why do we argue?


I suppose it's human nature?

Not everyone can get along,at least all of the time.

Squablles occur in the best of families,sometimes over big issues, sometimes over small ones.

So why should the audio "family" be any different?

Some forums have gone to great pains to cleanse their sites and free them from confrontations between audiophiles who can't see eye to eye, or perhaps we should say, ear to ear.

But where's the harm in all that squabbling? Really?

If someone finds it offensive, then why continue to read it, like a moth drawn to the flame,if you think it's going to harm you, don't enter.

No one is making you.

Then if you feel you have to post your objections to objectional comments(who made you the boss?)then you are not the solution ,you're just adding to the problem.

Like bringing gasoline to put out the fire.

You're going to be on one side or the other,or perhaps you are the "let's kiss and make up type" "can't we all be friends?"audiophile who has only everyone's best wishes at heart.

There's always a "mom" to come between two fighting brothers isn't there,and you know she can't take sides,calling a truce is her job.

But until the real issues have been addressed, the argument is never over.

It's always there under the surface,just waiting to boil over given half the chance.Power cords one day, fuses the next, and demagging lp's? Please!

It usually starts in audio forums when some chump posts that a piece of something that cost more than it should, made an improvement that someone who wasn't there to hear it says it didn't.

Get the gist?

I did it, I heard it, I was there,who are you to tell me I didn't hear it, and how dare you call me dillusional?That's the response to the first response from the folks who know it just can't be real.

Surely if I am half a man, I'll have to make some sort of reply.And reply to the reply and on and on again and again.

I'll have to try to proove that I heard what I heard, but you need scientific proof.

Obviously I can't provide any, I am a chump, not a scientist, I bought the snake oil didn't I?

So on and on it goes and intensifies until enough is enough and two or more members of the family are banished from the fold.

The community all the better for it, or so it tells itself.

But is it?

If everything in this hobby is scrutinized to the point that if there isn't a scientific white paper to back up the claims, how much of what we take for granted today would be lost to the audio community at large?

Zip cord,stock giveaway cords of all srtipe would be all that we would have.There'd be no equipment stands or various footers, no isolation devices of the electrical and mechanical persuasion,no spikes,no fancy metals,in short there would be no aftermarket anything.

It would be a 100% snake free world,a totalitarian utopia for the less than feeble minded audiophiles that there are so many of. Those foolish folks who thrive on fairy dust need to be saved from their own foolish and wasteful ways.

At least that's the way I've seen it from my perspective.

I know it's too late to save me.Salvation passed me by decades ago.
lacee
Ok, it's another day.

So when did the thread turn ugly? Which I guess it has, despite my optimism that the first diatribe was meant in jest.

It starts with "who the hell are you-"and the pace is picked up by another poster with "stop it".

Then "mother" or should I say Robert Young came in( as I mentioned, there's always one)to call a truce on Father's day.

So, true to form we have the ganging up and the peacemaker that I mentioned about.

But we still haven't found out why we are arguing?

No one has been able to voice their reasons for wanting to end the thread have they?

Those two individuals are not being forced to read,so they can "stop it" simply by not reading and not responding.
They are in complete control.They can switch channels or turn off the TV.

Perhaps that's not enough.

Until they explain why, we are stiil in the dark about "why do we argue?"

Lacee, I find the whole thread in jest. My answer to the original question: like everything else, it's about control (and sometimes manipulation) of others.
"My answer to the original question: like everything else, it's about control (and sometimes manipulation) of others."

Bingo!

That's basically it.

Sometimes but not always a sinister thing. Motives will vary. Could be a humanitarian gesture to help another, or could have a pure profit incentive, or other motives as well perhaps.

The scientific method is essentially the means by which an argument is quantified to determine to what extent, if any, facts support a particular conclusion or not.

Most people are not scientists, and science is challenged to support certain conclusions that people arrive at. So people simply argue when needed as a result in order to get some one else to reach a conclusion similar to theirs.

No way to avoid it. It's a natural thing. Often futile in the end however in many cases. Many arguments that are seemingly sound based on observations are not bulletproof.