Battleship is the best movie I've ever seen if I've never seen any other movie ever and also had a mental deficiency.
Indeed. My friends and I laughed so much throughout that movie at how absurd everything was.
You also have to admit that chicken burrito scene was amazing. The things people do to impress someone.
I honestly wonder what goes on in the mind of the screenwriters of people like that. I know they probably have lowered expectations due to the fact that they are writing off a silly intellectual property, but I do wonder why many screenwriters are never questioned for the stupid, unnecessary stuff that goes on in the movie. What kind of thought process do they go through to add in all the stupid filler? I only bring this up, because I feel like more people blame the directors and actors instead of the actual writers who create the idiotic scenes/dialogue.
Whatever the reason is, there is one thing that matters. If you opt to shut up, you lose. You can't not participate and also be right.
They may be correlated, but winning arguments and being right are hardly the same.
If the person who is winning the argument is wrong, it should be very easy to beat them. If you are in the right, and you can't win, then you fail as a human being and you should just give in and believe the wrong thing. How do you even know that your position is right if you can't defend it?
If the person who is winning the argument is wrong, it should be very easy to beat them. If you are in the right, and you can't win, then you fail as a human being and you should just give in and believe the wrong thing. How do you even know that your position is right if you can't defend it?
Therein lies another problem - Say you're an intelligent sort of person. Say, you can argue a case just about goddamn anything that isn't clearly, absolutely, categorically wrong and provably so by a vast and even-to-your-prestigious-argumentative-skill indisputable preponderance of evidence. You're willing to take your argument as far as you feel you have to.
At what point do you abandon an argument and say "Okay, you win", or "Alright, I was incorrect on that", over simply continuing the argument down progressively more and more ridiculous and abstract paths for the sake of not giving up the argument or the point?
I mean, by your logic, if you could defend a point, no matter how tenuously, then how can any argument possibly be wrong in the hands of someone intelligent and well spoken enough to argue something, anything, no matter how ludicrous, silly, out of touch, or otherwise mental it is, as long as they can keep it up for long enough that the other person gives up?
I'm not having a go at you here, mind you, I'm genuinely questioning the idea you're putting forth. Admittedly, it is very similar to the point that Cheese makes, but in the form of two questions, But still.
Battleship is the best movie I've ever seen if I've never seen any other movie ever and also had a mental deficiency.
Indeed. My friends and I laughed so much throughout that movie at how absurd everything was.
You also have to admit that chicken burrito scene was amazing. The things people do to impress someone.
My friends and I were the only ones in the theater. When Neeson said that chicken burrito line and walked away, we started shouting at the screen "END! END!" because ending on that note would have made it all worth it. But then he turned around.
Christians have a good line about atheists: "I their heart they truly believe god exists, but their hard heart makes them say they don't so they don't have to follow God's teaching. "
This is genius on their part, because then they can, from then on, say that their god is right because everyone believes in him. Or something. Either way, they convince themselves of the mindset of the other person based on an unfalsafiable claim.
Of course, I'm not saying any of this in argument or response to Scott, I'm just commenting on delusional argument techniques.
if his goal was to get back into Asgard and proceed to trick it out from underneath everyone, then Thor 2 will be exceedingly interesting.
That's what I'm figuring. You see the infinity gauntlet very briefly in the Thor movie, I only just found out, and that's when it all clicked into place. Loki wants to be the king dick, and what better way to do it than with an artifact that gives you ultimate power over almost every aspect of the multiverse? Problem, it's in Asgard, and he's not. Can't get back in himself. Solution? Simply make a plan that he doesn't give a shit if it fails, as long as it looks like it might succeed(so that the "good guys" get super het up and make a genuine attempt to fight it down), and when the other side triumphs, he's essentially handed his ticket home.
If the person who is winning the argument is wrong, it should be very easy to beat them. If you are in the right, and you can't win, then you fail as a human being and you should just give in and believe the wrong thing. How do you even know that your position is right if you can't defend it?
Therein lies another problem - Say you're an intelligent sort of person. Say, you can argue a case just about goddamn anything that isn't clearly, absolutely, categorically wrong and provably so by a vast and even-to-your-prestigious-argumentative-skill indisputable preponderance of evidence. You're willing to take your argument as far as you feel you have to.
At what point do you abandon an argument and say "Okay, you win", or "Alright, I was incorrect on that", over simply continuing the argument down progressively more and more ridiculous and abstract paths for the sake of not giving up the argument or the point?
When you're wrong.
I mean, by your logic, if you could defend a point, no matter how tenuously, then how can any argument possibly be wrong in the hands of someone intelligent and well spoken enough to argue something, anything, no matter how ludicrous, silly, out of touch, or otherwise mental it is, as long as they can keep it up for long enough that the other person gives up?
