women win in arguments?

They use something Schopenhauer coined: Eristic Dialectic.


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

Schopenhauer would be so proud.

Well anothe point of view could be this one

lol

you dont have to tell me twice about that him being a moron..... all she said i heard was the audible parts i could hear below the room since somehow it was lessening sounds (his room is right below the living room so it was easy to get down on the floor and try to eavesdrop)

... mhmm..... yeah... i know.....

... why did..... bother.... premature.... ejacu......

so.... you're a..... pre..... ejac.... lator......

nope.... you're abso....... a prem.......

But Eristic Dialectic is all about lies, and lies are bad in a relationship. Very bad.

More seriously, Schopenhauer understood the true nature of humand beings, no one is going to fight fairly in those type of arguments, so a victory through eristic dialectic is a glorious and vicious one...

Have you read Schopenhauer's Eristic Dialectic? I did.

And it's not about lies... it's basically about how to make your opponent look bad in an argument, to make it seem like you have the upper hand without having any real arguments.

Ha, also true. Shakespeare sure was right.
In something major, yeah, I'd agree: women ALWAYS want to get back for it.

Meh. I was kidding.

I read "The World as Will and Representation" and studied extracts of his work about eristic dialectic so I understood what you meant.
But arguing "without having real arguments" is against the idea of "Truth", that classicists like Socrate (and Platon I think) wanted to find in dialectic, that's why I said it was lies...


PS : Too bad he couldn't make Hegel look bad with this method...

Schopenhauer, when he "invented" Eristic Dialectic, had a point though; in pursuit of the truth, this "truth" has to be acknowledged as the truth by both sides (or even as an "ultimate truth"), and both sides would stop arguing once they found it.

Do people do that? No. It's also highly debatable if something as "the ultimate and undeniable truth" even exists if arguments (or rather, data that supports those arguments) can't be falsified.

like harmo I can't say i've ever lost an argument with any female; it's cost me a few relationships; but to be perfectly honest if a girl is willing to leave over losing an argument we would never have worked out in the first place. My hot nature and confidence lead me to conflict.

On the first part, if we compare it to the situation where women would win the argument, it's not a pursuit of the truth by both parties, but a "truth" that is imposed to the other party, where it could be called a "victory".

If the truth is reached by both sides, it means first : they are willing to admit a form of truth, and most of the time people just want to prove their point no matter what, even if it is wrong, and second : there is a need of a form of constructive discussion, and in most couples, arguments aren't really "discussion"...Plus, the perception of victory can be really different and both can think they "won"...

But that's really just my opinion based on what you said, if I wanted to answer on the philosphical plan I would have to really study the subject again...I don't want to give philosophical arguments that aren't firmly based.

And I didn't really get your last sentence, can the "ultimate truth" be based on falsified arguments or not? I think you meant that . Correct me if I'm wrong :D

Well, I'm not sure if arguments themselves can be falsified or not, or just the data supporting them (but that's just a minor detail, I guess).

And for the "can the 'ultimate truth' be based on falsified arguments" thingy... we have to assume there was an "ultimate truth" first before we can say anything about it.

I suppose if something like the "ultimate truth" existed, however it may look like, I think it also has aspects that cannot be measured and falsified (even if just for the fact that the human mind cannot grasp everything). But I do not believe in something like that.

GET A ROOM YOU TWO; AND I DON'T MEAN THIS THREAD.


i'm just kidding, go on.

This one is quite interesting.... I think its not true at all that women beat men at arguing nor win fights more than man do :/ When you make a point and u know your right about it u realize that everything shes trying to cover up after that its just a big load of random crap, in fact the more you argue after that point u just play into her hands by even noticing or caring about what she says, the best method i use after dealing the final blow is to calmly deal sarcastic comments or saying that its her own opinion if she doesn't want to accept reality. Like Waar I've screwed up lots of things like that but its not like it bothers me :D

@Waar : We could talk about Schopenhauer theories in German all night long! WOOOOOHOOOO!


@Nash : Are we talking about Platon's ultimate truth? He's idea was the Myth of the Cave thing right?

Theoritically the man turns away from the shadows using the dialectic (Socratic one) to discover and graps the true Idea, the true reality. If knowing the truth comes from dialectic, then it's questionnable on the 'utlimate' part of it, since it comes from two (or more) human's minds. And of course, I agree on the fact that human brains cannot and will never grasp reality as a whole...

Which reminds me that the topic was about women and their ability to mess with men's minds...I don't really think women always win fights I like to believe that we are equals and therefore personality is more important than gender.

I like to argue, it's a hobby of mine. I'll admit defeat when I'm proven wrong, but a majority of the time when I'm arguing with the girl I'm currently in a relationship with, it always resorts to them using outside information and bringing it up like it's a valid point, such as "Well remember that one time you went to that party, and I said don't go to that party but you went anyways and I was mad, and you didn't care and I told you it was over but it wasn't really over?" over an argument about what kind of cereal is better, Cap'n Crunch or Lucky Charms (clearly the Cap'n).
A woman who can beat me in an argument legitimately (basically to the point where I say Touché) is hot. But, she can't just automatically assume because she has a va-jay-jay that she wins everything. It doesn't work that way. "Mind games" are just a pussy tactic when someone realizes they are wrong.

Rhetoric is the art of using language to communicate effectively. It involves three audience appeals: logos, pathos, and ethos*, as well as the five canons of rhetoric: invention or discovery, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic or dialectic, rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.

so many people fail to see, surrender doesn't always mean defeat. in other words pick your battles. i used to date a woman who loved to argue, but was very bad at it. almost imediately logic went out the window. i learned very quickly that no matter if i was right, with logic, evidance, and witnesses, she would never accept that she was wrong.

Discretion is the better part of valor. it's sometimes better to surrender and let someone think they've one. even if they are wrong. being right doesn't always mean you've won. you might win the battle at the cost of losing the war.

gender has little to do with it in my opinion. what i have noticed though is women can be far more cruel than men. some women will cut your very soul with words. men are more likely to resort to violence(aka, argument of the stick).

*[size=10]logic, sympathy, and empathy[/h]

Girls always win arguements right? What happens when two women argue...?!

They eventually start kissing.

LAWL. If only getting along were so easy.
No, most women get catty. Sadly.

*__*
[size=10]Must.... draw.... original-work.... doujin..... *write write write draw draw draw*.....[/h]