What is the lowest "tactic" others use to make their argument?

Question

we're already determined that calling someone "ugly" is low, but what other lame methods are used on here to make an argument.

my personal fave is when the anti-feminists go on about how all feminists are hairy.

Answer 1

What about the sexual orientation? The other one is multiple identities like happy, lena, and mirror. He uses these to further harass those who block him. Faulty studies like the one posted today on dating violence is another ruse.

Answer 2

I think low tactics always backfire because they make the person who made them look like an idiot. My favourite from Gnu's list was "you are on a slippery slope to being a rapist"! The person who said this must have been on the slippery slope from the bar.



My pet peeve is when people misuse stats to make their point. This happens in all areas, but feminism has been guilty of some real beauties that have had a very negative effect on society. The problem is that they get aired in the media, and by the time someone has the time to check them out and debunk them they have already stuck in the popular imagination, or worse end up on the statute books. A good example of this is the myth that domestic violence goes up on Super Bowl Sunday.



Apart from this, an old standard like 'Oh you're just an misogynist' is only a pretty transparent attempt to justify ignoring everything you have ever said or will ever say, usually because the other person has no real counter argument.

Answer 3

Hmm Lowest tactics? Daily questions with anti-feminist stereotypes: why are feminists hairy, lesbians, man-haters along with the nazi, fascist, socialist, communist labels, which of course are not defined in any way, since it's not a question, it's an attack statement.



Boring: Hourly questions about how stupid men and women are, along with questions involving nearly every gender stereotype known to human beings with a pulse.

Answer 4

I agree with you. I think stereotyping of any kind is not only low, but ignorant as well. I think assuming ignorance of the other person is pretty low as is dismissing the other side by saying their opinion "doesn't matter" or is in some other way not important. I feel that blocking the other person shows an inability to accept others views and/or ignore the unwanted (trolls), and therefore shows either cowardliness or lack of control...both of which are low.

Answer 5

My personal favorite is when someone calls you "closed minded" if you don't agree w their position on a subject. No real argument in favor of their side of an issue, just a little name calling. Makes 'em feel superior.

Answer 6

I see superiority without discussion as one of my faves...



Pro-lifers post abortion questions all the time - they offer no interest in hearing the other side, its just a soapbox opportunity for them. Taking the moral highground, supposedly, they look down on anyone who defends a woman's right to abortion, don't listen to any intelligent argument offered and never offer any compelling reason that abortion is wrong!

Answer 7

Normally, I wouldn't do this, but there were some great answers to these two questions I asked awhile back, very apropos:



https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20071106212932AAhbxGU



EDIT



How is posting a study produced by professional and published by a recognized institution a "ruse"? Other posters raised serious questions about the researcher and I appreciated the heads up, but the assumption that the poster shared it in bad faith seems baseless.



it's not like when someone posts some nonsense with no sources from an anti-feminist website.

Answer 8

I've been called a misandrist, feminist, man-hater, fat, old, but haven't been called a lesbian yet or ugly. Won't be batting an eyelid if someone called me them either.

Am just me, and I hate any frigging labels.

Answer 9

I think the cheapest tactic is to call the other person a Communist, or a Nazi, or whatever label you think marks the lowest of the low. How can you argue with it or disprove it?

Answer 10

Slander, oversimplification, hasty generalization, straw man, non sequitur, appeal to ridicule, bandwagon . . .

Answer 11

Telling you your point of view is invalid because you are "In an ivory tower" "on your high horse" "part of the system and therefore part of the problem" "a traitor to your kind" "not a rape/sexism/abuse victim and therefore have no right to speak"

Answer 12

I had a boyfriend who liked to end arguments with "I'm always right, you're always wrong." And then wouldn't say anything else. I hated that.

Answer 13

The weirdos were into trying to "out" participants for awhile as gay or minors or having police records or whatever as though they could harm them that way somehow. So chivalrous.

Answer 14

I especially love it when they write me off as a man-hater even though it's far from the truth.

Answer 15

The worst is when the woman cries, how can you continue with a dispute?

Answer 16

to report your question/answer and to make sure they get deleted by the YA! admin.