This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

When does a discussion thread become a flame war?

edited June 2008 in Flamewars
I say it is down to personal preference.
«1

Comments

  • It usually occurs when the posters just sling ad hominem attacks and strawmen instead of actually discussing the issues.
  • edited June 2008
    I'd say the sure mark of a flame war [not way] is when there are at least five, one like line quotes in a single post; all of which are refuted without forming a counter argument of the part of the replier.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • edited June 2008
    Question: is this about what marks a flame war anywhere on the internet, or what marks a flame war here? Those two types of flame wars seem to be very different animals, given the generally lower levels of egregious idiocy on this forum.
    Post edited by Eryn on
  • You can tell when people start to repeat themselves without actually addressing the points made by the other party. That is when intellectual discussion ends and flame begins.
  • You can tell when people start to repeat themselves without actually addressing the points made by the other party. That is when intellectual discussion ends and flame begins.
    I think the main problem is that people just don't comprehend information in a discussion and therefore choose to ignore it. I wonder if it's an issue of them simply not reading or if they just can't process the information.
  • What's a flame way?
  • What's a flame way?
    You are such a fucking retard. LRN2BASiCInTERNETz
  • What's a flame way?
    A typo.
  • I say it is down to personal preference.
    Nazi.
  • What's a flame way?
    image
  • Did I make a typo in the thread title?

    I'm off to commit Sepukku.
  • Douches and debaters. 10 extra points if you are both.
  • Q. When does a discussion thread become a flame war?
    A. When childish emotion takes the place of intelligence and logic.
  • edited June 2008
    When I say it is!

    Abortion should not only be legal, but encouraged!
    PETA has the right idea!
    George W. Bush is the best President ever!
    Macs are the only computers worth buying!
    Video games not only cause violent behavior, but give you eye cancer!
    Don't eat eggs, they are bad for you!

    and so on......
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • When I say it is!

    Abortion should not only legal, but encouraged!
    PETA has the right idea!
    I like these two.

    One of my favorite SNL skits last season was a PETA-produced game show that pitted people (no guns) against endangered animals. So it was some redneck hunter (without a gun, mind you) up against a polar bear. Good times.
  • One of my favoriteSNLskits last season was a PETA-produced game show that pitted people (no guns) against endangered animals. So it was some redneck hunter (without a gun, mind you) up against a polar bear. Good times.
    PETA is one hair shy of being a terrorist organization. They are anti-science and hypocritical.
  • They are like Greenpeace in that regard.
  • PETA is one hair shy of being a terrorist organization. They are anti-science and hypocritical.
    Proof?
  • PETA is one hair shy of being a terrorist organization. They are anti-science and hypocritical.
    Proof?
    "Fight! Fight! Fight!"
  • PETA is one hair shy of being a terrorist organization. They are anti-science and hypocritical.
    Proof?

    You can find the rest of it on your own.
  • Proof?
    I am probably one of the most animal-rights-happy posters on this forum and I think PETA is often very misguided. Not exactly proof, but...yeah.
  • PETA is one hair shy of being a terrorist organization. They are anti-science and hypocritical.
    Proof?
    You can find the rest of it on your own.
    Work doesn't let me watch the Youtube videos. The problem I anticipate is that PETA might object to using animals in wacky experiments that don't need to be performed. That's not anti-science. That's just anti-wackiness. I remember at U.K. in the 80s they were still doing NASA type centrifuge experiments with animals. That didn't need to be done. NASA understood all there was to understand about the effect of g-forces on animal tissues. They just still had to justify their funding. I would be happy to see wacky, useless experiments using animals stopped.

    That doesn't mean I'm against all animal experiments. If they serve a real purpose, I'm happy to have them performed.

    Actually, the animals matter too. If someone wants to experiment on Rhesus Monkeys, that's outstanding. Those little bastards deserve to be experimental subjects.
  • Hungry Joe, it is obvious you do not know the full depths of the craziness that is PETA. On paper PETA believes in total animal liberation, as in no pets. They also hypocritically euthanize many many animals. That's just the surface.
  • PETA has direct ties to the Animal Liberation Front as well as the Earth Liberation Front. PETA is also opposed to ALL animal testing, "even if it found the cure for AIDS." Oh, but the problem is that they kill animals themselves and leave them in dumpsters.
  • Animal rights fundamentalists, now I've seen everything.
  • When the funnzorszz!!one11I!! begin.
  • PETA is even on record for giving $70,000 to Rod Coronado after he burned down the Michigan State Research Lab.
  • Well, okay then. I did not know that. That is a tad on the extreme side.

    Now I want to talk more about the Rhesus Monkeys. When I was at U.K., I lived for a semester at a hotel whose owner kept a bunch of them. They were nasty. I'd be in favor of any experiments they could dream up for those nasty little bastards.
  • edited June 2008
    Some animals are just too tasty to be protected. Then again, test tube meat (especially creation of new kinds of meat) wouldn't be so bad.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • Wow.... tongue-in-cheek comments led to this....
Sign In or Register to comment.