Your clear intent was to declare that contests predicting results in grave matters like elections are disgusting (and thus we who have engaged in those contests are doing disgusting things). You disingenuously wrapped that up asking why we engage in that behavior.
The posters who engage in that behavior are the experts on why they do it. Telling them that they are wrong about why they do it is being an asshole.
To the degree that your real post is how disgusting it is to have a contest predicting election results … your sole argument is that a contest is gambling and gambling on “grave” issues is disgusting. For some reason? Rape, abuse, concentration camps.
And to say wrong. And to accuse those honestly engaging of not doing so.
I have expressed an opinion about a type of behavior I observed. My OP clearly sets out that I have a negative opinion about that behavior. Is that some kind of transgression?
I ask for more information. Yes, I do want to know more. Maybe something someone might say will make me see things differently. However , given my very clear statement from the start, there should be zero misunderstanding about what my opinion is.
Given that, some people have chosen to give their reasons. I have expressed my opinion about those reasons.
Where is the transgression here? What kind of social activities are subject to a rule that if I post an opinion with a negative viewpoint about, it makes me a putz?
Is there any situation in which I can say that I find a certain activity distasteful and not be a putz? What kinds of discussions along these lines are appropriate on a discussion forum?
I mean, some are obvious. If I say “I see some people out there committing murder. I find that distasteful. Tell me your resins for committing murder.” And then reasons are given and I disagree with them. I’m assuming that doesn’t make me a putz.
How about then if I do it for drunken driving. Still not a putz I assume.
How about then parking your car and nlocking someone’s driveway I assume I’m not a putz if I disagree with your reasons fie doing that.
How about then if I say I find it distasteful when I see someone at a birthday party dig into the cake with bare hands instead of cutting a slice with a knife? Still not a putz if I say I don’t agree with your stated reasons for doing that?
At what point do I start becoming a putz for starting a conversation along these lines?
AND made that declaration without even reading the thread he whines about in the OP. I will own up to the fact that my prediction in that thread is extremely pessimistic but it should be obvious it isn’t the result I want to see. And if I am proven correct, there will not be any “celebration” because I had the most accurate prediction. Quite the opposite.
I know that it literally means penis in Yiddish and is a common minor insult. What else should I know?
I wasn’t the one who chose the term as a standard for judgment in this thread. I’m just going with the premise to see whether I can learn something about the people who think I’m a putz in this thread.
My questions above are directing at finding where the line is that people are drawing between putzish behavior an non-putzish behavior.
How about more example:
If I see groups people getting massively drunk in public and leaving their vomit, faeces, urine, and used condoms all over the public streets and on private property and I ask why they do that and then I disagree with their reasons, does that make me a putz?
If I ask why some people might fart in a small room full of their friends and then block the door when everyone tries to get away from the smell and the I disagree with their reasons for doing so then does that make me a putz?
If I ask why some people follow religious teachings to circumcise their infants and then I disagree with their reasons does that make me a putz?
If I ask why some people sneak lit cigarettes into elevators and leave it full of tobacco smoke and I disagree with their reasons does that make me a putz?
These questions are not meant to be traps. I want to know what social more I’m violating here and exactly where the line is.
If you choose to respond, please state in advance whether disagreeing with your response would make me a putz.
You’re being a pedant by insisting on criteria. This demonstrates either profound ineptitude or wilful jerktitude. If we could list all the criteria in a concise manner there would be world peace.
“Putz” is not used as a standard for judgement, it is used as judgement. You have been called a penis, and not in a sexy way.
Nevertheless I will humor you,
Depends on where and how you ask, and whether you express that disagreement. If you ask the people right there on the street then yes, unless it is your private property in which case maybe probably not. If you ask at a town hall meeting or something, you’re not a putz for asking, but you are a communist.
If however someone tells you why they do what they do and you start telling them you think that’s not the reason, then you are a putz. Specifically, telling someone they are wrong when they explain why they do something makes you a putz. Merely disagreeing does not necessarily make you a putz.
(Exception if the person asks whether you disagree and why. Also, sometimes you need to be a putz, such as when confronting a liar.)
I’m not going to bother with the rest of the questions as they are all variations on the same theme.
