[QUOTE=phygon;53138905]I posted a book's worth of arguments and I had said all that I had to say, very few points within which were refuted. Of course I moved on, I'm not going to obsessively argue with multiple people for days. Are you actually getting down on me for not being obsessive enough in defending my position after I defended it for multiple days?[/QUOTE]
Actually basically all your points were refuted. You just refused to accept them or flat out ignored them then jumped thread when you couldn't refute anymore points.
[QUOTE]Are you actually getting down on me for not being obsessive enough in defending my position after I defended it for multiple days?[/QUOTE]
No, I'm getting on you for proving you had no idea what you were talking about then still refusing to even accept you were wrong (as proven by your posts thus far in this thread), let alone actually admitting as much.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53139601]He's allowed to have that opinion. I do the same thing as he does really, argue across threads. Nothing wrong with that.[/QUOTE]
His opinion was outright proven wrong, he was not only entirely incorrect on most of his argument but on many points he proved that he didn't even have functional knowledge of the subject to begin with. As for the latter point, you're mistaken. What you're talking about is not what he did. What phygon did was the same as what certain infamous Trump supporters do where they might stick around and argue for awhile but as soon as they're no longer capable of arguing back they jump ship rather than admitting they were wrong and wait for another thread on the same subject to pop up hoping that the same people don't come back with the same arguments that previously deconstructed their entire point.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53140262]
His opinion was outright proven wrong, he was not only entirely incorrect on most of his argument but on many points he proved that he didn't even have functional knowledge of the subject to begin with. As for the latter point, you're mistaken. What you're talking about is not what he did. What phygon did was the same as what certain infamous Trump supporters do where they might stick around and argue for awhile but as soon as they're no longer capable of arguing back they jump ship rather than admitting they were wrong and wait for another thread on the same subject to pop up hoping that the same people don't come back with the same arguments that previously deconstructed their entire point.[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. I directly argued my points, a couple of which were refuted. I presented my case plainly and clearly and I took a stance on it. You don't agree with me, that's fine. But please don't compare me to Tudd, it's completely disingenuous.
At this point, this is pretty clearly a personal attack and I'm not exactly sure why you're pursuing it instead of actually attempting to talk about specific points. My argument the entire time was that it's not unethical so long as users are informed. That was literally all that I was saying. I also had a tertiary point that it did not cause damage, which it was proven that it likely did over extended time, so I [I]conceded on that point.[/I]
You can't "prove" my argument that it's not unethical to be wrong. It's not something that is or is not a fact. My main talking point was completely subjective. My arguments were mostly based around my position that it is not reasonable to draw an arbitrary line in the sand on what is and is not acceptable script usage so long as it does not violate the sandbox.
Honestly, with the way that you and several other users were approaching the issue, is it even remotely surprising that I left the thread? I posted paragraphs explaining my position and it was met with a bunch of "you are a fucking idiot/bad person/I do not agree" etc, so there wasn't anything else to continue discussing. The way that you're approaching this is kind of unbelievable, to be completely honest. You disagree with me, I attempted to debate, but you want to argue.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53140262]What phygon did was the same as what certain infamous Trump supporters do [/QUOTE]
So, people aren't even directly calling Tudd out any more, he's sinned in the eyes of the public that he's become the one that must not be named.
I'm jealous, I wish people hated me this much, but instead they just laugh at me. God I can't even do that much correctly!
[QUOTE=Alice3173;53140262]rather than admitting they were wrong and wait for another thread on the same subject to pop up hoping that the same people don't come back with the same arguments that previously deconstructed their entire point.[/QUOTE]
What ever happened to just disagreeing with someone, now we have to have them admit they were wrong. They can't reflect and maybe adjust their views over time, or they can't have simply kept their views because of their own reasons. It's not a victory until there is a defeat.
I disagree'd with him hard the whole time but there were some good points against my own he brought up, through my misrepresentation of his points.
i'm usually good at trying to 'read into' what someones saying and there were still a few things I didn't quite catch.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53140300]So, people aren't even directly calling Tudd out any more, he's sinned in the eyes of the public that he's become the one that must not be named.
