# You don't know what you're talking about = direct insult?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about-direct-insult/724194>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [July 4, 2015, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about-direct-insult/724194 "2015-07-04T04:35:07Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 112

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\
**Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about-direct-insult/724194/112 "2015-07-09T20:27:41Z")

</div>

> [@jimbuff314](#):
>
> Asking for clarification of an unclear or ambiguous post is something that was not in your toolkit until a few minutes ago? No, wait, you didn’t say that, you said it was something that you should add to your toolkit, not that you have or are going to.

Bone has a certain style of direct questioning that I am considering adopting, not necessarily regularly. Assuming I can pull it off: not clear.

> [@](#):
>
> Which brings me to another question. What are you saying? I keep parsing it and parsing it, and in the end I am left with not much at all. Could you also differentiate “implicit speculations about motivated reasoning” from “explicit characterization of an argument as one based upon motivated reasoning?”

Here’s my example of the latter: the key word was explicit:

> [@Why no one cares about global warming.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-one-cares-about-global-warming/718337/271):
>
> 1. US emissions of CO2 were lower in 2013 than they were in 2007.  
> [Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html)  
> You are promulgating ignorance, not fighting it. It would be far better if you check your cites before you made assertions…  
> […]  
> Not in this forum. Those who consistently make errors of fact beg to have their motivations questioned. I haven’t studied your posts in detail. But in the parlance of cognitive psychology, I’m perceiving a fair amount of _motivated reasoning_ on your part.
> 
> Look, I agree that… And like I said… In other words, _not all of the evidence aligns in the same direction._ The latter can occur with respect to physical processes, but it is rarer in human history. For that you have to weigh evidence.
> 
> Analysts weigh evidence. PR men pretend it all points in the same direction. Ideologues can’t tell the difference.

As for an example of the speculative kind, you are just saying that because [fill in the blank]. (Admittedly others do that with greater finesse. It occurred to me today that this may happen more in the IMHO forum than in GD. Which I frequent less.)

**Trinopus** : Perhaps the best approach is to ask during round 1. Perhaps. But I caution that motivated reasoning is a real thing. As is the related concept [special pleading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading). Judiciously identifying such rhetorical patterns aids the fight against ignorance.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about-direct-insult/724194)._