Even if I think they are? Maybe there’s another policy that I think is unwise and unhelpful and I’m just unaware of it. ::shrug::
I’m not sure I parsed this right. Are you saying everyone who disagrees with you in this thread is objectively wrong?
That’s why it’s called a fallacy.
Nope. Fallacies have nothing to do with the ultimate correctness or incorrectness of a position, only with the logic applied to argue a position.
It was a simple question to you. You said:
And I asked you:
Yes. Even if you think they are. Because it’s a matter of opinion. And you know it’s a matter of opinion. And you shouldn’t say snotty things about other people just for having a different opinion than you. And you shouldn’t assume that you have a direct line to the divine truth and they don’t. And you shouldn’t initiate a conversation to say that.
And if turns out that everyone disagrees with you, you should step back and rethink your opinion. You shouldn’t just continue full speed ahead with an everyone-else-is-an-idiot-I’ll-explain-it-once-more-for-the-short-bus-people attitude.
I think I’m going back into lurk mode. You don’t get it and you refuse to try. I’ll stop teaching this pig to sing.
That doesn’t invalidate my position. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy when it’s used to argue for the correctness of a belief. It’s a fallacy because the correctness of a thing usually relies on something other than majority belief. It doesn’t matter if a majority of people believe the moon landing didn’t happen, because there’s objective proof to the contrary.
However, in situations where majority opinion directly determines correctness, it is not a fallacy. One such instance is social convention, which is applicable in this case. Private messages are a tool for the community to use. The community decides how best to use that tool. If most people in the community think it’s okay to reveal PMs under certain circumstances, it is therefore okay to do so. If most people think it’s not okay to reveal PMs under any circumstances, it is therefore never okay.
:rolleyes:I never said it was not a matter of opinion. In fact, I defended my right to hold and argue my opinion, even when the sole adherent to it. You get your panties in a wad because I don’t conform. Fuck that. You get your panties is a wad because you don’t like my attitude, too fucking bad. You don’t like the tone that you claim is contained in the thread headline, yet you clicked on it to read it? That’s some odd shit. No one is twisting your arm to read what I write. Nor are they twisting your arm to mischaracterize what I wrote, trying to imply I provided no rationale for my opinion, yet you felt the need to peck away at your keyboard complaining about my attitude. And you come pissing in here yourself. Damn, you’re one conflicted dude.
You’re not understanding what is covered in the exceptions. From your link, explaining the exceptions:
The only comment I’m going to make in this thread is this:
The people have spoken, the rulers have agreed (or vice versa). Why not just let magellan01 have the last word and let it sink? Does anyone expect to change his mind at this point? (Rhetorical questions both, not requiring answers.)
That’s correct for the headings of Democracy, Safety, and Capitalism, but not Social Convention.
When talking about whether it is polite or proper to reveal the contents of a PM, most posters here agree that it’s okay under certain circumstances.
Your reading it wrong. The exception language applies to ALL exceptions. But it is not in conflict with the language under Social Convention: (bolding mine)
I agree that it is the consensus and will become the norm. Some of the moderators we’re of a different mind and have been swayed. But I’ve been arguing what should be policy, not what is.
Also, in addition to what you said, most posters agree that it is impolite and improper to reveal PMs willy-nilly. We disagree where that line should be drawn. But what I’ve been arguing is not so much that, but that it is not a good policy for the board. That it makes PMs less useful. I see great utility in having the board enforce PMs as private. In fact, the main argument I’ve seen against that is that it would be difficult to do.
You may open such a thread IN THE PIT. No where else. Certainly not in Cafe Society, where the discussion of the Beatles would be. Certainly not in Great Debates, where the discussion about the Green Party would be. In politics, entertainment, art, and religion, it is possible for intelligent people to have basic disagreements. Our goal here at the Straight Dope is to facilitate discussion – everyone learns by hearing the other views. And we do it in a polite, well-mannered environment. Personal insults are NOT permitted.
Personal insults are not permitted outside the Pit. Personal insults means talking about the person as person, and not about what they’re saying or doing. If you are having difficulties understanding the rule about personal insults, email me and we can have some discussion. I’m getting tired of this. I’m not issuing an Official Warning for this, although I probably should. You’ve been here for five years, and don’t seem to know this? I think you need a voluntary time out.
That is key. As a person of faith, for example, it has been discussions with reasonable and respectful atheists that have taught me about alternate views of morality, ethics, and epistemology. Even metaphysics. The ones who scream, “Christianity is idiotic,” and contribute little more than that have taught me nothing. But the ones who say, “I can see why you believe what you do, given your life experience, but for me, I see no evidence that God exists,” have left me with an understanding — and a respect — for their views.
Like you say, reasonable people can disagree and hold opposing views, while still maintaining decorum and respect. We can’t learn from or about one another any other way.