Internet Psychological Question.

[Hasta]

Argument is a healthy and reasonable thing, as long as it doesn't escalate into an all out war.

A discussion held with valid arguments and mutual respect is a healthy and reasonable thing, I'd say. Sadly, one could barely believe the fecal-fests that pass for "arguments" novadays. Is stating two opposing points of view to each other, with no intention to compromise, while every side unquestionably believes in their point of view being the absolute truth - is that an argument? I believe it is such only by name. It does, however, provide one with heightened sense of who he is and why he is against other views, but not for the right reasons.

[Onep]

I think condescendingly condemning 'all arguments nowadays' as nothing but shit-flinging and uncompromisable isn't a very beneficial point of view to any debate. Merely stating the issue as being impassable and trying to passive aggressively blame the opposing side as unwilling to compromise is a little underhanded.

[Salad]

Is stating two opposing points of view to each other, with no intention to compromise, while every side unquestionably believes in their point of view being the absolute truth - is that an argument?

By definition that is indeed an argument, they don't all have to end with one side wavering to the other, at the end of some arguments, nothing changes at all, and in other cases, the divide just grows between those two points of view, it isn't really a matter one side winning or losing, it's a matter of opinion, what YOU feel is right.

Changing someone's mind isn't always the end goal of an argument, in a lot of cases, It's a matter of the recognition of difference, to show you have a different outlook or idea. It isn't really a matter of bringing people together all the time, sometimes it's quite the opposite, with the intent to separate.

I think what makes a good argument is to acknowledge the other party's outlook. You don't have to agree, or respect, or anything other understand that he has an outlook. When you start denouncing their outlook as irrelevant or pointless, you then have stopped the argument, and have become an arrogant cock, and are more interested in inflating your internal self-value verses challenging your views against someone else's.

As I said before, arguing doesn't need to be a matter of "right or wrong" or "which is better", sometimes it's just "ok well this is how I see it, and this is how you see it, perhaps I don't agree, but I at least see what you mean"

[Ysh]

I think condescendingly condemning 'all arguments nowadays' as nothing but shit-flinging and uncompromisable isn't a very beneficial point of view to any debate. Merely stating the issue as being impassable and trying to passive aggressively blame the opposing side as unwilling to compromise is a little underhanded.

[Hasta]

I think condescendingly condemning 'all arguments nowadays' as nothing but shit-flinging and uncompromisable isn't a very beneficial point of view to any debate.

You've misread, I wasn't talking about "all" the arguments, I said that the average quality of online discussions has dropped quite drastically compared to, say, web 1.0 chatrooms; and shit-flinging that wouldn't be acceptable back then is now considered a legit argument on certain resources.

Don't be sad, anyone could make that mistake if reading not carefully.

[Salad]

I said that the average quality of online discussions has dropped quite drastically compared to, say, web 1.0 chatrooms; and shit-flinging that wouldn't be acceptable back then is now considered a legit argument on certain resources.

You act like shitposting, devil's advocacy, and arrogance weren't a thing back then. i'm sure there were plenty of people being shitlords back then just as much as there are now.

"fuck you, you're wrong because I said so" has always been and always will be an argument to be made, no matter how stupid it is.

I'm sure you can look back in history and see many accounts of "lol fuck you i'm right you're wrong" arguments between many people on many different occasions.

[Onep]

You've misread, I wasn't talking about "all" the arguments, I said that the average quality of online discussions has dropped quite drastically compared to, say, web 1.0 chatrooms; and shit-flinging that wouldn't be acceptable back then is now considered a legit argument on certain resources.

Don't be sad, anyone could make that mistake if reading not carefully.

Sadly, one could barely believe the fecal-fests that pass for "arguments" novadays.

Perhaps you miswrote your thoughts?

[Onep]

Also blaming advances in communication for a 'lower level of public dialog' goes back a long way. Writing is causing no one to remember anything! The telegraph is killing the ability to write full letters! The phone is killing people's ability to talk in person! Internet forums are killing people's ability to argue in online chatrooms!

[Hasta]

You act like shitposting, devil's advocacy, and arrogance weren't a thing back then. i'm sure there were plenty of people being shitlords back then just as much as there are now.
"fuck you, you're wrong because I said so" has always been and always will be an argument to be made, no matter how stupid it is.
I'm sure you can look back in history and see many accounts of "lol fuck you i'm right you're wrong" arguments between many people on many different occasions.

That's a well-known fact, "the percentage of stupid people is not growing, they're just getting more vocal". In times I was referring to discussing things online wasn't so widely avaliable, convenient and even encouraged; and arrogant underage shitposters were rare and learned quickly. Maybe I'm getting old and sentimental, to some extent, but my point stands: when internet became widely accessible, it greatly increased the convenience of communication, but at the same time made it somewhat lose in value, meaning and quality.

Perhaps you miswrote your thoughts?

I tried my best. Not a native speaker, obviously.

I meant the following: there exists such thing as "fecal-fests" (a very low-quality communication between a number of people, with excessive obscene language and mutual insults); and some of these pass for actual arguments novadays (as in, treated as valid discussions on certain online resources), which I find very disturbing (hence "can barely believe" as in "don't like the thought that such thing is at all possible"). See? I wrote exactly what I meant. I thought it won't be hard to understand. Feel free to ask for explanation if you find my further postings confusing or negatively aimed in some way. Most of the times, in my experience, it just happens to be misreading and misunderstanding.

[Onep]

Ah sorry, I'll just put on my mind reading cap before I attempt to navigate your labyrinth of words next time to decipher your true and intended meaning.