I'm not having a go at you here, mind you, I'm genuinely questioning the idea you're putting forth. Admittedly, it is very similar to the point that Cheese makes, but in the form of two questions, But still.
If you are right, and you are knowledgeable enough about the topic, then you should be able to defend your position when it is challenged. How can other people possibly tell the difference between an indefensible position and a defensible position that with a poor defender? It's not always so easy to tell.
The real answer here is that if you are not intelligent enough, well spoken enough, and/or knowledgeable enough in the subject matter at hand to defend your position, you should not toss your hat in the ring in the first place.
If you come around and say something like "A is better than Y," you had better be prepared to defend that statement. You can't make the statement, run away without defending it, and win. If you are unwilling or incapable of defending your statement, just keep your mouth shut in the first place. You can't lose at a game if don't even sign up to play.
Too many peoples just go around making statements about all sorts of things, but then fail to adequately defend those statements.
When you make posts like this:
Scott is soooo wrong, yet again, but now has a way to assume his own correctness when the rest of us stop reply to any of his posts.
That's pretty much what I thought, Luke, which is why I didn't respond to that. It would accomplish nothing.
You are making statements and immediately refusing to defend them. I can play that game also.
E.T. for Atari 2600 is the greatest video game ever made. Anyone who disagrees is so obviously wrong. You people couldn't possibly even understand why, so I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you. I'm not even going to reply to any disagreement.
See how that's a problem? If you want to say something, then defend it. Otherwise, don't say it in the first place. That's what separates us smart people form the crazy nutjobs of the world. We listen and discuss honestly and openly with people who disagree instead of putting fingers in our ears saying "I'm not listening lalalala."
If you noticed, I don't argue with anyone about any topic in which they have advanced knowledge and I do not. For example, I'll never argue physics with someone like Timo. I don't even know enough about it to have positions to defend. I just ask questions to increase my own knowledge. I only say something if I'm prepared to back it up.
TL;DR: If you're not going to protect the hat, don't toss it in the ring.
Scott is soooo wrong, yet again, but now has a way to assume his own correctness when the rest of us stop reply to any of his posts.
If someone else disengages, I do assume they have no conviction and take it as another point against their case.
But, this only works because I back down if I'm convinced of a superior argument.
Wait you mean, you've made the superior argument and they didn't back down so you disengage. Otherwise we'd all be stuck in an endless argument with some crazy person.
Scott is soooo wrong, yet again, but now has a way to assume his own correctness when the rest of us stop reply to any of his posts.
If someone else disengages, I do assume they have no conviction and take it as another point against their case.
But, this only works because I back down if I'm convinced of a superior argument.
Wait you mean, you've made the superior argument and they didn't back down so you disengage. Otherwise we'd all be stuck in an endless argument with some crazy person.
There's backing down, and there's walking away. Sometimes, a fight simply isn't worth winning, so you walk away and go do something productive. I run into this with crazy anti-science conspiracy theory nutjobs. Yes, I could spend 12 hours explaining reality to you and refuting your insane points, but why bother? In my precious limited time, I'm sure I have better things to do.
And the problem with the "I win if they disengage" mindset is that it rewards the irrational more than anyone else. And when you, as an otherwise rational person, use this mindset, you give the crazies something else to latch onto.
Plus, you could be wrong. Of course you think you're right - so do crazy people. And then when you stick to the "I win if they disengage" mindset...
Yes, you need to be willing to fight. But a sane person also constantly assesses the value of STAYING in that fight, and may give up when they decide that winning isn't worthwhile.
Well, I'll put it more precisely. If I believe I am right, unconvinced by the argument presented, I will only disengage if I don't respect the other person's intelligence or am otherwise convinced that they are beyond the event horizon of reason. ;^)
The only exception to that is if I actually have something more important to be doing, but even then, I'll re-engage when I'm able to again.
This argument is stupid for one reason: 99% of the time people assume they are right anyways.
So, if someone backs down, of course you will assume it makes you right. Because you are always right!
@Churba- Yeah, that's pretty legit right there. Especially since
Thanos would want the Infinity Gauntlets. I could see Loki trying to get them being a deal in Thor 2, which will help set them up for Thanos in Avengers 2.
Well, I'll put it more precisely. If I believe I am right, unconvinced by the argument presented, I will only disengage if I don't respect the other person's intelligence or am otherwise convinced that they are beyond the event horizon of reason. ;^)
The only exception to that is if I actually have something more important to be doing, but even then, I'll re-engage when I'm able to again.
This is also why people are more willing to engage Rym in debate.
@Churba- Yeah, that's pretty legit right there. Especially since
Thanos would want the Infinity Gauntlets. I could see Loki trying to get them being a deal in Thor 2, which will help set them up for Thanos in Avengers 2.
