Quoters

[intpz]

Don't you find people who are always quoting someone annoying? You're having a conversation with them, saying your thoughts, etc., and suddenly they quote someone to either agree or disagree with you. Don't you find that annoying?

 

[Hadoblado]

It depends on the relevance and quality of the quote.

Also, sometimes people equate their appeal to authority with being correct, as if accurate recall of a position makes it more convincing. This can be frustrating, particularly if the claim the quote eludes to is unfalsifiable.

I prefer creativity over borrowing another's words, but if someone has beautiful phrasing I might stoop so low as to quote them.

 

[Dapper Dan]

I mean, quotes are ok if they come from a relevant authority, but half the time it's just a random political or cultural figure.

 

[intpz]

Well so far the people I used to talk to quote writers and poets. Mostly, the quotes were about how one should act, or what is wrong or what is right. To me it's utterly annoying. I kinda thought of a nice defense mechanism, but it's not really appropriate (), do you somehow "defend" the discussion after someone says some quote?

 

[Cogwulf]

If it is a very succinct and insightful quote, it can add quite a lot to an argument. But just quoting people for the sake of it, or the classic "they're-more-important-than-you-therefore-you're-wrong", gets quite irritating.

 

[Cognisant]

On occasion I've paraphrased: such-and-such said something like-

Not to add weight to my argument, just to give credit where credit's due.

Although I do relish the rare opportunity to use people's own words against them.

 

[intpz]

If it is a very succinct and insightful quote, it can add quite a lot to an argument. But just quoting people for the sake of it, or the classic "they're-more-important-than-you-therefore-you're-wrong", gets quite irritating.

True. Let me give you an example just for the sake of it:

We're discussing about something, he/she says his/her point that is against mine, then I ask a question that says "you are contradicting yourself!," after which I get a quote backing his/her opinion. That's the most irritating situation.

We're discussing something, I express my thoughts on something, he/she agrees with me, I continue about the point, maybe going a little deeper or taking a bit bigger subject, something very related, and he/she quotes someone who said what I just said. That's the less annoying situation (as it's agreeing, so no need to "defend" against the quote), but it still is quote annoying.

I believe the first would account "someone famous said it, therefore it's true" and the second one for "I'm gonna quote someone because I think it's cool to do so."

 

[Agent Intellect]

Quoting is a way to show that you don't believe your thought or position is original, but that you're aware that someone else has thought about it as well. For instance, there is a post in the philosophy subforum right now claiming it's the ultimate argument for faith and then it proposes Pascal's wager as if it were a new and convincing argument. It makes the poster appear ignorant and/or arrogant to make the argument and not attribute it to Blaise Pascal.

In the same way, a well placed quote can serve serve as a rejoinder while also giving credit to those who have stated your position before you. A quote is best utilized if it sums up a position succinctly, preventing you from having to go on a long diatribe.

That being said, I wish I had a quick witticism to put in place instead of all the bullshit I just said.

 

[Cavallier]

How About:


@intpz "Next to the originator of a good sentence is the first quoter of it. I hate quotations. Tell me what you know.
-- Emerson


@Cogwulf "He wrapped himself in quotations- as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors."
-- Kipling


@Cognisant "Quotations (such as have point and lack triteness) from the great old authors are an act of reverence on the part of the quoter, and a blessing to a public grown superficial and external." -- Louise Guiney


@Agent Intellect "Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation." -- Oscar Wilde

 

[intpz]

Quoting is a way to show that you don't believe your thought or position is original, but that you're aware that someone else has thought about it as well. For instance, there is a post in the philosophy subforum right now claiming it's the ultimate argument for faith and then it proposes Pascal's wager as if it were a new and convincing argument. It makes the poster appear ignorant and/or arrogant to make the argument and not attribute it to Blaise Pascal.

In the same way, a well placed quote can serve serve as a rejoinder while also giving credit to those who have stated your position before you. A quote is best utilized if it sums up a position succinctly, preventing you from having to go on a long diatribe.

