them, then they've succeeded at trolling.

I was going to suggest they were trolling before, but then again you never know with the OKC forums.
Aug. 5th, 2009 10:33 am (UTC)
Well, there's good trolling and pathetic trolling. This particular type of trolling has drawn more ridicule than argument.

I'd say if it's on the OKC forums, it's a good 90% chance it's trolling :P
Aug. 5th, 2009 01:46 pm (UTC)
Oh, I turned it on. I want to see what it's like. I sometimes do wonder who's looking, you know? I don't care who sees that I'm looking, either. I'll make sure not to peep at any exes' journals while it's on. *chuckle*

I dunno how much value I'll really see in it, though. It's probably going to lack the narcissistic appeal of OkCupid stalking, as I don't know what will even cause it to register: probably not friends page appearances; surely whole journal views; maybe profile views? How often do you even do those things? Not very, or at least I don't. Whole journal view IS how I look at people I don't know, though, which I occasionally do, and if I want to find a particular friend of a friend I will often just click to a profile page rather than do a search.

There will be downsides for snark communities, perhaps, as people often click through to see what is happening in a snarkee's journal. It might lead to an upsurge in people figuring out they are being snarked. oh noes!

I'll tell you what I think after it's been on a bit, if I even remember to take note of it. At this moment I don't even see where you'd check it, and I'm honestly not huge on geeking out over LJ.
(Deleted comment)
Aug. 7th, 2009 10:45 am (UTC)
I love that there is one section in the cracked (formerly PWoT - pointless waste of time) forums that is set aside for serious debate, and it is called "we saved hitler's brain".
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )