Jump to content

What was the worst online argument you ever been in?


Happiness+

Recommended Posts

It speaks volumes to me that we're posing the question as "are traps gay" 

"trap" is considered a slur and is offensive to many trans people (regardless of whether it's just a joke/ironic to you). It's understandable why "MtF people are just women trying to trick men into sucking a dick" is an offensive sentiment. (and that's what you imply by using the word) 

I feel that's somewhat necessary background to be even debating this issue. /shrug

Divorced from that, the question of whether sexuality is inherently related to genitalia is a worthwhile one. My answer would be that we're attracted to masculinity and femininity more than genitalia, but since gender itself is a social construct, some people form a mental connection between genitalia and masculinity/femininity that's inherent to their comprehension of gender, so I'd find it understandable if someone was not attracted to so-called """"""""traps"""""""" because they appeared too masculine to them on the basis of having a penis.

--

The worst online arguments I've had are probably related to atheism and/or politics. Unless you count that one time where my the-best friend laid out how I'd been hurting him and exploiting his trust for the last six months over whatsapp web one day. 

Edited by Funyarinpa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Funyarinpa said:

"trap" is considered a slur and is offensive to many trans people (regardless of whether it's just a joke/ironic to you). It's understandable why "MtF people are just women trying to trick men into sucking a dick" is an offensive sentiment. (and that's what you imply by using the word) 

I've seen that arguement before, but aren't most trap characters just crossdressers, rather than transsexuals? I understand that they might encourage negative stereotypes, but that doesn't seem to be the intention in most cases. 

---

Going back to the topic, I've one had a day-long political arguement with someone on YouTube until we both realized that I've misunderstood his initial arguement and we actually agreed with each other all along. GG. 

Edited by Plk_Lesiak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

I've seen that arguement before, but aren't most trap characters just crossdressers, rather than transsexuals? I understand that they might encourage negative stereotypes, but that doesn't seem to be the intention in most cases. 

---

Going back to the topic, I've one had a day-long political arguement with someone on YouTube until we both realized that I've misunderstood his initial arguement and we actually agreed with each other all along. GG. 

It reinforces harmful stereotypes REGARDLESS of what your intention is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had one argument where one person decided to convince me the Earth is flat. I could counter every single argument he provided, but he just didn't care what I said and he demanded that I couldn't just ignore him. I really wanted to just ban him, but offline business relations forced me to just act nice to all his garbage. Most of the arguments comes down to the world map being wrong because the shortest distance between two places appears to not be a straight line, "proofing" the world is a disc. However that is a known issue when you take a globe and try to put it on a 2D paper. Google Earth draws and calculates on a globe and unsurprisingly it debunks all his arguments.

The flat Earth is a fairly new idea, like a little over a hundred years. The size of the Earth has been known for around 2000 years and the fact that it's a globe has been known much longer. Columbus didn't have problems with people fearing falling off the edge. Instead the argument against him was that he severely underestimated the length of the journey. He would run out of supplies and die of thirst or hunger before reaching Asia. 3 ships were way too expensive to gamble on such a mad man expedition with no chance of success. Lucky for Columbus America exist and he became a hero instead of being a fool who as predicted got himself killed trying to cross the Pacific without enough supplies.

9 hours ago, mitchhamilton said:

also, idk. i once argued with @Dergonu about asuna's nipple or something once.

Pic or it didn't happen :sachi:

8 hours ago, Zenophilious said:

Can you guys take your debate on the gayness of traps somewhere else?  It's getting a bit excessive >.<

Agreed and it should have stopped when I made the post about an objective definition because after that only @Funyarinpa managed to provide anything useful to the argument. I think the issue can be summarized to the fact that non-gay males are attracted to feminine looks, which in itself is not gay. The debate is if it becomes gay to be interested in the groin region even when you know it's a male.

8 hours ago, Zenophilious said:

I think the worst argument I've been in was one that resulted in threats of physical harm.

