How is that possible

[Jango_Fett]

You know how you feel like there is that one person who goes out of their way on a thread to make you look like the biggest idiot, and gets supported?  And then the next thread you go to they act totally as if you two never argued and agrees with you 'Totally'


^ Yeah, not the best Ex, but you get the gist of it.


How is that even possible?  it Drives me INSANE!
 

[Silhouette]

You know how you feel like there is that one person who goes out of their way on a thread to make you look like the biggest idiot, and gets supported?  And then the next thread you go to they act totally as if you two never argued and agrees with you 'Totally'


^ Yeah, not the best Ex, but you get the gist of it.


How is that even possible?  it Drives me INSANE!
 

This is everywhere. Most people aren't intentionally trying to make you look stupid, but rather disagree and support their disagreement with evidence. Now consequently if you as the opposing party did not do your research and end looking like a fool, that isn't their fault. This is how the world works, be it on the internet or not.

Second, its VERY easy and certainly possible to agree with someone on one subject and disagree on another. For example, if you said (this is just a made-up example, so don't take this seriously) that you liked the fact there is bullying in school in one thread, and also said you hated dog fighting in another thread, I would disagree with you in the first thread and pile up all of my support and evidence against you and that claim, whereas in the second thread, I'd agree with you on that subject and pile up all of my evidence and examples to support you and that claim.

In either situation, people are neither trying to be your friend nor are they attacking you. They're just agreeing or disagreeing and just because the opposing party ends up presenting an argument with more support or logic that the majority agrees with doesn't make them the bully you seem to be making them out to be. It simply means you're losing the argument and either need to come back with a better case with support or you need to put on your big girl/big boy pants and acknowledge you're making a poorly supported claim, you lost, and let it go. Believe me, I've had to do the latter before, and while its certainly not easy, its just something you have to do sometimes. Can't win them all.

If ever find that you are the "odd man out" on a thread and find people are supporting what you disagree with, think about what is being said.  If you don't have evidence to back your claims, people will /never/ take you seriously, be it on the internet or in real life. Otherwise, I could photograph a horse, photoshop wings on it, and have people actually believe its a Pegasus but you and I both know that without real solid evidence (which in this case would have to be bringing them to see the "Pegasus" in person), they won't believe/agree with me and its the same sort of thing on a topic.

I've agreed with you on some threads, and not others, and when the opportunity presents itself to prove what I say is right and what you say is wrong, I will do it with every ounce of evidence and examples that I have. I would do that to anyone and so would anyone else who's ever learned how to debate properly.

[Delija]

Enugh... I know how you feel, people like that drive me insane, but then again, people will be people and try and be your best friend, even if they hate you or disagree with things.

[Silhouette]

Enugh... I know how you feel, people like that drive me insane, but then again, people will be people and try and be your best friend, even if they hate you or disagree with things.

In my opinion, I must say that to think that your friends have to agree with you on EVERYTHING and /always/ be on your side is an extremely unrealistic expectation to have about other people/the world round you.

I have plenty of friends with whom I don't agree with. And just because someone disagrees with you and proves you wrong does not mean that they hate you, either. I've had a friend for several years with whom I agree with about the subject of abortion and whether or not its right or wrong but we disagree about whether or not birth control is right or wrong. I don't expect her to agree with me on every little thing. That would be like a two year old throwing a tantrum because he can't have his way.

[Jango_Fett]

Neither of us said this Silhouette,

And this is what I am talking about, when some one thinks they are right, they will sometimes claim that the opponent did not do they're 'Research', and even IF the opponent DID, 'Research', no one will listen to them, they will 'Flock' to the 'Winning' team, leaving the opponent in the dust, and very, very, very, Annoyed.   

[Silhouette]

Neither of us said this Silhouette,

And this is what I am talking about, when some one thinks they are right, they will sometimes claim that the opponent did not do they're 'Research', and even IF the opponent DID, 'Research', no one will listen to them, they will 'Flock' to the 'Winning' team, leaving the opponent in the dust, and very, very, very, Annoyed.   

You'll have to excuse me for being exceptionally blunt here and for once I kind of wish there was a softer way to phrase it but what it sounds to me like is that you take losing an argument /way/ too personally. o_o.

If you have solid research, that is to say, you ACTUALLY provide a link to a legitimate source like a scholarly website or news source, not wikipedia.org or some random website like "myhappydog.com"

 If you refer back to the Wolfspeaker thread (I'm using this because its probably the easiest to make an example out of) you'll see why there is a difference in opinion. There is nothing to support that wolf-speak phrases are actual words being used in that context. If you look up the word "banner" yeah, you'll find a definition in the dictionary which /is/ a reliable source /however/ nowhere does it say the word "banner" is defined as "tail." That's simply a fact that can't be denied. If someone presents a fact like this as evidence, and the opposing party does not have anything solid (that is to say, something from an equally reliable source like the dictionary) for their side of the argument, they lose. That's how an argument works. This is why you find most people find wolfspeak improper. Real words being used with incorrect/nonexistant definitions. Does that make sense?

