But you have encountered what any poster, including myself, finds when expressing a view at variance with those of certain other (or most) posters, especially in GD. First, they disagree, vituperatively. Then, if you hang in, they claim that this doesn’t conform to the “rules of debate” as such, and harp on that for awhile. Never mind that the the majority of posts in GD are constituted by opinions, if yours differ from theirs, suddenly “debate” becomes an issue.
They demand “cites,” as if it’s up to you to do their research for them. They beg the mods to move or close the thread. The mods, being representatives of what is now a for-profit board, know where the bulk of the money is coming from, and that’s from the idiots, who comprise the majority of our populace, unfortunately. The idiots, and their idiocy, must be supported if these boards are to continue to exist. They are paying out the bulk of the money.
Still, if you hang in long enough (and from the quantity of your posts, it looks like you have) you can extract a priceless button of gold from many tons of ore. Please keep at it.
You make an assertion, you have to back it up. I love how you try to turn this one around. It’s your job to do your own research to back up your own arguments.
It’s not up to you to do other’s research for them. It is up to you to do YOUR OWN damned research, however, and that means you back up your assertions with facts. If you don’t like that, GD isn’t a good place for you.
You make some good points: it’s rarely helpful, I think, to turn the debate exclusively to the nature of debate itself (and I know I’m sometimes guilty of that myself). However, it’s also unhelpful to ignore the nature of the debate; if someone is framing a debate in terms that you believe are problematic, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to point out the problems. After pointing out the problems, it’s incumbent on you to propose an alternate framing of the debate, show why it addresses relevantly similar issues in a superior fashion, and then set forth a viewpoint within the new framework.
In other words, you ought to be ready to do some work if you’re going to make a meta-criticism.
Your complaint about requests for cites, however, seems kind of silly to me. I’ve not yet seen someone say, “I believe that SSM is beneeficial whenever it is legalized ina country: provide me a cite for this belief!” If someone did that, then you’d be right to criticize them for demanding that others do their research for them. But what people say is, “You’ve claimed that SSM is beneeficial whenever it’s legalized, but I’d like to see a cite for that claim.” In this case, it’s perfectly appropriate to demand a cite.
That Other Thread has got like three different interesting issues in it; unfortunately, they’re all bumping heads and getting in each other’s way. It’s a shame.
Actually, no. Most idiots either don’t have credit cards or can’t figure out how to type the numbers into the correct box, so we don’t make a lot of money off them.
A thoroughly repulsive response, illustrative of the idiocy to which I refer. Just keep payin’ yer dues, brother.
I do NOT agree with Bricker‘s assertions in the cited thread, and have stated so both in that thread and in this one. You need to inform yourself. It’s difficult, and takes time and effort, but it’s what you must do.
However, I do sympathize with the type of responses Bricker has received, proceeding in now what I find to be a typical and predictable manner. I will be pointing this out again wherever I see it, in any thread.
You realize, of course, that your thread has received five responses, three of which were substantive, one of which agreed with you on specific issues and disagreed with you on other specific issues? And you respond to the least substnatial of the five responses?
I’d actually say that this dynamic–debaters who respond to the least of their opponents instead of the greatest–is what causes the worst problems in GD.
Idiots have plenty of money, and credit cards, and you make the bulk of your money off of them. So, you lick their arses in the manner described by e-logic.
Okay, so now you’ve hit the three least-substantial responses to you in the thread. Rather than replying to this one (which is the fourth least-substantial), how’s about ignoring it and replying to one of the substantial posts?
It’s not a matter of time: it’s a matter of your priorities. Why respond to the pointless posts before you respond to the ones with real points?
You bet I turn it around. In that last sentence you make an assertion, annd then don’t back it up with any cites or research. No problrm for me; you say exactly what you want to.
But DON’T suddenly start demanding cites whenever you encounter a view that’s different from your own! It’s just a stall.
**drmark2000: **Why aren’t you responding to Left Hand of Dorkness posts. He is trying to engage you in a meaningful debate. Do you know you cannot win a meaningful debate on this OP or are you just being perverse?
Yet this is precisely what many posters resort to when confronted with an assertion with which they don’t agree, or even offends them. If they agree with a particular assertion, the issue of the nature of debate and demands for cites are simply not present.
The point, again, is that when a poster agrees with a given point, demands for cites and adhering to “debate” are curiously absent.
As above.
That’s what’s going to happen in a decent discussion. That much is okay by me, and is the essence of boards like these, as far as I’m concerned.
Now, now, let’s not dwell extensively on the past. But, for that matter, I stand by every comment I made in that thread. My “conduct” was challenging and consistently placed other posters in the position of confronting their own small-mindedness. Some of them really hated that. Tough shit.