I'm jealous, I wish people hated me this much, but instead they just laugh at me. God I can't even do that much correctly![/QUOTE]
Actually I was referring to Chonch, sgman, and Conscript in particular rather than Tudd and I was avoiding names since I wasn't trying to call them out so much as explaining there was a difference between what you were talking about and what I'd meant.
[QUOTE]What ever happened to just disagreeing with someone, now we have to have them admit they were wrong. They can't reflect and maybe adjust their views over time, or they can't have simply kept their views because of their own reasons. It's not a victory until there is a defeat.
I disagree'd with him hard the whole time but there were some good points against my own he brought up, through my misrepresentation of his points.
i'm usually good at trying to 'read into' what someones saying and there were still a few things I didn't quite catch.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that it's become commonplace to push your views and utterly ignore all counterpoints and when you can no longer ignore them you jump ship until you have a chance to do the same thing. It does not make for healthy discourse. Or really anything actually resembling real discourse. It's literally just one person (or group) stuffing their fingers in their ears and just constantly yelling their point over everyone else constantly.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53140300]What ever happened to just disagreeing with someone, now we have to have them admit they were wrong. They can't reflect and maybe adjust their views over time, or they can't have simply kept their views because of their own reasons. It's not a victory until there is a defeat.[/quote]
Or, instead: People are tired about having to have the same debates over and over with the same persons discussing the same points - but always starting over 'from scratch' in each case because there are people who will not be moved but continue to insist that their opinion is a valid one even if and especially if directly debunked or refuted. Imagine investing 2 hours of your life to try and change an incredibly stubborn person's opinion who, throughout that debate, continues to imply that they are being reasonable, are reading the posts in question, and so forth -- and then ultimately leaves the thread while stating 'this is going nowhere' when their position becomes untenable and they are no longer able to refute or rebut people's issues with their claims, only for them to pop up in the next one stating the exact same things they said before.
It's not about 'not allowing people to reflect and maybe adjust their views over time'. It's about someone repeatedly stating the same thing and getting into the same debates over and over while never conceding literally anything more than just a 'perhaps I was wrong' - which is then immediately rescinded as 'nah, I wasn't' the next time said thread pops up. When they do, they claim that they were victorious the last time this thing was discussed and that the last thread just 'became hostile' which is why they left.
On-topic: This is a pretty disgusting practice Salon's engaging in here. You can't just presume a user's consent when they look for more information on what they'd be consenting to. That's like an army recruiter walking up, asking if you'd be interested in hearing him out on why you should join the military, you saying 'sure', and them signing you up for the military, forging your signature, hauling you off to boot camp as they hand you your fatigues, all the while explaining why you should join the military and repeatedly stating 'this is just a discussion about what would happen if you joined'.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53140344] When they do, they claim that they were victorious the last time this thing was discussed and that the last thread just 'became hostile' which is why they left.
[/QUOTE]
Where exactly did I declare I was victorious?
Furthermore, where did I rescind my concession? I flatly admitted that I was wrong on a few points earlier in this thread. You're getting angry about something that isn't even happening.
[QUOTE=phygon;53140463]Where exactly did I declare I was victorious?
Furthermore, where did I rescind my concession? I flatly admitted that I was wrong on a few points earlier in this thread. You're getting angry about something that isn't even happening.[/QUOTE]
[quote]You can't "prove" my argument that it's not unethical to be wrong. It's not something that is or is not a fact. My main talking point was completely subjective. My arguments were mostly based around my position that it is not reasonable to draw an arbitrary line in the sand on what is and is not acceptable script usage so long as it does not violate the sandbox.[/quote]
Said arguments were shown to be false-in-nature as people did demonstrate that it was reasonable to draw an 'arbitrary line in the sand' because 'it's not unethical to be wrong' is not a subjective assertion to begin with - it's a moral quandary that [I]can[/I] and [I]was[/I] objectively debated. Your refusal to abandon that stance because you feel it is 'above discussion' is to declare yourself 'victorious' unilaterally.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53140464]Said arguments were shown to be false-in-nature as people did demonstrate that it was reasonable to draw an 'arbitrary line in the sand' because 'it's not unethical to be wrong' is not a subjective assertion to begin with - it's a moral quandary that [I]can[/I] and [I]was[/I] objectively debated. Your refusal to abandon that stance because you feel it is 'above discussion' is to declare yourself 'victorious' unilaterally.[/QUOTE]
I don't feel it is above discussion. I'm not declaring myself victorious, either.
