Danth's Law

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Corollaries)
(Corollaries)
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
==Corollaries==
 
==Corollaries==
In the process of the debate a person might make claims about themselves to bolster their argument, but mostly their ego, that are unverifiable due to the anonymous nature of the internet. However, it is more than likely they are false. These exist as corollaries to Danth's Law and many examples that are easily found on the internet include:  
+
In the process of the debate a person might make claims about themselves, to bolster their argument, but mostly their ego, that are unverifiable due to the anonymous nature of the internet. However, it is more than likely they are false. These exist as corollaries to Danth's Law and many examples that are easily found on the internet include:  
  
 
* If someone claims to have a large [[penis]] on the internet, the inverse is most likely true.
 
* If someone claims to have a large [[penis]] on the internet, the inverse is most likely true.
Line 23: Line 23:
 
* Anyone on a forum saying they sleep with models/strippers/"hotter chicks than that [picture of attractive woman]", most likely has not had a date in over a year.
 
* Anyone on a forum saying they sleep with models/strippers/"hotter chicks than that [picture of attractive woman]", most likely has not had a date in over a year.
 
* Anyone who lists their annual income on [[MySpace]] or [[Facebook]] at over $250,000 is [[Argumentum ad cellarium|unemployed and living with their mother]].
 
* Anyone who lists their annual income on [[MySpace]] or [[Facebook]] at over $250,000 is [[Argumentum ad cellarium|unemployed and living with their mother]].
 +
 +
Other corollaries to Danth's Law may take the form of all purpose pseudo-arguments or put-downs such as:
 
* Anyone claiming that their opponent’s argument is making the opponent look silly or stupid etc, or that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole, is really concerned that they themselves are being made to look silly, or stupid etc, or have fallen into a deep hole.
 
* Anyone claiming that their opponent’s argument is making the opponent look silly or stupid etc, or that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole, is really concerned that they themselves are being made to look silly, or stupid etc, or have fallen into a deep hole.
  
 
{{Internet laws}}
 
{{Internet laws}}
 
[[Category:Internet laws]]
 
[[Category:Internet laws]]

Revision as of 07:04, 10 December 2010

Danth's Law (also known as Parker's Law) states:

If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

It was formulated on the popular Roleplaying Game forum, RPG.net and named after the now-banned user who inspired it. As an internet discussion grows and grows, it's often tempting to declare victory and move on, especially if you've rammed the point home too many times and your opponent just ignores everything you say. In this case, declaring victory and moving on may be legitimate and excusable.

Unfortunately, the majority of the time, declaring victory is just spin; a last desperate attempt to trick people into believing you came out on top (providing that they don't actually go and read the discussion, of course). Sometimes, the individuals declaring victory may well be convinced that they're right, often they'll have gone into the discussion knowing that they're right and with no possible option that they might be wrong. When combined with the ability to expel someone from the discussion, Danth's Law takes on a more sinister tone - indicating that a group or individual can only defend themselves on their own terms, through the medium of extreme deceit.

Examples

  • The Lenski Affair - Despite the thorough and scathing reply that indicated beyond all doubt that the research was correct, Andrew Schlafly decreed that his untenable position was, in fact vindicated by the response and that Richard Lenski has a poor attitude.
  • HowTheWorldWorks - Published a video entitled "My Annihilation of Thunderf00t", which of course, contained no such "annihilation" outside the title.
  • George Aiken - US senator. Suggested that the US should declare victory in the Vietnam War and leave having "won" (well the actual quote was "the United States could well declare unilaterally ... that we have "won" in the sense that our armed forces are in control of most of the field and no potential enemy is in a position to establish its authority over South Vietnam").
  • Bill O'Reilly - Routinely declares that he's won any debate/interview (if you can call them that) after the event, especially if he had their microphone turned off.
  • Fox News - Declaring themselves "Fair and Balanced" does not, in fact, make them fair and balanced. Indeed, it draws attention to the fact that they are no such thing.
  • The BNP - Although this is a slight perversion to "declaring victory", following harsh criticisms and protests due to their increased exposure in recent years, the BNP have essentially "declared persecution".

Corollaries

In the process of the debate a person might make claims about themselves, to bolster their argument, but mostly their ego, that are unverifiable due to the anonymous nature of the internet. However, it is more than likely they are false. These exist as corollaries to Danth's Law and many examples that are easily found on the internet include:

  • If someone claims to have a large penis on the internet, the inverse is most likely true.
  • If a person claims to be strong enough to kick your ass online, they are most likely to be pathetic weaklings.
  • Anyone on a forum saying they sleep with models/strippers/"hotter chicks than that [picture of attractive woman]", most likely has not had a date in over a year.
  • Anyone who lists their annual income on MySpace or Facebook at over $250,000 is unemployed and living with their mother.

Other corollaries to Danth's Law may take the form of all purpose pseudo-arguments or put-downs such as:

  • Anyone claiming that their opponent’s argument is making the opponent look silly or stupid etc, or that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole, is really concerned that they themselves are being made to look silly, or stupid etc, or have fallen into a deep hole.

Template:Internet laws

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support