aphasiac Wrote:I agree; it's hilarious how emotionally invested the haters are on this thread! We now have posters researching Japanese business law, just to try to get a little victory (a meaningless one, as we have no idea what contract SS-ers signed).
The irony of course is despite all this hatred, the comments from actual SS sign-ups on here and on their blogs is overwhelmingly positive; they love the product! Maybe that'll change a year from now, but still seems this has gone far beyond trying to save people from ripped off, into something more personal and grudge-like..!
It really doesn't sound like you have a lot of experience arguing with people.
You're right that the Japanese business law thing is basically irrelevant to the core of this discussion, and it was basically introduced ad-hoc as another way to criticize AJATT. But, that's how people make arguments on BOTH sides of every argument ever made by anyone. It's just human nature.
I've argued with people a ton in my short life, partly because I was a philosophy major, partly because I'm stubborn, and partly because before I came to Japan I was an atheist living in America (which always leads to arguments, haha).
Since I'm an atheist, I'll just take the example of arguments over the existence of God. Now, really, this is a pretty narrow argument that really should only focus on an ontological question. But, if you look at people who are arguing about this question, even those who are professionals in that they have published books on the topic, there are all these OTHER arguments that are strictly speaking unrelated to whether or not God exists. Does religion cause war? Have mass murders been more inspired by religion, or atheism? Will thinking that God does not exist destroy morality? If religion goes away, will we have something to take its place as a muse in art?
All these questions arise basically because people are trying to score additional points on their side of the argument. But really, these questions have nothing to do with whether a God exists. It's just human nature that people, when arguing, try to score additional points on their side in whatever way they can.
You're failing to view this objectively--you're accusing the other side of this, without realizing that of course your side has also done this. It happens in every argument and on every side.
You're also assuming that people against SS are more emotionally invested in this then they actually are. BOTH sides continue to post rebuttals after 22 pages, so aren't both sides equally emotionally invested? The negative side may seem more emotionally invested, but it's really just that negative language is perceived in a worse way than positive language. I don't feel particularly invested in this argument emotionally, even though I've been a regular contributor throughout.