JJ's arguing style is maddening
Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:04 am
I find JJ's style of argument absolutely infuriating most of the time, occasionally he is coherent, cogent and logical but often, when dealing with complex issues, he is simply idiotic, illogical and diversionary, and quashes his opponent with the volume and venom of the drivel he delivers.
One can supposed that his intellectual faculties are compromised by his high emotions in mid-argument but some examples of his logic and understanding of human behaviour seem to be so utterly invalid this could be a very generous interpretation of his problems.
For instance, when he was complaining about Ife commenting to Josie on the reasons for his retiring to the diary room following his distressing argument with Josie, he couldn't understand that Ife was entitled to express her opinions for his behaviour, particularly as Josie had requested them. He claimed that if Ife were to express opinions about him, she should only do so to him and to no one else. Not only is this an utterly ridiculous and illogical position, it is also utterly hypocritical given his propensity to express harsh opinions of housemates to other housemates than the target of his opinions. He has targeted Corin and Ben in particular. Somehow in his mind he seems not to equate his behaviour with the same behaviour of Ife which he found so offensive.
Even more offensive are his diversionary tactics in the heat of argument. For instance, when arguing with Ben in today's highlights Ben suggested that the public should decide which of them was in the right, he obviously meant that one of them would be evicted by the public before the other. JJ took the mention of the public as justification to rant about Ben's ambition to have a career in the media, which was utterly irrelevant to the point Ben raised. JJ then proceeded to rant with such passion and at such length Ben had little option but to be a spectator. It could be that JJ's grasp of logic is so poor that he couldn't understand the point Ben was making but I think it is more likely he has consciously or unconsciously adopted this style of arguing because in his mind he thinks he wins the argument if he is able to quieten his opponents.
I would love to be in the house to point out to him each time he attempts to use fallacious reasoning, diversionary tactics, or volume to win arguments.
One can supposed that his intellectual faculties are compromised by his high emotions in mid-argument but some examples of his logic and understanding of human behaviour seem to be so utterly invalid this could be a very generous interpretation of his problems.
For instance, when he was complaining about Ife commenting to Josie on the reasons for his retiring to the diary room following his distressing argument with Josie, he couldn't understand that Ife was entitled to express her opinions for his behaviour, particularly as Josie had requested them. He claimed that if Ife were to express opinions about him, she should only do so to him and to no one else. Not only is this an utterly ridiculous and illogical position, it is also utterly hypocritical given his propensity to express harsh opinions of housemates to other housemates than the target of his opinions. He has targeted Corin and Ben in particular. Somehow in his mind he seems not to equate his behaviour with the same behaviour of Ife which he found so offensive.
Even more offensive are his diversionary tactics in the heat of argument. For instance, when arguing with Ben in today's highlights Ben suggested that the public should decide which of them was in the right, he obviously meant that one of them would be evicted by the public before the other. JJ took the mention of the public as justification to rant about Ben's ambition to have a career in the media, which was utterly irrelevant to the point Ben raised. JJ then proceeded to rant with such passion and at such length Ben had little option but to be a spectator. It could be that JJ's grasp of logic is so poor that he couldn't understand the point Ben was making but I think it is more likely he has consciously or unconsciously adopted this style of arguing because in his mind he thinks he wins the argument if he is able to quieten his opponents.
I would love to be in the house to point out to him each time he attempts to use fallacious reasoning, diversionary tactics, or volume to win arguments.