Correct answer, but if that's the case, why does that happen approximately never? Not that people are wrong, naturally, that happens all the time, but why is it that it's so rare to see "Okay, you're right, I was wrong, the argument is yours" and what have you, compared to the vastly more common common descent into ludicrous silliness and the person on the "Wrong" (or at least, less correct or sensible, what have you, the inferior) side of the argument just keeps pushing it and defending it till everyone just gives up and walks away?
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.
I didn't say if someone was right or wrong. I simply said, what if you can defend your position essentially endlessly, or more realistically, till the other person just gets the shits with you and walks off. By that method, according to your thought on the issue, one can NEVER be defeated in an argument. The ONLY method to win is essentially force them out first. As an argumentative victory condition, it's utterly useless, except to the person who doesn't want to or can't stand to lose an argument. It's like a Xanatos Gambit - If you win, you win. If you lose, but you ensure it takes long enough, you win.
Too many peoples just go around making statements about all sorts of things, but then fail to adequately defend those statements.
And too many people have no idea when to defend an idea and when to abandon it. While I'm definitely not going to say I'm not guilty of it, I will certainly say that despite that, I find it intellectually dishonest and foolish to be more concerned with winning an argument, rather than furthering one's understanding and knowledge. An argument win by whatever means is a brief, often phyrric victory. Gaining knowledge and understanding is a strong and permanent one.
Though, as to your point of not throwing your hat in the ring, that's great advice, but it's still flawed - there are a hell of a lot of times where one may not actually know one is relatively uninformed on the topic and one simply doesn't know enough to know how much they don't know. As much as Donald Rumsfeld caught shit for the speech, he did have a point when he said:
[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.
Anything worth arguing about is going to be something difficult, so arriving at any conclusion takes a long time. People rarely see it through, so it seems as if every argument is infinite in length.
If something has an answer that can be decided easily, even if we disagree, then it can be ended very shortly and doesn't even become an argument. For example:
A: I heard X. B: That's wrong. Y is true. A: Snopes says X is true. Y is directly contradictory to Y. B: Oh, I learned something today. Snap!
Makes sense, But those already happen, we know about those. What I'm talking about is what happens far more often, essentially as such:
A: I heard X. B: Nah man, It's Y. A: Here's evidence of X. B: Here's Evidence of Y. C: It seems the Evidence for X is better than Y. B: No it's not. C: Yes it is. A: Yes, it is. Here's why. B: No it isn't, and furthermore, Z. A: Z is Ridiculous and unrelated. B: No it isn't. (Repeat ad infinitum till everyone gives up or moves on.)
I'm not saying that what you're saying isn't the correct way for things to proceed, ideally. What I'm saying is that for some reason, this simply almost never happens.
Man, is there another Scott available? It's getting near the end of my shift, but I can't shuffle off till someone takes over. I'd let someone else in, but we Scotts don't trust you Muggles.
Man, is there another Scott available? It's getting near the end of my shift, but I can't shuffle off till someone takes over. I'd let someone else in, but we Scotts don't trust you Muggles.
By my count about half of the forumites are Scotts, so there should be someone available.
Anything worth arguing about is going to be something difficult, so arriving at any conclusion takes a long time. People rarely see it through, so it seems as if every argument is infinite in length.
If something has an answer that can be decided easily, even if we disagree, then it can be ended very shortly and doesn't even become an argument. For example:
A: I heard X. B: That's wrong. Y is true. A: Snopes says X is true. Y is directly contradictory to Y. B: Oh, I learned something today. Snap!
Man, is there another Scott available? It's getting near the end of my shift, but I can't shuffle off till someone takes over. I'd let someone else in, but we Scotts don't trust you Muggles.
By my count about half of the forumites are Scotts, so there should be someone available.
Ah, lovely. Keep working at it, mate, and you'll be an honorary Scott before you know it.
Brad Miska of Bloody Disgusting just tweeted this, and William Gibson himself retweeted it, so I assume he agrees: "I loved Prometheus. It's ideas are too big for some people, but it's such an anti-Hollywood experience that it should be celebrated."
Prometheus was a really good film and a great subversion of the typical "This trailer tells you everything about the film" Hollywood dynamic. It was not what I expected, it asked a lot of really great questions, built a compelling background for the Yutaniverse, and most people seeing it and expecting nothing but crazy alien shootan 'n fightan will be sorely confused and disappointed. And that is reason enough to love it.
Prometheus was a really good film and a great subversion of the typical "This trailer tells you everything about the film" Hollywood dynamic. It was not what I expected, it asked a lot of really great questions, built a compelling background for the Yutaniverse, and most people seeing it and expecting nothing but crazy alien shootan 'n fightan will be sorely confused and disappointed. And that is reason enough to love it.
That sounds a lot like how people reacted to Contact.
Moonrise Kingdom is vying with The Royal Tenenbaums for my favorite Wes Anderson film. It was sooooooo good and resonated with me in numerous ways: East Coast islands, depressed kids, depressed kids falling for depressed kids, Bill Murray drunk and chopping down trees, secret places, adventure. This movie pressed all of my buttons and I loved every second of it.
Prometheus was a train wreck. People have been comparing it to Phantom Menace but at least Phantom Menace has an original plot that is actually coherant and has direction. Prometheus was 50% homages to the original Alien film, and 50% half-written "Roots of Human Civilization" story. It has two conflicting plots rather than one.
Prometheus was a train wreck. People have been comparing it to Phantom Menace but at least Phantom Menace has an original plot that is actually coherant and has direction. Prometheus was 50% homages to the original Alien film, and 50% half-written "Roots of Human Civilization" story. It has two conflicting plots rather than one.
I could take you seriously if you hadn't said that Phantom Menace is "coherant [sic] and has direction."
On the subject of both TPM and Prometheus, did we watch the same films?
Comments
Though, as to your point of not throwing your hat in the ring, that's great advice, but it's still flawed - there are a hell of a lot of times where one may not actually know one is relatively uninformed on the topic and one simply doesn't know enough to know how much they don't know. As much as Donald Rumsfeld caught shit for the speech, he did have a point when he said:
If something has an answer that can be decided easily, even if we disagree, then it can be ended very shortly and doesn't even become an argument. For example:
A: I heard X.
B: That's wrong. Y is true.
A: Snopes says X is true. Y is directly contradictory to Y.
B: Oh, I learned something today. Snap!
A: I heard X.
B: Nah man, It's Y.
A: Here's evidence of X.
B: Here's Evidence of Y.
C: It seems the Evidence for X is better than Y.
B: No it's not.
C: Yes it is.
A: Yes, it is. Here's why.
B: No it isn't, and furthermore, Z.
A: Z is Ridiculous and unrelated.
B: No it isn't.
(Repeat ad infinitum till everyone gives up or moves on.)
I'm not saying that what you're saying isn't the correct way for things to proceed, ideally. What I'm saying is that for some reason, this simply almost never happens.
EDIT: didn't see the next page.
A William Gubson endorsement? Pardon me while I fanboy all over everything.
IMDB says June 8th. So does our theater.
UK was 06/01. We get it this weekend. 06/08
Also I'm going to see Prometheus tomorrow. I don't know anything about it, other than it's apparently prequel to the Alien movies.
On the subject of both TPM and Prometheus, did we watch the same films?