Empty condemnations are pointless

This has been bothering me ever since I first came here. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about it's this kind of shit:

"

No

[insert tired retort that you think is clever but is really not]

No

You're an idiot if you believe that.

[insert condemnation and follow with

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

"

Wouldn't it be infinitely more helpful to EVERYONE reading if you isolated exactly what it is that is illogical/wrong with their proposition and explained why? If you have already done this and the person may have missed it, then wouldn't it still be more helpful to refer to the post # that contains the refute? If the person still ignores this refutation (assuming it's inarguable) then why do you continue debating with such a person? Do you really think shouting a bunch of No's and names at them is helping ANYBODY? Why waste your time with someone who won't listen to reason? Don't you have anything better to do?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah usualy when I try that I get told I am wrong and that I don't how to read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Try it sometime and let me know if it works

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I do try to do that in all of my posts. The typical response from the "scientists of sciforums" is the example I've outlined in the OP. I don't understand the rationale for this type of response.

 

I wasn't suggesting that you don't do that. What I meant to imply is that it would be a waste of time in most cases.

 

A bigger waste of time than empty condemnations?

 

Probably, but you'll have to ask the person(s) you're talking about.

 

What benefit comes from the type of response I outlined in the OP?

 

Most likely they have already explained why it's wrong, but the other one won't listen to it and just repeats his claims. This happens a lot in Pseudoscience for example.

 

So what's the point in even continuing to discuss with a person who won't listen to reason (assuming the argument they hold is untenable)? That's like arguing with a blind person about what color the sky is.

 

Perhaps they can't help themselves. Perhaps they want to discourage the crank.
Unless you can get a member to respond that does what you outline in the OP, I don't think you're going to get any definite answers.

Why does it bother you that, in your opinion, other people waste time on something?

 

Actually, it doesn't really bother me that they waste their time - more so that they waste my time. I try to post thoughtfully and as clearly as possible and I'll get a response like the one in the OP (empty condemnations) without them isolating and explaining their reasons for their condemnations. So I guess this habit has a roll-over effect in that the people that employ it on a true crank start to employ it in EVERY situation. They don't give people the benefit of the doubt - oh I forgot, scientists don't have doubt

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That's obviously not how things are supposed to go down around here.

Edit: Anyhow, how come you posted this in Free Thoughts?

 

Well I'm not trying to tell people what they're supposed to do. I just find it annoying when it happens to me.

I thought it fit best in Free Thoughts. You think it would be better suited somewhere else?

 

Well, if you are serious about this it may be better suited in 'SF Open Government'.

 

Nah I don't want any kind of rules instituted because of this. I just wanted to bring it to everybody's attention.

 

stateofmind,

Wouldn't it be easier to just ask:
"Why don't people try to identify a common goal and attempt to reach that common goal by identifying flaws in logic through mature intellectual discussion than just responds with attempts to ridicule?"

or

"why don't people build bridges instead of burning them?"

For the most part you have to take into consideration that the world is not made up of utopian dreamers that are after equal rights and an overall consensus in regards to objectivity. The world is made up of individuals, some like to hone their individualness through a number of different strategies trying to prove they are "individual", a lone wolf as opposed to part of a pack mentality or a grazing sheep in a flock.

This means that sometimes while some might try to prove their prowess through intellect, others might well use their own misfunctionalities to define what makes them individual and therefore unique. Of course this occassionally means their actual sense of "ego" is lost either because of their abusive tendancies towards those they disagree with, or because they themselves find themselves abused due to people either misunderstanding them or just understanding that their perception is redundant if the person was to educate themselve further on their choosen topic.

I guess what I'm saying in laymens is that some people are going to be cruel and twisted just because they for some reason have bridges to burn with the world... (they just neglect that bridge burning is a destructive activity which can from another analogy "paint them in a corner" in the long run.)

 

I agree with all of this! Very well said Stryder!

Another thing I have noticed is that the people who respond in empty condemnations get a lot of validation from other members of this forum. These other members elevate this type of response to some kind of virtue!

 

I neglected to mention that "miscommunication" or the inability to communicate is usually a problem that gets the most abuse. Obviously while some people might occasionally cut a corner with their wording (missing words or mispelling is common) there are of course people from many different countries that speak many different first languages than English, so sometimes a person being ridiculed for not making sense, only doesn't make sense when they write through an online translator.

* Note for Plazma, Add a "First language" box to personal profiles.