Do you find yourself reacting personally to really bad logic on Fluther?

I think clowns have the right to be anywhere (grin).

Personally, I make it a policy never to use any logic whatsoever. So this kind of thing never bothers me.

There are many on here who are having problems in their lives and sometimes it manifests itself by them being difficult to others if only for a while. Usually it all just blows over.
Yes I have experienced this. To those who have acted in such ways…you know who you are.

One of the “benefits” of Fluther and presumeably other online forums is that you get to have your buttons pushed ad nauseum (and for free!). Like other emotions or arguments that surface repeatedly on this site, the experience of getting the same buttons pushed over and over affords you the opportunity to (for example) use righteous indignation as a strategy/response and judge how effective it is over time, both in terms of how it affects friends and enemies and the feeling(s) you are left with having aired your opinion.

Speaking from experience, the whack-a-mole (or troll) approach doesn’t eliminate the idiocy or ignorance and mostly leaves you with your panties in a twist. In the long run it’s probably better to err on the side of compassion for the people who need educating.

No comment.

Can’t Fluther! Clowns will eat me!

That’s the problem! D:
You never know their tone. They could be kidding, but unless they say so you don’t know.

One of the very reasons I keep the clowns locked in the basement.

No clowning around now!

Bad logic posted on Fluther is easy to respond to or ignore for many members. Intent versus effect of a question or answer isn’t always clear when posted on a web site. Case in point, I don’t know whether you are serious in asking this question or not.

Maybe I am being too sensitive. A former Jelly sent me a PM this week saying that they were leaving the site as they felt only ill will and then closed their account.

I only get insulted or take it personally when it seems someone is either doing it on purpose to cover their bad argument, or just being lazy and not trying to use logic. When they’re genuinely lacking in knowledge of logical debate, or seem incapable, I get annoyed but don’t take it personally.

But I’ve definitely been known to be kind of an ass when trying to correct the poor logic in another’s argument. It’s nothing personal, I’m just a bit of an ass sometimes.

When I run into them, I run the other way. By definition, you cannot argue with some one who has a delusion, so there is no point in taking them on.

@Sunny2 But but but…it’s so tempting. And if you just get the exact right argument…yea, it’s still pretty pointless.

Ooh, I’ve dealt enough with trolls in real life. If I think a person is for real, I’ll help with an answer to the best of my knowledge, but even if the asker is a troll perhaps something I put down here can help someone else who’s reading it.

@incendiary_dan Go ahead, be my guest. I guess I don’t have the facility for arguing, much less the time and inclination.
I agree with @aprilsimnel .

It doesn’t bother me. If it’s really offensive I might think “oh you stupid @#$%...” but that’s the way of the world. Illogical people abound. Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy? We may very well be headed in that direction.

Nah, I find myself laughing at the ineptitude of the delusional/bewildered.

But it’s their problem, not yours. I’m genuinely struggling to see why it should be an insult to you. If you have been clear and logical in your thesis or argument then you should have no worries. If they have failed to read or take the time to think through the issue then they are sloppy, not you.

I’m terribly unassertive but I like the technique of acknowledging their point and then repeating yours. So:
“People shouldn’t be allowed to go through airport security in clown makeup even if they are clowns.”
“Clowns have just as much right to use the public library as you do. Why do you think clowns are inferior?”
” that’s an interesting point about clowns in libraries but I’m talking about clowns wearing make up that hides their faces, this is a security problem at airports”
” But books are for everyone and clowns will read all sorts, not just the circus manuals”
” I hear what you are saying about libraries but clowns wearing make up going through airport security are a security risk becasue their faces can’t be seen”.

Keep saying it till they acknowledge your point, then you can move on.

I try to ignore it but don’t always succeed and that’s my own shortfall.

What doesn’t sound logic to me is that someone would reply that clowns have the right to visit a public library too, when the question was about airport security….

@rebbel do you think @6rant6 meant to place the clown solely in the airport but started off with the clown in a library? I think that would be logical as it is a big leap to get from an airport to a library. They’re not often associated together. I had thought it was just a way to illustrate the ridiculousness of the non-logical argument but you could be right. My assertive technique still holds though whether the clown is off on holiday or looking for some light reading or a combo.

Libraries, airports… they’re everywhere you look.

So are the clowns

“Sure as snot” is my new phrase!

I don’t like clowns.

Bad logic doesn’t personally offend me, but self-righteousness makes me feel tense and sets off my fight-or-flight reaction. Which is totally irrational, because nothing I see in a computer can actually hurt me. But it still happens.

I wield bad logic the the skill and precision of a ninja. For example, death and taxes are the only sure things—there is no certainty attached to snot. S’not hard at all until it congeals into buggars.

I actually find myself more irritated by people who rattle off lists of the Latin names of logical fallacies rather than presenting actual counter arguments than I do with people who argue with bad logic in the first place.

Fact from fiction.