I was arguing my stance and quite frankly that was that. You cannot objectively show that it is okay vs not okay to draw a line in the sand. It's something that is completely open to debate. I'm not going to abandon my stance on the matter of cryptominers that let their presence be known because I have not even remotely begun to be presented with compelling evidence that cryptominers that announce their presence are somehow immoral.
I'm not saying that my stance is objectively correct, or that it's above discussion. I'm saying that it's something the nature of which can literally not be truly "proven", so to claim that it has is just... false. Because you're acting like I was arguing something that I wasn't.
I didn't evaporate from the thread, I didn't drive-by shitpost, and I most definitely did not tudd in the thread. I attempted to debate about my stance and why I felt that way. Some people participated in the debate, others argued. The thread was no longer producing productive discussion, so I left it.
Attempting to start bizarre personal drama in this particular way is honestly flatly ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53140464]Said arguments were shown to be false-in-nature as people did demonstrate that it was reasonable to draw an 'arbitrary line in the sand' because 'it's not unethical to be wrong' is not a subjective assertion to begin with - it's a moral quandary that [I]can[/I] and [I]was[/I] objectively debated. Your refusal to abandon that stance because you feel it is 'above discussion' is to declare yourself 'victorious' unilaterally.[/QUOTE]
How is this in any way relevant to this thread? As far as I can see the only claims phygon has made are that A. ads exist to sustain websites (true) and B. that webgl can't access a GPU (already debunked and discussed).
It sure looks to me like you're just dragging shit in from previous threads without even the context to make it anything more than a personal callout.
[quote=phygon]Attempting to start bizarre personal drama in this particular way is honestly flatly ridiculous.[/quote]
You brought and reopened the argument, that means it's open for debate. It's not a 'bizarre personal drama' - it's you defending that 'this topic is not the same as that topic' despite you going over the exact same things you did there here again.
[quote]I completely fail to see how that's relevant at all. I also did not say that it was perfectly moral to do it without notifying anyone, that was actually one of my major points for the entirety of the debate.[/quote]
You qualify your every statement with an adjective to make it so that your point appears to be more 'stance' than 'statement of fact' - but your assertions are stated as if they were factual and non-debatable. For instance, you state 'I didn't say it was perfectly moral' - which can still be rightly interpreted as 'it can be moral, imperfectly' and is still stating that it is nonetheless at least somewhat 'moral'. Then you assert that I can't demonstrate that something that can only be 'imperfectly moral' is not inherently immoral as an objective fact. I've just done that in the prior sentence - which makes it a debate we can have objectively. I say these things here to prime further discussion with you because the last discussion we had was one where those things I've pointed out were things you tapdanced around for many pages and is core to your stance itself - and all to prime this question:
Will you admit that there can and should be a line drawn in the sand for cryptominers who 'let their presence be known' in a deceiving manner to the customer (in that they obfuscate or disguise themselves) where they activate without the user [I]knowingly[/I] consenting to donate their power and hardware to the cryptominer? And by 'knowingly' I mean they must know the exact ramifications and costs of the acknowledgement that they would provide (including potential costs to their utilities, wear on their hardware, usage of their data-plan/bandwidth for this particular usage, et cetera) before they are allowed to acknowledge.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53140344]Imagine investing 2 hours of your life to try and change an incredibly stubborn person's opinion[/QUOTE]
an internet debate isn't about changing the person you're debating's opinions but trying to convince any potential audience to agree with your arguments
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53140518]an internet debate isn't about changing the person you're debating's opinions but trying to convince any potential audience to agree with your arguments[/QUOTE]
To do so, however, you often have to change their opinions through produced fact and reasonable debate/interpretation - otherwise they may (and sometimes do) assert throughout that said bystander audience should simply dismiss what you've brought. I can't know what the audience does or doesn't know well enough to educate/inform them - but I do know what my debate-partner's opinions and brought facts are and can debate those.
