[FrancoismofRussia]

Why do people always seem to use the same arguments after they have been proven false by the alliance/person they're arguing against? This is a rather illogical system and is rather confounding It makes me go all

[SpoiL]

Either they didn't catch it, didn't buy it, or are a spin doctor.

This post has been edited by SpoiL: 25 August 2009 - 07:18 AM

[FrancoismofRussia]

I've seen it a lot concerning your alliance SpoiL

[SpoiL]

FrancoismofRussia, on Aug 25 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

I've seen it a lot concerning your alliance SpoiL

I am flattered.

[Elyat]

If you expect a serious responce you need to be a little bit more, ah, specific.

[Gondor]

SpoiL, on Aug 25 2009, 06:16 AM, said:

Either they didn't catch it, didn't buy it, or are a spin doctor.

Pretty much summed it up.


On top of that I would add that people just ignore it because they don't have anything else to work with. And they aren't willing to give way.

[Believland]

I prefer it over the NPO/Zha'dum style, STFU or I keel you!

[Marcus Guildenstern]

I'd say it's mainly because of a lack of rhetorical subtlety. Sometimes certain people or groups of people will post the same arguments over and over in an effort to swamp whatever else is being said. I don't really participate in these forums, but the idea seems to be that if a given point of view is repeated often enough and loudly enough, people will see it and believe it, rather than listening to the one or two posts that disagreed. The sad thing is that the tactic seems to work on a fairly regular basis (although perhaps less often than it once did).

[Gn0xious Jr]

two words: hypnotoads!


TWO WORDS!

[Mathias]

Because some people insist on being continually wrong.

[Qaianna]

Sometimes it's more who says it that determines whether people will believe it. There have been times when certain parties could claim that Red, Pink, Blue, and Green were colours, and would get shouted down just because of WHO they were.

[President Kent]

Qaianna, on Aug 27 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

Sometimes it's more who says it that determines whether people will believe it. There have been times when certain parties could claim that Red, Pink, Blue, and Green were colours, and would get shouted down just because of WHO they were.

This is very true.

[SpacingOutMan]

Quote

"If at first you don't succeed, try and try again."

Far too many people take this quote literally. In contemporary life, it means:

Quote

"If at first you don't succeed, be a stubborn !@#$%^& and annoy the living Hell out of everyone else until you make them admit you're right."

[Ivan III]

SpacingOutMan, on Aug 27 2009, 09:58 PM, said:

Far too many people take this quote literally. In contemporary life, it means:

Not really, but unfortunately, people can take it any way they want to. There's no "What this really means:" to that statement.

[kingzog]

Welcome to Planet Bob, where the truth takes a back seat to a really good story. (Although, to be honest, often the stories are so transparently false and badly-written that I'm in the same boat you are. comes fairly close to describing it, but I think actually works a bit better.)

[Kzoppistan]

FrancoismofRussia, on Aug 25 2009, 09:14 AM, said:

Why do people always seem to use the same arguments after they have been proven false by the alliance/person they're arguing against? This is a rather illogical system and is rather confounding It makes me go all

Why do you think that is?