The reason for the multiple examples was to test whether the degree of seriousness of the actions complained of would make a difference. So are you saying that no matter whether it’s a murder or double parking, it’s putzish behavior to ask for reasons and then disagree with those reasons?
And unless it’s my personal property that is being vomited, defecated, or urinated on, then I have no standing to question their behavior? That’s interesting. What if it is my grandmother’s property, or my friend’s, or my neighbor’s? Any different than if it is just a fellow citizen’s property? I wouldn’t wish that kind of misfortune to befall even a complete stranger.
What if it’s on a public sidewalk or street that I need or want to use? Still no valid standing to ask them to justify their behavior?
What if I’m doing it in a discussion forum whose whole purpose is to discuss whatever you think you want to discuss and only people who read and respond to the question are the ones who choose to do so?
It is being used to mean something undesirable in this thread, so for the purposes of this thread, it functions as a standard of judgment. I’m posing the above questions to determine more precisely exactly what contexts would make someone a putz and what wouldn’t.
Mmm, try again. I already answered this question with nuance.
It’s my personal opinion that if you have no personal interest in the property, and there’s no compelling reason (such as imminent violence), you have no business personally interjecting yourself. You aren’t a peacekeeper, you aren’t trained for the variety of situations that may arise.
Non-sequitur. You don’t need to tell someone why they are pissing on the street for the wrong reasons, just because you want to use that street. You don’t even need to understand why they are doing so.
If we were in a topic where the prompt read, “Do Dopers start contests regarding grave matters in order to be disrespectful?” you might have a point.
But we aren’t in that topic. Despite your attempt to say “this is […] a matter for debate”, you in fact framed this topic as “just a question”. And the question is not, “Do Dopers start contests regarding grave matters in order to be disrespectful?”
ETA: Because you failed to clearly express the topic you wanted to debate in the OP, people who participate in this conversation are not implicitly asking you whether or why you disagree with their reasons.
You aren’t actually interested in why he murdered his neighbor, just whether his excuse is good enough. A mensch would have asked if B had a good excuse for killing the neighbor.
Whatever it is A is searching for, this isn’t the way to go about it.
Potential alternative, “Do you feel remorse for murdering my grandmother?”
ETA: If you know B is lying however, remember it can be okay to be a putz when dealing with liars.
In advance. Disagreeing with me is not being a putz. The nature of your responses are almost assured to be. It seems to be just part of your essence.
Let’s start with keeping an analogy closer to the jerkiness of you here. You complain about behavior that you have not actually observed as you didn’t even open up the thread. “I heard someone say that they killed it in there. That is murder. Why do people here think that murder is okay?” “Not murder.” “Yes it is.” “Putz.”
But going ahead anyway. In these examples you are not really asking “why” are you? In this thread you have identified a behavior that you are sure is immoral and have no interest in understanding why others, well pretty much everyone else, does not see it the same way, and make no real effort to explain why you do. Uniquely to you having a contest is like murder or vomiting drunk. Again, the entirety of your argument is that an election is like child abuse/rape/concentration camps and having a contest as the form to share analyses is therefore grotesque and offensive. It is explained that someone does it because it provides a good format for shared analysis and learning from each other (and knowing who is correct more and who is not helps us learn) and your response is “wrong” and to @Lance_Turbo, who very patiently explained his thinking, a thought process widely shared, you declared him as not “acting in good faith.” Putz.
For most of your silly examples - yes you are being a putz because you are passive aggressively not stepping up to say what you mean but instead JAQ off. You want to condemn eating meat? Do that. Pit people who dig into cake with their bare hands? Who drive drunk? Who get drunk and shit and vomit in public? Who fart? Who smoke where it is not allowed? Who have a religious circumcision?
Don’t Pit them by JAQing off a “why?” That’s being a cowardly putz. And try to have your facts straight. And when you pick something that most do not think is at all objectionable, that is NOT AT ALL “treating with disrespect the lives of your fellow humans”, be ready to be mocked nay Pitted for your idiocy.
Your posts are akin to “Why do some people here not believe in God? That is a disrespect to all creation.” “Well I respect that you have your belief but I am an atheist because of A B and C. If my beliefs offend you feel free to not discuss them with me.” “Wrong. You are just disrespecting creation. And you are being dishonest.” Putz.