[QUOTE=phygon;53140298]But please don't compare me to Tudd, it's completely disingenuous. [/QUOTE]
I won't, but my reason is that wouldn't be fair to Tudd.
I don't think he's the kind of guy who'd just mine bitcoins without consent like that. He's a conservative, not a monster.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53140518]an internet debate isn't about changing the person you're debating's opinions but trying to convince any potential audience to agree with your arguments[/QUOTE]
Or rather, no one is obliged to change their opinions after having a discussion with you, no matter how much you think you're right. Like it's OK to walk away from a discussion with "we'll just have to agree to disagree".
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53140511]
You brought and reopened the argument, that means it's open for debate. It's not a 'bizarre personal drama' - it's you defending that 'this topic is not the same as that topic' despite you going over the exact same things you did there here again.[/QUOTE]
Except I wasn't re-kindling the debate, and his post was not about the topic- it was about me.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53140511]
Will you admit that there can and should be a line drawn in the sand for cryptominers who 'let their presence be known' in a deceiving manner to the customer (in that they obfuscate or disguise themselves) where they activate without the user [I]knowingly[/I] consenting to donate their power and hardware to the cryptominer? And by 'knowingly' I mean they must know the exact ramifications and costs of the acknowledgement that they would provide (including potential costs to their utilities, wear on their hardware, usage of their data-plan/bandwidth for this particular usage, et cetera) before they are allowed to acknowledge.[/QUOTE]
Well, partially.[B] I've always agreed that they shouldn't hide themselves[/B] (I've actually restated this many times at this point lmao). However, I think that expecting them to have a weird contract like you're explaining wouldn't be particularly reasonable. Advertisements are not held to the same standard, neither is essentially anything else. For some reason, you are acting like this takes your processor and beats it into pieces when it is literally no worse than any other strenuous task.
With that being said, I don't think it would be unreasonable to require websites to have a pop up that says "We are going to use your processing power to mine cryptocurrency, click here for more information" that explains details about exactly what it is that they're doing and why they're doing it, similar to the cookie law.
[editline]19th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53140344]Imagine investing 2 hours of your life to try and change an incredibly stubborn person's opinion who, throughout that debate, continues to imply that they are being reasonable, are reading the posts in question, and so forth -- and then ultimately leaves the thread while stating 'this is going nowhere' when their position becomes untenable and they are no longer able to refute or rebut people's issues with their claims, only for them to pop up in the next one stating the exact same things they said before.[/quote]
Also, to jump back to this for a second;
My position did not become untenable, I [I]was[/I] being reasonable for the entirety of the discussion, and when facts were brought up I literally instantaneously admitted that those positions might not be correct. Granted, the source offered was a [I]several hundred page document[/I] and no specific page was given, which is why I didn't immediately and fully back down from that point.
You need to realize that I was responding not only to you, but also to many others, and honestly the vast majority of the "gotchas" just flatly did not pan out logically, like comparisons to breaking and entering, throwing stuff in the back of your truck, using your grill, or, well, any of the physical analogies offered. I spent far more than just two hours participating in that thread and honestly by the time I left, productive discussion wasn't happening. Not because I was "losing", but because there was a back and forth of people making assertions that I had already stated my case against, which I did not believe. What more was to be gained from that thread? Furthermore, where did I state anything I said before?
[editline]s[/editline]
[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53141426]I won't, but my reason is that wouldn't be fair to Tudd.
I don't think he's the kind of guy who'd just mine bitcoins without consent like that. He's a conservative, not a monster.[/QUOTE]
Good thing my stance this entire time has been that websites should inform users, eh?
If for one like this system because if I get hooked into click bait it’s a nice reminder to turn around.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
