I almost put this post in the ATMB about banning people from threads, but I don’t want to turn that thread into the Dio show (which it’s already in danger of becoming). So I’ll put the post here:
Let’s use a recent example. There’s a thread about mandatory school lunches in a Chicago school. You came in to make the claim that it’s a bogus news story, based on an uncited denial by the school system (I cited it for you, but the only cite I could find was from the reporter, who maintains that the quote is accurate). You really really wanted to make this the central thrust of the thread–whether the story is accurate–and kept challenging me or other people on it.
After a couple of exchanges, I started ignoring you, because it looked like you were willing to die on that hill, turning the thread into some sort of metaphysical argument about who has the burden of proof or some such nonsense. That’s idiotic, IMO, because the thread isn’t about the philosophical duty of burden of proof, and going down that route is a total hijack.
But it’s possible other folks will walk with you down that hijack. And if they do, it’s likely that you’ll get more and more brusque and arbitrary in your claims, and that they’ll get more and more irritated and snipy with you, and that eventually the thread will get shut down.
My hope is that you won’t do that, and that nobody else will go there with you. But if you decide to do that, then I hope the mods will ban you from the thread, inviting you instead to open a new thread about the philosophical theories behind who has the burden of proof.
You should be prevented from responding to challenges when your responses lead the thread progressively in an ever-more-irrelevant direction (philosophical burden of proof, what kind of sharp pointy pieces of wood can inflict lethal injuries, whether all 25-year-old-men would be frightened of you, etc.)