“Inexperience” is not an argument

You see it all the time. Users say, “your not experienced enough” or “you don’t know how to jam” or “you don’t know how to use your feet.” These are not good arguments. In life, if you are actually good at something you don’t need to belittle someone to make your point. It’s super cringe.

Edit: Good point will way to make us cringe!!

You just haven’t read enough forums to know how to start an engaging and productive thread. 

Yes

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

You see it all the time. Users say, “your not experienced enough” or “you don’t know how to jam” or “you don’t know how to use your feet.” These are not good arguments. In life, if you are actually good at something you don’t need to belittle someone to make your point. It’s super cringe.

Edit: Good point will way to make us cringe!!

Not good arguments per se but they might be facts.

Although I see the "you're not experienced enough" applied when there's no way for a person to know the other person's experience.

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

You see it all the time. Users say, “your not experienced enough” or “you don’t know how to jam” or “you don’t know how to use your feet.” These are not good arguments. In life, if you are actually good at something you don’t need to belittle someone to make your point. It’s super cringe.

Edit: Good point will way to make us cringe!!

A statement of fact is not belittling someone, although there are gentle and not so gentle ways of expressing said fact.

It’s the internet and it’s sometimes tricky to nuance the details.

In real life, a group of fresh faced college kids would listen intently at wizened old stone master as he explained how not to die or jam or something. The difference between the two and who should be listening to whom is plain to see.

On the internet, when alpinedickeater, jugsNhugs, and insaneclownposeur, are arguing over the optimum angle of our shoelaces for hard trad; we might not know who to listen to.

A gentle reality check to get the children back in line is totally appropriate.

Unfortunately, it’s human nature online to double down on the wrong and feign injustice at the callout. 

Marc801 C wrote:

A statement of fact is not belittling someone, although there are gentle and not so gentle ways of expressing said fact.

Telling someone they don’t know how to jam without ever having seen them climb is not a fact, it’s living in a make believe universe.

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Telling someone they don’t know how to jam without ever having seen them climb is not a fact, it’s living in a make believe universe.

Well, when they describe how they jam and they are doing it wrong, it's fact, don't need to see it.

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Telling someone they don’t know how to jam without ever having seen them climb is not a fact, it’s living in a make believe universe.

That’s not what you said. Quit moving the goalposts…yet again. Your intellectual dishonesty is fucking annoying. 

Marc801 C wrote:

That’s not what you said. Quit moving the goalposts…yet again. Your intellectual dishonesty is fucking annoying. 

Dishonesty? You are being kind.

Marc801 C wrote:

That’s not what you said. Quit moving the goalposts…yet again. Your intellectual dishonesty is fucking annoying. 

I think your in a mood that you interpret whatever I say in some super cryptic way. Conversation example:

User 1: I thought those jams on that crack were hard

User 2: your a Gumby if you thought those jams were hard

User 2 has so little information about user 1 they cannot assess their ability to jam. Maybe they have little hands or are short or maybe it was hot or maybe they are mis remembering. I don’t see what is inconsistent here. 

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:

It’s the internet and it’s sometimes tricky to nuance the details.

In real life, a group of fresh faced college kids would listen intently at wizened old stone master as he explained how not to die or jam or something. The difference between the two and who should be listening to whom is plain to see.

On the internet, when alpinedickeater, jugsNhugs, and insaneclownposeur, are arguing over the optimum angle of our shoelaces for hard trad; we might not know who to listen to.

A gentle reality check to get the children back in line is totally appropriate.

Unfortunately, it’s human nature online to double down on the wrong and feign injustice at the callout. 

This is not the person I knew, who would one day become highaltitudeflatulentexplosion (although the writing style is dead on).

Blink twice if you're being held against your will.

alpinedickeater, jugsNhugs, and insaneclownposeur, 

This is the level of emotional/intellectual sophistication of climbers. And what they consider humorous.  90% red hats.

Don't forget about Mybutthurtinnerchild or Pissedinmymorningcornflakesliberaldumbfuck

Case in point.

I like to have my full climbing resume in bold letters a click away so when I'm trying to shame n00bs I can drop all the numbers on them without even typing. nOObs these days are so sensitive I have to say though, its as if nobody ever spent time getting yelled at growing up!

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

I think your in a mood that you interpret whatever I say in some super cryptic way. Conversation example:

User 1: I thought those jams on that crack were hard

User 2: your a Gumby if you thought those jams were hard

User 2 has so little information about user 1 they cannot assess their ability to jam. Maybe they have little hands or are short or maybe it was hot or maybe they are mis remembering. I don’t see what is inconsistent here. 

Then you're blind. This is what you originally wrote: "You see it all the time. Users say, “your not experienced enough” or “you don’t know how to jam” or “you don’t know how to use your feet.” These are not good arguments."

Not a damned thing about someone not seeing someone else jam. Not a damned thing about having "so little information".

Once again you're pulling your annoying stunt of changing your story when you're backed into a corner and losing your argument.

Back to ignore status for you.

Marc801 C wrote:

Then you're blind. This is what you originally wrote: "You see it all the time. Users say, “your not experienced enough” or “you don’t know how to jam” or “you don’t know how to use your feet.” These are not good arguments."

Not a damned thing about someone not seeing someone else jam. Not a damned thing about having "so little information".

If you are chatting over the internet with someone on a forum, the general assumption is that you do not know them personally. If you do not know them personally the assumption is that you have never seen them climb and you don't know anything about them aside from what is presented on MP. If you tell someone they do not know how to jam on an online forum, most reasonable people would assume that the flamer has never seen said person climb.

People either say I am too verbose, when I outline my assumptions or moving the goal posts when I think stuff should just be implied. Either way most conversations should evolve as discussion occurs!

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

 Users say, “your not experienced enough” or “you don’t know how to jam” or “you don’t know how to use your feet.” These are not good arguments. 

It depends on what you are referring to.  "You're not experienced enough" is an excellent argument for why me trying to climb the Rupal Face is a terrible idea.

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

You see it all the time. Users say, “your not experienced enough” or “you don’t know how to jam” or “you don’t know how to use your feet.” These are not good arguments. In life, if you are actually good at something you don’t need to belittle someone to make your point. It’s super cringe.

Edit: Good point will way to make us cringe!!

These are not good arguments, because they are merely observations. You are assuming users don’t know just how badly you actually “jam.” An argument from example, is an argument in which a claim is supported by providing examples… not by creating hypotheticals. “Super cringe” is accidentally opening a princess puppy love thread.

WF WF51 wrote:

alpinedickeater, jugsNhugs, and insaneclownposeur, 

This is the level of emotional/intellectual sophistication of climbers. And what they consider humorous.  90% red hats.

Hay- your talking about my friends dude!
All good people.