People will believe and consequently, support (or according to the term you used "flock to") the most convincing person and if that doesn't turn out to be you, you need to suck it up and go on, rather than get bent out of shape about it.

Yes, its annoying but I hate to be the barer of bad news, that's just how it works. How else do you expect for an argument to end? Its a legitimate question, how does an argument end if one party is more convincing and the other is not other than the latter party losing? Arguments usually only end three ways.

Side A wins, Side B loses
Side A loses, Side B wins
or both have an equal amount of support and it comes to a standstill from which neither side profits.

[Lady_Alizarin]

Neither of us said this Silhouette,

And this is what I am talking about, when some one thinks they are right, they will sometimes claim that the opponent did not do they're 'Research', and even IF the opponent DID, 'Research', no one will listen to them, they will 'Flock' to the 'Winning' team, leaving the opponent in the dust, and very, very, very, Annoyed.  

I honestly think you don't understand what Silhouette is trying to tell you.

During my time on these FH forums, I've come across many topics and subjects and stated my own opinions on what I thought about each of them. No matter who started the subject, whether it was a friend or someone I barely know in this community, there have been times when I would agree or disagree with what they had to say. If I didn't agree with their point-of-view, I would share my own opinions on the matter and why I thought they were wrong. While doing that, I wouldn't try to make the person look like some kind of fool. I was just telling them why I thought they were wrong.

Here's an example:

A long time ago, there was a member of the community who posted a ranting subject about Warrior Cats and Warrior Cat roleplayers. This person said alot of hurtful and hateful things about Warrior Cats, and called the fandom stupid, illiterate, powerplayers, map-claimers, and so on. This person went on and on telling everyone how much he/she hated Warrior Cats and WC roleplayers. Now, all of those things he/she said made alot of people upset and deeply offended, including myself. Why? Not every Warrior Cat roleplayer does the kind of things he/she accused all of them doing. I too participate in WC roleplays and have a few WC characters, so not only was this person throwing these insults at my friends, they were also throwing these insults at me. There are some WC roleplayers who map-claim, powerplay, and godmodd... but NOT ALL of them do that, AND it's not always the Warrior roleplayers. I've seen plenty of wolf, lion, tiger, fox, horse, and dragon characters do the same things. In my response to this persons little rant, I said that he/she was wrong to say such things about people who like to participate in Warrior roleplays. I said to him/her that the people playing Warrior characters are just human beings like everyone else in this community. I wrote a long post as to why I thought he/she was wrong and pointed out all my reasonings and opinions to support my words.
What did the person who wrote the whole rant do about it? They pretty much said that all those who disagreed with him/her were a bunch of haters that chose the side of the "illiterate powerplaying Warriors". We weren't hating on this person. We were just being reasonable and telling him/her the flaws in the rant they posted. And not only that, some of the people who were defending the Warrior roleplayers were not Warrior fans. They didn't like to participate in Warrior roleplays, yet they still thought this person was being unfair by calling all of them illiterate powerplayers. "Dude, I may not roleplay Warrior Cats, but what you said was rude and unfair," kind of thing. A mod had to delete the entire thread because the discussion turned into a big ranting arguement.

On any of the thread discussions I make, there are some people who agree with what I have to say and then there are those who do not. I have plenty of friends on this forum site that don't always agree with what I have to say. If they reply to my posts with their own feedback as to why they don't agree, I'm not going to get mad about it. It's their opinion, and they are just trying to make a say in what they think. Sometimes their feedback makes me see things in a different light.

So if you think somone doesn't agree with you on a certain subject, DON'T take it personally. Not everyone is going to agree with everything and no one is trying to make you look like a fool when they give their own feedback.

[Jango_Fett]

Here's where you're both wrong: I. Don't. Take. It. Personally.

I don't.  I might have a long time ago, but since some, *Ahem* People, have tried to debate with me and such, its not personel.  Has not been for a while now actually.

Don't know where you got that idea, but its only when you call me something I'm not that I take it personally.

[Lady_Alizarin]

You claim that it drives you insane when someone debates against you, they get many supporters, and you say it makes you look like an idiot. You wonder why someone argues against you in one topic then agrees with you in another... and you say it drives you insane, yet you claim you don't take it personally?

......How is that even possible?

Are you looking for a specific explination here?

[Jango_Fett]

You claim that it drives you insane when someone debates against you, they get many supporters, and you say it makes you look like an idiot. You wonder why someone argues against you in one topic then agrees with you in another... and you say it drives you insane, yet you claim you don't take it personally?

......How is that even possible?

Are you looking for a specific explination here?

What I meant was, I don't take it personally, but when I think about how they just tried to make me look like a fool, and then, 'Support' me in something else, as if they never disagreed with me ever.
This is what I had meant.