Telling someone their premise is wrong is threadshitting now?

[kaylasdad99]

@Trinopus

This would force anyone who wants to explore a contra-factual hypothetical to frame it inside a disclaimer.

I’m fine with that.

“If demons existed, then…” Do we really have to make that effort? Can’t the context speak for itself?

Do you agree that, if the OP had made the effort to put up such a disclaimer, that then if someone said, “That doesn’t wash; demons still don’t exist” (“calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg”) that that would be threadshitting?

To my way of thinking, the hypothetical is implicit in the question. And in any case, a polite engagement would consist of saying, “There aren’t any demons. However, if they did exist…” and then actually answering the doggone question.

“They don’t exist,” period, full stop, end of dialogue is dismissive. It’s a blunt refusal to engage in debate.

But since the OP was originally placed in GQ, it strikes me as perfectly appropriate to refuse to engage in debate. And it’s why I was in vehement disagreement with post #4 to the thread, submitted while it was still IN GQ:

@jayjay

And by “these types of posts”, watchwolf49 (and a vast majority of the rest of the board) mean “questions that do not have any possible factual answers”.

Because the questions actually DID have a factual answer, that answer being “No” (whether to volunteer the underlying reason(s) for that being the factual answer is a different matter, on which I can be persuaded to vote against).

@Trinopus

It’s like the chairman in the Senate conference room who turned the lights out when an ad-hoc committee was trying to hold hearings.

Dick move, but I disagree that it’s like that.

And, yeah, the Dodgers are pretty hot stuff! (“We hates them forever!”)

You’re on the list.