That being said, I wish I had a quick witticism to put in place instead of all the bullshit I just said.

I don't agree that it makes him either ignorant or arrogant; I think that there is another possibility: he thought of an idea and posted it without googling if someone else has thought about it before him. That wouldn't be ignorance, however I haven't read that topic (or much of it anyway), therefore I don't know if it applies for that particular topic.

What's the point of showing that? And what's the point of looking around if what you just thought was thought before? Unless you do that on purpose before even having those ideas, however then those are not your thoughts, they are someone else's thoughts, who you probably think is cool enough to use their ideas for your own interpretation of reality, in which case I'm uninterested what you have to say. I am interested in YOUR thoughts, because I am speaking to YOU, not to someone who said something that you've read and liked enough to adopt to your mindset. If I will want to read a writer's politician's, singer's or whoever you are quoting thoughts, I will do that. But for now, let's keep the conversation limited to your thoughts, shall we? That kind of behavior deprives the originality of the conversation and what you are gonna say. Personally, I enjoy a long discussion with many different points more than a quote that is supposed to say "fuck you, this guy said that, I liked it, therefore I'm repeating it to you instead of expressing my thoughts." Don't you?

*Skips Cavallier's post*

 

[kantor1003]

I don't agree that it makes him either ignorant or arrogant; I think that there is another possibility: he thought of an idea and posted it without googling if someone else has thought about it before him.

Someone genuinely interested in faith wanting to provide solid arguments in it's favor would surely have come by pascals wager? The "other" possibility you entertained is one of ignorance, ignorant regarding the topic at hand. If I come up with an idea related to the field of therapeutics for instance, I would still be ignorant as far as therapeutics is concerned because I haven't spent much time studying it. So, if you aren't particularly read up or knowledgable about a topic, as obviously was the case here, a little humility in presentation should be exercised taking ones own ignorance into account, if not, people will quickly judge you, with good reason, to overestimate your own abilities (i.e. being arrogant). Of course, you can always choose not to give a shit about that (arrogant people most likely will).

 

[intpz]

Someone genuinely interested in faith wanting to provide solid arguments in it's favor would surely have come by pascals wager? If you aren't particularly read up or knowledgable about a topic, a little humility in presentation should be exercised taking ones own ignorance into account (you'd be hard pressed to argue against that being an example of ignorance with regards to that particular topic), if not, people will quickly judge you, with good reason, to overestimate your own abilities (i.e. being arrogant).

Well my goal was to say that if someone doesn't go googling about the thought he had doesn't mean that he's ignorant or arrogant. I don't think that when you have a thought, you must be interested if anyone else had it first. Unless of course it's a creation, in which case you gotta look it up before patenting it.

In other words, I replied in regards of his example, but I didn't mean to give an example in regards of his example. I explained that by this, which you completely ignored by the way:

That wouldn't be ignorance, however I haven't read that topic (or much of it anyway), therefore I don't know if it applies for that particular topic.

 

[kantor1003]

^I've edited my post. Hopefully that will make my point more clear.

 

[intpz]

^I've edited my post. Hopefully that will make my point more clear.

I see. Actually I don't think people quote someone when talking about technical things, like therapeutics or programming. At least I don't think I have encountered that as of yet... I'm talking about quotations about one's points of view.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Don't you find people who are always quoting someone annoying? You're having a conversation with them, saying your thoughts, etc., and suddenly they quote someone to either agree or disagree with you. Don't you find that annoying?

Couldn't help myself.

 

[intpz]

Couldn't help myself.

I couldn't help myself either: "One's idiocy is expressed by his ignorance to the facts which he deliberately ignored." - Me about your expressed stupidity in your post. I do realize that most likely this was supposed to be a joke.

 

[nexion]

Quotes are decent at times but people who spout off quotes every few sentences start to sound like idiots. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that saying quote after quote of other people makes it seem like an individual has an inability to form original thoughts...

 

[MichiganJFrog]

It's a bad habit I picked up in grad school.