Having a different view = arrogant

[Rageaholic]

This is a take off on the thread about trying to debate how things should be and basically being told that things aren't that way (which you already know or you wouldn't be debating it) so therefore you're wrong. But sometimes you're not just 'wrong', you're 'arrogant' for daring to think that you know anything. In other words, "you're questioning things, how dare you! Now shut up and comform!" And that's not arrogant? Jeez.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Sometimes tho, people are arguing for the sake of arguing. I get that all the time at work, due to the mobile phone rule, ie that you can't use a phone on the forecourt. I don't care if you think it's unfair, or that the risk is minimal; it's the rule and you abide by it, m'kay? What's arrogant is standing there and saying, "Well, I don't see why I can't use my mobile" cuz that implies that you are special and shouldn't have to keep the rule that everyone else has to keep. In any case, if I had my way, I'd ban phones from lots of places cuz there are just so many rude, obnoxious people who abuse the right to use one.

[Rageaholic]

I don't care if you think it's unfair, or that the risk is minimal; it's the rule and you abide by it, m'kay? What's arrogant is standing there and saying, "Well, I don't see why I can't use my mobile" cuz that implies that you are special and shouldn't have to keep the rule that everyone else has to keep.

Turning off your phone for 5 minutes for the sake of safety doesn't sound like you're asking for much. Though there's a difference between intentionally breaking rules to be an asshole and breaking rules for a good reason. Of course, I see no good reason why someone would protest such a simple request.

I was talking more about debating the purpose of the rules. There are a few rules and laws that if changed would make things better. There's a difference between "I'm special, I don't have to abide by the rules!!" and "These rules are stupid, why are they even in place?". Though it's debatable when intentionally breaking the rules is being an asshole or not, I fail to see how merely questioning the rules is being an asshole.

[Sage Blackthorn]

This is a take off on the thread about trying to debate how things should be and basically being told that things aren't that way (which you already know or you wouldn't be debating it) so therefore you're wrong. But sometimes you're not just 'wrong', you're 'arrogant' for daring to think that you know anything. In other words, "you're questioning things, how dare you! Now shut up and comform!" And that's not arrogant? Jeez.

Yeah, I get that a lot too Rage'. The only thing I can think of is that people will call ya' "arrogant" for the same reason that they call someone "racist" in a debate. When they do that, you have to spend all your time defending yourself from the accusation and THAT means that any inteilligent discussion of whatever the subject of the debate was about is effectively over. It's a clear sign, to me any way, that the other person we never interested in talking about that subject in the first place, they are only interested in "winning the debate" and when they find they can't do that using logic and citing facts and research, they have to stoop the more underhanded mud-slinging tactics of discrediting their "opponent". Someone who wants to move a debate forward, to discuss issues and maybe, just maybe (yeah I know this sounds impossible) come up with some practical and workable solutions to a problem, will not be trying to impede a discussion.

Like Lace says, some people just want to argue for the sake of argueing. And people who argue for the sake of argueing are not motivated by wanting to discuss a problem to come up with a solution to it. They are motivated by their own ego, by agrandizing themselves (in their own minds) by "winning" or if they can't win, by putting other down. It's kind of silly, but a few years ago I came across a list of "rules" for internet debating that I though illustrated the point pretty well (albeit it was ment satirically), because I've noticed people doing this (especially the "Assume the stupidest interpretation" rule). I think there are longer "lists" out there, and I'm not sure that some people realize they were made to make fun of the people who act like this in a debate.

[HYHYBT]

I don't see how whether someone obeys the rules or kicks up a fuss at work has anything at all to do with discussing in an online forum whether that rule or any other is reasonable, rational, etc.

[Sage Blackthorn]

I don't see how whether someone obeys the rules or kicks up a fuss at work has anything at all to do with discussing in an online forum whether that rule or any other is reasonable, rational, etc.

I think it has to do with the a certain kind of mindset that some people seem to have. That the rules don't apply to them, that they are special in some way and don't have to treat others as equals. I think that those who choose to break the rules of their place of business (in this case about cell phones) and those who acuse others of being arrogant for holding an opposing point of view both share a lack a respect for others. They seem, based on such actions, to view everyone else as being beneath them, as not being fundamentally equal to themselves. It's almost as if people like this think that "the rules" are ment only for lesser mortals. It is, as Rage said, very arrogant.