Marvel has already announced that they're going to make Thor and Captain America into trilogies, so I'm really wondering if they're going to try to squeeze both of those in before Avengers 2 (which they're also apparently trying to make into a trilogy (as Chris Evans has been signed on to play Captain America in 6 films, so either it's two trilogies, he's going to make a cameo, or there's going to be some non-Avengers cross-over films, which would be pretty cool), which begs the question: are they going to keep adding members to the Avengers or actually shake it up and remove/replace some over time). I was thinking that Thanos trying to get the Infinity Gauntlet might be in Thor 3 rather than 2 just so that they can have the time to really set up for Avengers 2 like they did for the first one.
I'm also curious as to whether or not there will be more Iron Man movies after 3, especially if it's going to be based off of the Extremis arc and could easily reinvent his character in the Cinematic Universe.
Well, Ant-Man has just been greenlit with Edgar Wright directing, and Marvel has previously announced Black Panther and Doctor Strange movies. And Robert Downey Jr. keeps saying that he'll do Marvel movies as long as they remain high-quality (read: he keeps getting huge cardboard checks delivered to his manse).
Oh, and now the rumors are everywhere about Guardians of the Galaxy.
Comments
You also have to admit that chicken burrito scene was amazing. The things people do to impress someone.
At what point do you abandon an argument and say "Okay, you win", or "Alright, I was incorrect on that", over simply continuing the argument down progressively more and more ridiculous and abstract paths for the sake of not giving up the argument or the point?
I mean, by your logic, if you could defend a point, no matter how tenuously, then how can any argument possibly be wrong in the hands of someone intelligent and well spoken enough to argue something, anything, no matter how ludicrous, silly, out of touch, or otherwise mental it is, as long as they can keep it up for long enough that the other person gives up?
I'm not having a go at you here, mind you, I'm genuinely questioning the idea you're putting forth. Admittedly, it is very similar to the point that Cheese makes, but in the form of two questions, But still.
This is genius on their part, because then they can, from then on, say that their god is right because everyone believes in him. Or something. Either way, they convince themselves of the mindset of the other person based on an unfalsafiable claim.
Of course, I'm not saying any of this in argument or response to Scott, I'm just commenting on delusional argument techniques.
Who's playing 3 dimension chess now!
The real answer here is that if you are not intelligent enough, well spoken enough, and/or knowledgeable enough in the subject matter at hand to defend your position, you should not toss your hat in the ring in the first place.
If you come around and say something like "A is better than Y," you had better be prepared to defend that statement. You can't make the statement, run away without defending it, and win. If you are unwilling or incapable of defending your statement, just keep your mouth shut in the first place. You can't lose at a game if don't even sign up to play.
Too many peoples just go around making statements about all sorts of things, but then fail to adequately defend those statements.
When you make posts like this: You are making statements and immediately refusing to defend them. I can play that game also.
E.T. for Atari 2600 is the greatest video game ever made. Anyone who disagrees is so obviously wrong. You people couldn't possibly even understand why, so I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you. I'm not even going to reply to any disagreement.
See how that's a problem? If you want to say something, then defend it. Otherwise, don't say it in the first place. That's what separates us smart people form the crazy nutjobs of the world. We listen and discuss honestly and openly with people who disagree instead of putting fingers in our ears saying "I'm not listening lalalala."
If you noticed, I don't argue with anyone about any topic in which they have advanced knowledge and I do not. For example, I'll never argue physics with someone like Timo. I don't even know enough about it to have positions to defend. I just ask questions to increase my own knowledge. I only say something if I'm prepared to back it up.
TL;DR: If you're not going to protect the hat, don't toss it in the ring.
But, this only works because I back down if I'm convinced of a superior argument.
And the problem with the "I win if they disengage" mindset is that it rewards the irrational more than anyone else. And when you, as an otherwise rational person, use this mindset, you give the crazies something else to latch onto.
Plus, you could be wrong. Of course you think you're right - so do crazy people. And then when you stick to the "I win if they disengage" mindset...
Yes, you need to be willing to fight. But a sane person also constantly assesses the value of STAYING in that fight, and may give up when they decide that winning isn't worthwhile.
The only exception to that is if I actually have something more important to be doing, but even then, I'll re-engage when I'm able to again.
99% of the time people assume they are right anyways.
So, if someone backs down, of course you will assume it makes you right. Because you are always right!
@Churba-
Yeah, that's pretty legit right there. Especially since
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Psychologist's_fallacy
I'm also curious as to whether or not there will be more Iron Man movies after 3, especially if it's going to be based off of the Extremis arc and could easily reinvent his character in the Cinematic Universe.
Oh, and now the rumors are everywhere about Guardians of the Galaxy.