Without telling you what my claim is (because if I did...

I'm tired of chaotic arguments with no substance or gain that attract idiots, so I want to change this.

Also, once again it seems like people misunderstand what im saying.

On what? A chan?

I want people to take me seriously on Holla Forums and have a serious debate, not some backlashing argument.

And people dont take me seriously because my arguments lack substance.

Why am I even replying to you? This is just a sugar-coded shitpost

Well you're already starting with an ocean of piss. Trying to make people take you seriously is just dropping a swimming pool chlorine tablet in to try to clean it.

Are you that anti-vax autist?

Also, I'm not trying to be rude with calling you that, I'm genuinely curious (and don't have anything else to go by)

Okay I admit it, I am. But I didn't want to say it was my claim because I don't want to start an argument about it right now or in this thread.

I just want to know what information I need to provide for people to at least see the logic behind the opposing view. Do I just need to explain my position, do leave out any assumptions on my view?

I am admitting im the person because it seems like my thread makes little sense without mentioning what my claim actually was. Please don't hate me for having this view. I just need to find a way to explain it, and find a middle ground that supports both vax and against vax

If you get misunderstood then that should tell you something about how you communicate.

There are a few ways you can have more substantial arguments. A great first step is not to have a one-line, incendiary OP. That's a pretty clear sign that whoever created the thread, generally speaking, is just looking to bait people or piss them off or whatever.

A simple formula you can go with something like

Y could be a number of things. It could be a reputable scientific article, or an essay, or even a rhetorical argument.

For scientific articles, you need to pay attention to 1) who is doing the research, 2) how the research is carried out, 3) how it's funded, and 4) where it's published. Something published in The Lancet for example is probably more reliable than something published in a more obscure journal. Usually this can kind of be a pain in the ass because there's a whole industry around this fucking shit that puts all that juicy science behind a paywall. If you find a news or magazine article talking about science, that tends to be okay, but unless the writer is a specialist in what they're covering they're probably just repeating whatever bullshit press release they were given. You should try and track whatever they're referencing back to its source. Generally speaking, the closer to the source you get, the more reliable the information.

Essays are trickier because, while they're hopefully based on facts, there tends to be plenty of interpretation and opinion mixed in as well. Again, the source for these is important. Blogs tend to be a major source for this kind of thing, and while that isn't necessarily bad, the quality varies from blog to blog–they're not all equally valid. Also, since the origin point tends to be the writer of the blog so to speak, that could disqualify your source immediately in the minds of whoever you're arguing with. You could cite someone like Paul Krugman on Holla Forums for example, but generally you'll just get laughed at. This happens frequently too when Holla Forumsyps back up their "race realism" with links to blog posts that link to other blogs that link to "studies" carried out and funded by Nazis.

Oh, that's another thing, don't do that Holla Forums shit where they just scan their sources to find the one or two lines that seem to confirm their beliefs and then disregard everything else. In my experience, actually reading their sources will show you that they actually say the opposite of what they're being presented as saying.

I don't know if you're from Holla Forums or not, so don't take that as an aspersion on your part. It just happens pretty frequently and it's a stupid rookie mistake. Read your sources in their entirety.

Really, you'll probably be making rhetorical arguments frequently, even without even meaning to. IIRC they can be divided up into three types: ethos (you should do this because it's the right thing to do!), pathos (you should do this because of the starving children in Africa!), and logos (you should do this because of this solid reasoning!). The first two are lightning-rods for Stirner-posting, and generally they're kind of the weakest arguments you can make. Making logical arguments can be kind of tricky, because if you're a burger unless you were extremely fortunate in your schooling, you're probably not going to be exposed to formal logic until college.

Going into logic is really beyond the scope of how much effort I care to expend on this post, so hopefully some other kinder, more knowledgeable user can expand upon it. For most stuff you can get by with if-then type constructions. "If X, then Y." "If it's raining, you should bring an umbrella." It's a simple and robust construction, but whatever premise you start with (the X part) should be pretty solid, because if it's not everything after it falls apart and everyone will laugh at you.

The more of these elements you incorporate, the stronger your arguments tend to be. There are plenty of texts and books and guides on rhetoric and argumentation and persuasion. Because I'm a faggot I'm going to tell you to start with the Greeks and check out Aristotle's Rhetoric. For thousands of years it was the gold standard in how to argue with people. I'm sure there are more beginner-friendly texts though, but I don't really care to look. "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is a famous one, though.

HTH

Alright, so I'm guessing you're wanting to make an argument about vaccines and autism. I'll help you walk through this as best I can, but a lot of arguments are a very social thing, and it might be very difficult to convey this to someone with autism, so please understand I'm going to try my best.