VNDB had a thread where one person received death threads for preferring voiced VNs over unvoiced ones. No debate or anything. The statement was made and the next post was a death thread. No arguments or explanation or anything else sane, just a death threat. This was followed by 4-5 other posts with harassment, still no arguments before somebody started taking the thread back on track. I wrote this in past tense because the thread ended up looking much different after a mod came by. This was before the cleanup and mass troll banning.

4 hours ago, Funyarinpa said:

The worst online arguments I've had are probably related to atheism and/or politics.

I had one incident which made me completely stop debating politics online. It was one debate where some people called out a politician for being racist and provided evidence in form of a quote. I posted that the quote was fake and debunked and provided a link as proof. After that some mod edited my post and gave me an official warning for promoting hate speech. Apparently it's ok to call people racists based of fake evidence, but it's not ok to say the evidence is proven to be fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, tymmur said:

I have had one argument where one person decided to convince me the Earth is flat.

On yeah, arguing with flat-earthers and young-Earth creationists is a classic... A totally pointless one though. It obvious that if these were rational human beings, open for actual discussion and interested in scientific proofs, they wouldn't believe that crap in the first place. Same goes for hardcore conspiracy theorists, talking to them can't lead to anything, you can just debunk them publicly to save others from falling to the same paranoia, but you won't convince such people of anything - after all every arguement and fact can be rejected by them simply as "part of the conspiracy". 

Edited by Plk_Lesiak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ☆Ayase☆ said:

Friend said that female playing moege is gay... (^^;

This argument is near impossible to win. If that is the attitude you are met with, I wouldn't know how to counter that in a way where the other person could be convinced otherwise.

1 hour ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

Here, on Fuwa, we take word "gay" as a compliment. :mare:

I suspect this depends on who you are asking, but I don't think anybody views it worse than "accepted that other people like that". Personally I have no problem with a female playing moege. In fact it could be moe in itself :wub:

1 hour ago, Plk_Lesiak said:

On yeah, arguing with flat-earthers and young-Earth creationists is a classic...

What made it bad in my case was the business relationship. If it was just some random person from the internet, then I would have banned him when he insisted on me spending time on his nonsense.

Edited by tymmur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mitchhamilton said:

OMG. Flat earther arguments. :notlikemiya:

When people think the earth is flat you know there is no chance of them ever listening to logic. It is probably easier to convince them that the moon is a cheese made by unicorns rather than to actually convince them that the earth is not flat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bakauchuujin said:

When people think the earth is flat you know there is no chance of them ever listening to logic. It is probably easier to convince them that the moon is a cheese made by unicorns rather than to actually convince them that the earth is not flat. 

 

59 minutes ago, Dreamysyu said:

:makina:

yeah, theres no arguing with a flat earther. everything is a conspiracy and everything we know is a lie. "it doesnt make sense because of the moon." the moon isnt real. "gravity wouldnt make sense if the earth was flat." there is no gravity. just AAAAGH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started writing about the Luna landing debate and how both sides tend to rely on awful arguments. "They are the experts. They know how to do the impossible" is not a valid argument even if it is for defending the Apollo program. However I realized it would be a lengthy post about cold war politics and physics and possibly a whole lot of other stuff, which would derail the thread. I think we should just go back to the topic and all agree that it's really stupid to claim either "the moon doesn't exist, the moon is populated with aliens, the Earth is flat" and other stuff of that nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even going to touch the traps = gay argument. 

Honestly, though, ever since Trump got elected to the WH, I've lost contact with several inlaws who think he's the best thing since sliced bread. Granted, the "lost contact" is kind of on my part but after they told me they'd "pray for me", I was like "Buh-bye" and blocked/unfriended them. (To my defense, these people are pretty shitty individuals and are pretty much borderline-white power/supremacists types. Must've really spun their world upside down with their grandson/nephew married an Asian chick. )

Arguing with people who loves Trump and think Hillary Clinton is the devil (Also thinks Alex Jones is telling the truth when he talks about the lizard people) is...the worst thing I've done. I don't even bother anymore. 