I think that this is a big difference. To keep the theme of the OP of using hyperbolic examples, I will propose the two topic titles, “Why do people abuse their children?” vs. “I pit people who abuse their children.”
In the first, it is asking a question. I may try to answer it, based on research into the psychology of violence or even just opinionated speculation. That wouldn’t mean that I was defending it or agreeing with it, only that I am trying to answer the OP’s question. In that case, it would be inappropriate for the OP to say that’s not a good enough reason.
If they in fact should have titled it the latter, then they are not looking for explanations, they are looking to complain about them, and for others to join in. If they actually titled it that way, then coming in and trying to explain their actions would be inappropriate on your part.
It does seem to be an annoyingly growing trend that people are posting the first, while really intending the latter. Maybe it would behoove posters to think, before asking “why”, are they actually wanting to know the reason?
Even in your hyperbolic example, it doesn’t matter if you agree with their reasons, or think they are good enough, those are the reasons they have. Now, with murder, you can usually find enough people that agree with your morals to penalize someone for committing it, and try to prevent it from happening.
However, this isn’t murder or anything even remotely close, this is something that you just don’t like. So the conversation has really been more like
A: Why do you eat chocolate ice cream?
B: Because I like chocolate ice cream
A: That’s not a good enough reason
B: It is for me
A: But I don’t like chocolate ice cream
B: So?
A: So you shouldn’t either
B: Why not?
A: Because eating chocolate ice cream is like letting a child starve or be beaten to death.
B: What?
A: It’s like rape and murder.
B: Where is this coming from?
A: I REALLY don’t like chocolate ice cream! It’s like murdering my grandmother!
B: …Okay… Putz
The problem, as I see it, is that you didn’t simply express your displeasure or sincerely ask for clarification on why Dopers make [fake] bets on matters you consider sacrosanct. Instead, you rode into the thread like a Karen on a high horse (a horse high both in height and on inebriates) to admonish people for doing something that you find repugnant (i.e. contests regarding grave matters). Then, when sincere, reasonable explanations were proffered, you doubled down on your repugnance as though everyone should see the light and henceforth conform to your way of thinking. Perhaps that wasn’t your intent, but it’s as it appeared.
Queen Karen rode into battle on her tall, drunk horse and yelled, “we [Royal “we”] are not amused! Cease and desist your lowly acts, or I shall slay ye with my mighty Righteous Stick!”
The behavior I am complaining of is in the title of the thread and in the OP. It frames the discussion as a game, in the form of gambling, it uses the terms “pool contest” in the title and set up standards for “winners” and “losers” in the OP. I have a very specific complaint, and so I needed only that information.
I did not say it was like them. They are examples of behavior that someone might find distasteful. That is the complete relevance of their function in my examples. I substituted them for the behavior I was complaining of as a way to analyze the objections to my argument.
That was a very specific response to a very specific statement. I pointed out that the thread title used the term “pool.” Indeed, it says “pool contest.”
He responded: “So now 'pool equals ‘gambling’?”
That answer is unbelievably ridiculous. I can’t take it as a sincere response. I don’t think that makes me a putz. I think it makes me incredulous at a foolish response.
And to that, my answer was that you can engage in that exercise without this particular framing. It’s not indispensable. If you think I’m wrong about that, you can make an argument that it is indispensable, that it is literally impossible to have that conversation without the framing of a gambling contest. Or you can say something along the lines of what puzzlegal said … “maybe you’re right that it’s not indispensable, but I think it’s okay to do it anyway, because the stakes are so low.”
No, I am not. I am giving examples of other things that one might find distasteful to compare them to what you seem to find objectionable in my OP.
There is absolutely no deception in my OP. It is clear I am describing a behavior I find distasteful. I also asked people for their reasons. When they gave their reasons, I expressed my opinion that I found their reasons unconvincing. That is nothing but an absolutely normal flow for such a conversation.
I used hyperbolic examples–and also … hypobolic (?) … examples–because that clarifies the structure of the disagreement. Are you really objecting to how I stated my position? Or are you just objecting to the fact that I said I found distasteful a behavior that you don’t find distasteful? Substituting my actual complaint with examples of various degrees can sharpen that analysis.