NEW START COMING FOR P&R

[Dill]

(07-05-2020, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: bfine32 Wrote:  Folks are much more worried about "proving" someone wrong  that providing an answer of their own.

I agree with this comment.  I also see it as a "root problem", but I don't think itis the same way you do.

I agree with both posters here.  But especially this:

(07-05-2020, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Some people hate proof (proving).  They want to be able to "provide an answer" without anything to back it up, and then expect that answer to get the same respect as the ones where people provide some proof.

And I will admit that I am one of those people who is "worried about" providing proof to back up my position.   Misinformation is the most powerful tool the government has.  They can control the masses better with misinformation than they can with guns and fences.  That is why when we invaded Iraq over half the US population thought Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks. 

Everyone makes one-line comments about issues; nothing wrong with that. No one has to "prove" every comment or conclusion.

The problem arises when some deploy bald assertions and impressions as arguments, and as if simply stating them establishes them as true/factual. They ignore or deflect challenges, or refer questions back to the original unsupported assertion. Then just continue to repeat them adequate in themselves. Shut up and accept!

Also, references to unnamed sources who all agree with a poster, when advanced as "proof" of some point, are an especially empty kind of claim--"I'm on a bandwagon no one can see. But You're not!"

Conversely, efforts to "back up" conclusions may also be treated disdainfully. "TL;DR."

(07-05-2020, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion" does not mean "No opinions have consequences" or "No opinions are harmful"

It also doesn't mean all "opinions" are equal. Some are much more plausible, and in fact be supported with data, facts, good arguments, etc.

People who don't like the work of supporting arguments often reduce everything to "opinion," in the hopes that makes unsupported arguments the equal of well supported.

At other times people defend a bad argument by claiming it is their "personal" opinion. If you criticize further you are then attacking the person. That's a way of throwing out opinions as truth claims, then appealing to a right to private property to deflect exposure.

So the forum is populated with people who have different ideas about what makes for civil discourse, for some that discourse involves a personal accountability for statements, an obligation to support claims and admit/answer objections, and to respect others good faith efforts. For others it just involves posting "opinions" without interference. For still others it is much closer to a smack forum, where people can sound off opinions mixed with insults.

The new rules are "unfair,"  in the sense that they advantage the former and disadvantage the latter.