Edited by milkteebaby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/04/2018 at 7:53 PM, tymmur said:

I started writing about the Luna landing debate and how both sides tend to rely on awful arguments. "They are the experts. They know how to do the impossible" is not a valid argument even if it is for defending the Apollo program. However I realized it would be a lengthy post about cold war politics and physics and possibly a whole lot of other stuff, which would derail the thread. I think we should just go back to the topic and all agree that it's really stupid to claim either "the moon doesn't exist, the moon is populated with aliens, the Earth is flat" and other stuff of that nature.

Putting refractors on the moon that can be observed in a laboratory by sending a laser right to these exact spots should be a decent proof, no? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kurisu-Chan said:

Putting refractors on the moon that can be observed in a laboratory by sending a laser right to these exact spots should be a decent proof, no? 

No because the surface of the moon is reflective in itself. This mean it should possible to aim the laser at a non-dark spot on the moon and some reflection will come back. I should add that this is not my statement, but rather a statement made in public to debunk the argument regarding the reflectors being proof of the Apollo program. Personally I'm not sure what to make of it. The moon is reflective or it would be all black even during full moon. The question is not if the surface of the moon will reflect a laser beam (it will), but if it will reflect enough to make it detectable from Earth. I don't know the answer to that one.

It's also worth mentioning that even if the surface can reflect, it's not in itself proof that the reflectors are not there.

 

This one of the reasons I don't think we should debate this because it has been debated by scientists for decades and the result seems to be all proof from either side seems to be debunked based on actual science. The motive for a scam is claimed to be to trick the Soviet union to think the Americans had placed nuclear rockets on the moon, which actually makes sense if you know about cold war politics. As a result, debating anything here is pointless because it ends up being religious where each side claim they are right without undeniable proof. Besides I will not enter a debate and argue for one side when I don't know if I'm on the right side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tymmur said:

No because the surface of the moon is reflective in itself. This mean it should possible to aim the laser at a non-dark spot on the moon and some reflection will come back. I should add that this is not my statement, but rather a statement made in public to debunk the argument regarding the reflectors being proof of the Apollo program. Personally I'm not sure what to make of it. The moon is reflective or it would be all black even during full moon. The question is not if the surface of the moon will reflect a laser beam (it will), but if it will reflect enough to make it detectable from Earth. I don't know the answer to that one.

It's also worth mentioning that even if the surface can reflect, it's not in itself proof that the reflectors are not there.

 

This one of the reasons I don't think we should debate this because it has been debated by scientists for decades and the result seems to be all proof from either side seems to be debunked based on actual science. The motive for a scam is claimed to be to trick the Soviet union to think the Americans had placed nuclear rockets on the moon, which actually makes sense if you know about cold war politics. As a result, debating anything here is pointless because it ends up being religious where each side claim they are right without undeniable proof. Besides I will not enter a debate and argue for one side when I don't know if I'm on the right side.

Placing nukes ...on the moon?, ok dude, what kind of community you engage in?

Also, for your answer on refractions, that is the thing, the refractors are specific, they refract light AT the exact same angle you send it, contrary to the moon in itself.

 

Basically, if you send a laser beam to that specific reflector (think of it as a multitude of mirrors that annihilate any kind of transfer) the reflected angle will be the same as the emiting angle, and trust me, you won't get the same result with any other side of the moon reflecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kurisu-Chan said:

Placing nukes ...on the moon?, ok dude, what kind of community you engage in?

A community of nutcases all debating heavily about literature in an alien language, which to a number of people is mainly about getting virtual people to make out. However my involvement with the VN community is irrelevant to this :P