[blas87]

If we were talking about here, I'd say that there are some individuals that are deliberately obtuse. I'd been saying it wrong before, it's not trolling and I used to think of it as just debating for the sake of it.....I saw something Ree posted a while back to one of those types of members and deliberately obtuse sounds perfect.

You read a few threads that they've started or posted to, and you begin to wonder if they truly always have the minority or odd opinion, or if they are just posting like that to irk people.

[Rageaholic]

\
Like Lace says, some people just want to argue for the sake of argueing. And people who argue for the sake of argueing are not motivated by wanting to discuss a problem to come up with a solution to it. They are motivated by their own ego, by agrandizing themselves (in their own minds) by "winning" or if they can't win, by putting other down. It's kind of silly, but a few years ago I came across a list of "rules" for internet debating that I though illustrated the point pretty well (albeit it was ment satirically), because I've noticed people doing this (especially the "Assume the stupidest interpretation" rule). I think there are longer "lists" out there, and I'm not sure that some people realize they were made to make fun of the people who act like this in a debate.

Haha, I love those kind of websites. I guess it's human nature to use some of those debate tactics cause I see them on here all the time. I'm sure I've used them on here as well. It's those who rely on them to win debates who fail epically.

I've seen several examples of people who resort to adhomien, strawmen, and downright personal attacks just to divert the subject of the debate. You're right, some people are arrogant or racist and should be called on it, but a lot of the time, it's used as a last ditch effort to put their opponent on the defensive.

If we were talking about here, I'd say that there are some individuals that are deliberately obtuse. I'd been saying it wrong before, it's not trolling and I used to think of it as just debating for the sake of it.....I saw something Ree posted a while back to one of those types of members and deliberately obtuse sounds perfect.

You read a few threads that they've started or posted to, and you begin to wonder if they truly always have the minority or odd opinion, or if they are just posting like that to irk people.

I think they post like that to irk people. It becomes obvious when they (a) always have the obvious unpopular opinion, (b) always being the only one arguing their view, and most importantly (c) have little to no reasons why they believe what they do.

Actually, I believe those "deliberately obtuse" types would be more likely to call others arrogant for challenging them. I saw that a lot on FSTDT. Someone would challenge their claims with actual reasoning and proof, but that would all be countered with "god is above all reason" "the bible is always right" and "you're going to hell!!!!1". Extreme example, but it applies.

[Sage Blackthorn]

Haha, I love those kind of websites. I guess it's human nature to use some of those debate tactics cause I see them on here all the time. I'm sure I've used them on here as well. It's those who rely on them to win debates who fail epically.

I've seen several examples of people who resort to ad hominem abuse, straw men, and downright personal attacks just to divert the subject of the debate. You're right, some people are arrogant or racist and should be called on it, but a lot of the time, it's used as a last ditch effort to put their opponent on the defensive.

Funny you should mention The Staw Man Fallacy. A while ago I was discussing the proposed National Health Care thing with someone on LiveJournal. This person was ranting about how France has nationalized health care, and Canada has it, so why can America do it? I pointed out that for the last 150 years or so, in accordance with a variety of Treaties, the Federal Government is responsable for health and well-being of all Native Americans "for as long as the wind blows and the grass grows." (Not kidding, that's how at least one treaty was worded.) And that according to friends on the Pine Ridge and Standing Rock Reservation, the Federal Government has failed miserably in this duty. So considering that we have a small scale example of Government run health care in the case of the Reservations, I didn't have any faith in the same Government to run it on a National scale.

This person jumped all over me, saying I was advocating such things as a "Luck Tax" and a "Genetic Health Tax" and supporting this or that (which I'd never said)....and before I could respond, banned me from their discussion forum. I'd never said I was against a national healthcare plan, I just said that based on the U.S. Federal Government's past track record in regards to he Reservations, that I didn't have any faith in Uncle Sam to pull it off nation wide. Nevermind the fact that "America" is NOT France or Canada, and THAT just might have something to do their system works for them and would not be found acceptable here.

A few weeks later, I was talking privately with someone else who was in the thread and he said "You mean YOU got banned? What for?! You disagree nicer than anyone else I know! Don't take it personally, I think Lexy was just beating a straw man."

Now mind you, "Lexy" says she suffers from a hereditary mitochondrial disorder that "basicly means my organs are going to wear out before yours will." She got no health insurance, and earns a living by writing a serial internet novel and taking donations for her work. So she's VERY emotionally invested in the idea of a working National Health Care System so she can get her treatments. I think that anyone saying they didn't think the US Gov't could do it was taken as a threat to her life in her view. I just happened to be the unlucky sonovabitch who pointed it out and got his head bit off for his trouble.