I would suggest that the first thing you do is consider where you are doing this. Holla Forums is a board that is mostly concerned with left-wing politics. This being socialism, anarchism, and communism, the economy, social classes, and the general struggle of the poor and the rich.

What do vaccines and autism have to do with this? It's an important subject to you, but you have to figure out how it fits in with the rest of the board.

For example, vaccines and the medical industry is a capitalist business and you could ask if the drive for profit by the companies make them cause them to push unsafe drugs onto the market. I'm sure you could get some discussion on that.

How do you want to make your topic fit in with the rest of the board? If you can't, there might be other places that are better suited for that.

I'm not really autistic the way you're thinking of it, just pointing that out, I only have a few quirks like tic disorders and sensitivity to sounds.

I figured it could fit with Holla Forums because I feel the board should be dedicated to any kind of issues, not just political theory. Holla Forums seems more reasonable and logical thats why I choose this board over Holla Forums

Ignoring the bottom half, what's wrong with trying to make people take you seriously? Hm?

Lurk for a bit and read LeftCom posts, then interject the various buzzwords and catch phrases they like to use in lieu of actual content, such as "the movement that abolishes the present state of things" or "material conditions" or "idealism" or "utopian". That way you'll be a respected pseudo-intellectual in no time.

I don't know if you're still there, but here I go.

What did you think I meant that I wanted people to take me seriously? You're retarded if you thought I meant that people "must take me seriously" because you obviously didnt read my posts

Also, why did you assume im this anti-vax guy? What gave it away to you? It seems so random, can you explain? Is it because "hurr only the biggest idiot on this board must be the anti-vax guy?"

Why do anarcho-communists piss me off the most? It's not just you, its most of them.

well I guess I learned my lesson

I read it, its very informative, thanks.

Why expect apologies on an imageboard? I just didnt know how to respond alright?

You don't know what to say when you ask someone for something and then they give it to you?

Actually, what tipped me off was this.

You have these one-sided conversations, replying to the same posts over and over to someone who hasn't responded to you yet. I don't think I've ever seen someone else do that, it's a very unusual thing to do on a chan board.

There's nothing wrong with wanting people to take you seriously. If anything I'd rather you be taken seriously wherever you do end up, because you do seem like you're acting in honesty and good faith.

If you'd like Holla Forums to cover a broader range of issues, that's fine, but you should start with talking to people on the board about that first so they understand what your goals are and so that it works with what the rest of the board is doing at the time.

I think you do have bit stronger case of autism than that. It's not an insult. I think you're genuinely having social issues.

If it makes you feel better I screencapped it because it was an excellent post.

I appreciate putting in a lot of effort to help

I did find it helpful

That does, actually. Thank you :^)

No sweat, I wasn't really upset about it. I hope it helps and makes your interaction with Holla Forums more enjoyable.

Polite sage.

You're concluding that it's autism when it can be many things.

Here's a list of reasons I replied several times:

- didnt put everything i needed to say in my first post
- have new things to say i forgot to put in last post

Dont assume that if something is different, its autism. I just had too many thoughts for one post, because I was rushing. Is that abnormal?

Besides what you think of my social issues,
I appreciate everything else you wrote. Its very genuine.

Autism is an internet catch-all my dude, I don't think he was maligning your special needs atypical cognitive arrangement.

I don't mean autism in the sense of just being weird, I mean autism in the sense that you seem to have trouble understanding the way other people think and act. I didn't mean the way you posted was, specifically, autism, but rather that your writing style and what you're trying to do suggests you have difficulty with theory of mind.

maybe its more difficult for me to understand peoples motives than most people, but that just means i need more explanations from people.

It isnt as big of an issue that you're making it out to be

Also, Its only MORE DIFFICULT to understand other people, not absolutely impossible.

Are you still there by any chance? I doubt it but still worth asking.

It's just I misunderstand people easier. It's not that I don't understand AT ALL.

I understand how people behave, it just It takes me LONGER to understand. And I need more explanation for peoples actions, when sometimes its hard for me to think of them myself.

A lot of people are somewhat like this you know.

And just because i can misunderstand people easier doesnt mean my previous claims are also misunderstood.

Having 1 problem doesnt make me any more or less valid.

Stop bumping your thread idiot

Would you please elaborate on what manner of examples you are requesting?

Got any examples of this?

Now that I look at your posts again, you have nothjng to back up your statements

You're pulling shit out of your ass without explaining it.

Fuck i cant reply to the right people becaisr im using a smartphone.

I meant to reply to 47 not 60