You have to look at this with the eyes of the 60s, not modern eyes. The cold war was raging and the key to success was Mutual assured destruction (MAD). In other words it was all about having nukes, which could be fired even after your own country was gone. If no sides would win, the hope was that nobody on the other side would start an attack. This resulted in a lot of creativity in hiding places and deployment systems. One of them was an orbital weapons platform, which could strike anywhere in the world without warning. It was called Sputnik and was really just a radio transmitter saying bib once in a while. However NATO didn't know that and feared an attack from a location they could not counter and because of that, for MAD purposes it was just as good as if it had been a nuke. The Soviets were winning the space race with placing a man in orbit, first spacewalk and all that. Next came the moon. The soviets built a rocket and designed it to go around the moon and come back. They just had one big problem, which was they did not have a telescope good enough to verify that it would do that. What they did instead was to leak the flight plan complete with timestamps to somebody they suspected of being a spy. UK then monitored the entire flight, verified that it went around the moon as planned and spies in the UK reported back that the mission was a success. It certainly was a creative solution for the Soviets, but it didn't help in hiding that they could not monitor the moon that closely themselves. Now both sides sent a lot of unmanned rockets towards the moon but the Soviets were still leading with the first remote controlled vehicle driving there, first pictures sent back etc. The Americans decided once and for all to beat the Soviets and send people to the moon and get them back again and then they did so multiple times. The Americans did talk about nukes. Now that they were able to land on the moon and launch again, it would be possible to place nukes there, out of reach by the Soviets and make them strike Soviet if needed and they could do nothing about it. There were also talk about making an actual colony on the moon. The Soviets had severe problems. Still without a proper telescope, they had no way of knowing if the Americans actually did place nukes on the moon and as such in the best MAD style, they had to assume and it ended up being as effective as if they had done it. The Soviets did eventually build a telescope good enough to track rocket movement to the moon, but while it was under construction, NASA stopped the moon missions and put in everything on the voyager mission (they discovered the planets would place themselves in a way which would allow one spacecraft to visit all of them in one journey, something which is only possible once every 2xx years and they did not want to miss that chance) and after that it was all about Mars. In other words the Soviets had no way of knowing how many rockets the Americans sent to the moon.

Today it's very clear that no nukes ever made it to the moon and nobody started to build a colony. There was some talking about it and it most likely did trick the Soviets, making it a major MAD victory. The question is if the tricking the Soviets went as far as to fake even getting people up there at all. It's not farfetched compared to what other scams took place during the cold war.

 

In the end, the Soviet Union lost the cold war, but they did win the MAD race. They built submarines, which Russia has today. Think Red October kind of subs. They are constantly hiding under the North Pole and can at any time go through the ice sheet and fire 24 nukes. Their range allows them to even hit the Golf of Mexico and as such all of NATO. We know they are there, but not precisely where and as such they are as unreachable as if they were placed on the moon, The difference is that the subs are real.

10 hours ago, Kurisu-Chan said:

Also, for your answer on refractions, that is the thing, the refractors are specific, they refract light AT the exact same angle you send it, contrary to the moon in itself.

 

Basically, if you send a laser beam to that specific reflector (think of it as a multitude of mirrors that annihilate any kind of transfer) the reflected angle will be the same as the emiting angle, and trust me, you won't get the same result with any other side of the moon reflecting.

Sounds interesting. The problem is that I can't verify if the reflection is in fact polarized or angle of return or anything like that. Also even if the reflectors are there, it's not definitive proof that it was put up by humans. It could have been set up by a remote controlled vehicle, which is still up there. The question is not if rockets ever made it to the moon, but rather if man made it there and came back.

As I wrote earlier, the debate is pointless because it seems that all the evidence can be questioned with reasonable arguments and it goes both ways. As a result, it ends up being a question of who you trust, hence the reference to make it like debating what is "the best religion". You should note that I'm not actually arguing for any side of the argument, only that it's not possible to rule out either side. There is a big difference there. The reason for this is that I don't know what took place and I will not argue for something unless I'm fairly certain I argue for the right side in an argument.

 

 

And now I ended up debating this anyway even though I stated I wouldn't do it. However I felt like I didn't have a choice due to my sanity being questioned. In fact that is mainly what this post is about. The fact that it's about the Apollo program is secondary to defending my sanity in my earlier statement. Also I still think it's off topic and we should end the pointless debate about the Lunar Landings. You should also end questioning my sanity. There is no issue there at all.

Edited by tymmur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The problem is that I can't verify if the reflection is in fact polarized or angle of return or anything like that. Also even if the reflectors are there, it's not definitive proof that it was put up by humans. It could have been set up by a remote controlled vehicle, which is still up there. The question is not if rockets ever made it to the moon, but rather if man made it there and came back."

The difference between a conspiracy theorist and a scientist, is that mathematics is backing up the scientific fact, mathematics is the answer to any scientific doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...