Oh well.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Also I've noticed (not just here, but on other debating sites as well) that some people are contrary for no apparent reason. As in, they seem to be arguing against the majority for no reason other than to annoy and enrage people. Taking the devil's advocate is one thing; I've done it on occasion to stir up a bit of debate if everyone seems to be on the same side, but deliberately posting things that are designed to upset and anger people is another, and a goodly many of those type of people end up being exposed as trolls.

[blas87]

Lace, those are the "deliberately obtuse" people, who usually and ultimately end up banned anyway because they eventually quit playing nice and start breaking rules.

I mean, I have a minority view on the legalization of pot and pro-death penalty.....but do I act contrary just for fun? No. And I get along with almost everyone on both boards and we can see besides our view points on politics or things like I mentioned above, and I am not the only person in every thread who has the opposite opinion. The deliberately obtuse types, no matter what the thread or its content, always have the opposite opinion, and it doesn't take long before you start to wonder if that's how they really feel, or if they are just taking advantage of this site's debate nature to just stir up trouble.

[Rageaholic]

Yeah, I can sort of understand the health care thing. The current system is pretty bad, and if you really need healthcare, than I can see where she's coming from. Not saying she was acting rational, just human I suppose.

Though I was mostly talking about instances where your view contradicts what the laws or rules already in place say. Whether these people agree with the laws or not, they're only arguement is that "it's the law!" making any discussion about the law mute. Even if you argue good sound reasons for why the laws make no sense, you're still daring to challenge the laws/rules.

A typical instance of this is challenging a rule that tries to dictate how other people live. I see no reason why any rule or law should dictate the lives of others unless someone would be hurt by the action. I believe it's perfectly healthy to question and if you have a good case, take a stand against the rules/law. This is when those defending the rules/law will accuse others of "only following the rules when you feel like it" or "thinking you're superior" or "special snowflake".

It really peaves me off. It's like "How dare you even try to think for yourself!". As if we can't tell the difference between bringing your cell phone to school and murdering someone. I know it's the established order crap, but it's not always as black and white as people make it out to be. There's henious crimes that hurt people (like rape and murder) then there's lesser crimes like parking violations that while annoying, are not in the same league. It comes down to common sense, but that's non existant when it comes to control freaks.

[Amanita]

^Right on, THIS. I remember discussions about public schools punishing boys for having long hair or other such trivial things, and there would always be people whining "but rules are rules and rules must be obeyed or else!!!"
The idea that perhaps the rule is unfair or unjust never crosses their minds, nor does the idea that sometimes, questioning the rules is a good thing.

As for constantly contrary people, I really dislike them. They're not stating a minority opinion because they honestly feel that way, they're doing it just to be contrary for the sake of being contrary, and it's annoying as hell. I remember a girl like this in high school- no matter what I said, she would always be contrary, and it got to be really annoying.
Case in point- I used to listen to Chris Sheppard's pirate radio show, which played lots of awesome dance music which you would never hear on the radio here otherwise. Unfortunately the host had a selection of stock phrases which he overused to the point of annoyance, and he was extremely bad about talking over the music he played. Once he got carried away to the point of talking over half the freaking song!
I remember expressing annoyance about this- it would be a much better radio show if the host would not talk over the songs so bloody much! And of course this girl had to argue with me, saying "Well, why do you listen to it, then?"
Umm, I dunno, miss contrary? Did you miss the part where I said this show plays music you can't hear anywhere else? It's not normal pop stuff that you will hear 15 times a day!

[Eisa]

Huh. "Deliberately obtuse" is an awesome phrase.

I've noticed that there are some people where you can throw all the evidence you want at them, I mean TONS and TONS of evidence, shitloads of experts, whatever you want, at them and they'll be like "No, it's not like that because I don't think it is."

I don't want to get into religious bashing, but there was a girl on this forum who was like that over the Bible. She said she believes only what's in the Bible. She won't believe in scientific advancements because they're not in the Bible. I was thinking "Um...so what you're using right now to type this, you don't believe in?"

[MadMike]

I was once called a "control freak" for having a different view. I'm still trying to make sense of that one. And no, it wasn't on here or any other board where I have any sort of authority. In fact, it wasn't on any board at all. It was in real life.