HEY DISCORDIA:

[Salty]

You may be a diverse group of people with varied life experiences and perspectives and opinions, but, as evidenced by the most recent DRUGZLOL thread (and the last dozen or so) you all share one commonality:

You take the term "argumentative" and you tie it down to a chair with no seat and beat its testicles in with a rope until it agrees with everything you have to say. Then you drag it down to the sea and shove its face into the waves until it comes up with new evidence to back your claims. Then you tie it upside down beneath a tree branch and shoot it in the abdomen with a potato cannon until it writes a 300 page thesis on why it's fallacious to disagree with you on any subject at any time or space.

EVERY. LAST. ONE OF YOU.
And it makes me lurve you so.

Not me though. I ain't like that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If it's worth jawing about, it's worth taking TO THE WALL.

Even if it's NOT worth jawing about.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

D'AWWWWWWW! 

[Salty]

If every single one of the spags I met IRL are anything to go by, you're all like that IRL too.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

You take that back right now, Alty.

I'll have you know I'm downright pleasant.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

My drunken postings are a lot like my drunken speech except i cant vocalize parentheses.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You may be a diverse group of people with varied life experiences and perspectives and opinions, but, as evidenced by the most recent DRUGZLOL thread (and the last dozen or so) you all share one commonality:

You take the term "argumentative" and you tie it down to a chair with no seat and beat its testicles in with a rope until it agrees with everything you have to say. Then you drag it down to the sea and shove its face into the waves until it comes up with new evidence to back your claims. Then you tie it upside down beneath a tree branch and shoot it in the abdomen with a potato cannon until it writes a 300 page thesis on why it's fallacious to disagree with you on any subject at any time or space.

EVERY. LAST. ONE OF YOU.
And it makes me lurve you so.

Not me though. I ain't like that.

I love you too, Alty.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

That was awesome.

[Triple Zero]

You may be a diverse group of people with varied life experiences and perspectives and opinions, but, as evidenced by the most recent DRUGZLOL thread (and the last dozen or so) you all share one commonality:

You take the term "argumentative" and you tie it down to a chair with no seat and beat its testicles in with a rope until it agrees with everything you have to say. Then you drag it down to the sea and shove its face into the waves until it comes up with new evidence to back your claims. Then you tie it upside down beneath a tree branch and shoot it in the abdomen with a potato cannon until it writes a 300 page thesis on why it's fallacious to disagree with you on any subject at any time or space.

EVERY. LAST. ONE OF YOU.
And it makes me lurve you so.

Not me though. I ain't like that.

THIS

IS

DISCORDIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

STRIFE MOTHERFUCKERS

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You may be a diverse group of people with varied life experiences and perspectives and opinions, but, as evidenced by the most recent DRUGZLOL thread (and the last dozen or so) you all share one commonality:

You take the term "argumentative" and you tie it down to a chair with no seat and beat its testicles in with a rope until it agrees with everything you have to say. Then you drag it down to the sea and shove its face into the waves until it comes up with new evidence to back your claims. Then you tie it upside down beneath a tree branch and shoot it in the abdomen with a potato cannon until it writes a 300 page thesis on why it's fallacious to disagree with you on any subject at any time or space.

EVERY. LAST. ONE OF YOU.
And it makes me lurve you so.

Not me though. I ain't like that.

Hail Yes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic

... refers to a type of argument where the participants fight and quarrel without any reasonable goal.

The aim usually is to win the argument and/or to engage into a conflict for the sole purpose of wasting time through arguments, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic.

[Placid Dingo]

You may be a diverse group of people with varied life experiences and perspectives and opinions, but, as evidenced by the most recent DRUGZLOL thread (and the last dozen or so) you all share one commonality:

You take the term "argumentative" and you tie it down to a chair with no seat and beat its testicles in with a rope until it agrees with everything you have to say. Then you drag it down to the sea and shove its face into the waves until it comes up with new evidence to back your claims. Then you tie it upside down beneath a tree branch and shoot it in the abdomen with a potato cannon until it writes a 300 page thesis on why it's fallacious to disagree with you on any subject at any time or space.

EVERY. LAST. ONE OF YOU.
And it makes me lurve you so.

Not me though. I ain't like that.

Hail Yes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic

... refers to a type of argument where the participants fight and quarrel without any reasonable goal.

The aim usually is to win the argument and/or to engage into a conflict for the sole purpose of wasting time through arguments, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic.

Cool Rat! Following that I found this; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthydemus_(dialogue)#section_1

It's a parody of Eristic Argument by Plato.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You may be a diverse group of people with varied life experiences and perspectives and opinions, but, as evidenced by the most recent DRUGZLOL thread (and the last dozen or so) you all share one commonality:

You take the term "argumentative" and you tie it down to a chair with no seat and beat its testicles in with a rope until it agrees with everything you have to say. Then you drag it down to the sea and shove its face into the waves until it comes up with new evidence to back your claims. Then you tie it upside down beneath a tree branch and shoot it in the abdomen with a potato cannon until it writes a 300 page thesis on why it's fallacious to disagree with you on any subject at any time or space.

EVERY. LAST. ONE OF YOU.
And it makes me lurve you so.

Not me though. I ain't like that.

Hail Yes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic

... refers to a type of argument where the participants fight and quarrel without any reasonable goal.

The aim usually is to win the argument and/or to engage into a conflict for the sole purpose of wasting time through arguments, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic.

Cool Rat! Following that I found this; http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthydemus_(dialogue)#section_1

It's a parody of Eristic Argument by Plato.

Yep. It was an example given in one of the philosophy encyclopedias that Purpleris showed me. Schopenhauer book on how to win an argument is a satire of eristic arguments as well. Schopenhauer gave it a positive spin when he framed it as a type of debate designed to pick out flaws in logical debate... but then he had only stopped beating his wife in the six months before he published the book, so fuck him.

[Triple Zero]

Well since we're going there, let me link you guys to Schopenhauer's wonderful Stratagems on Eristic Debate:

The Art of Controversy

Highly recommended reading for those who haven't yet. It's not long and the examples will appear entertainingly familiar It's a bit like those lists of common fallacies, except reverse engineered for offence purposes. And recognizing the stratagems in your opponent also arms your defence (Schopenhauer also describes how to defeat them). In fact I'm going to say this is required reading for trolls.


Ah, Rat beat me to it

But satire? You sure? It may be a somewhat frivolous topic, but Schopenhauer's treatment of it is quite thorough, useful and accurate.

[Triple Zero]

One of the more useful things he points out, for instance, is that while dirty tricks may not help to convince your opponent, they may still win over the audience, which is just as good if not better, in the right circumstances.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yeah... satire was the wrong word. The Art of Controversy seemed to be a "here's how to be an asshole in debate" kind of writing to me, but maybe that's partly due to the translation?