Questions Regarding some silly Rules in the ED

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Questions Regarding some silly Rules in the ED

My First question derives from this. It's less of a big deal than my next question, but still important I believe.

1. General posting Guide lines
"Anyone found spamming or flaming in response to a troll thread, spam thread, or an obviously misplaced thread will be treated just as harshly, if not more as the creator of the thread. There is a zero tolerance policy on this."

Now, while I understand these rules, it seems a might silly. This is one of the best ways to have fun in the ED and since everyone trolls now and again and having super sirsz conversation isn't always fun.

Serious conversations isn't the same as an extended one or an important one. Some of the best conversations were only half serious and, some of the best fun has been had in such troll threads.

So, I think that's a silly rule. To help further the awesomeness of the ED, we need to loosen our restrictions on this, so far as, make it allowed but not go over board. We sort of already do, but since the rules do make this a potentially bannable offense, this is a tad crazy.

Also, I plan on having an extended discussion about this topic, plz don't ban its TYVM.



2. Rules and Guide lines for posting in the ED

"Threads asking users simply to give personal hypotheses with little basis in fact or knowledge of the subject area are more appropriate for General Discussion."

This is probably the worst rule in the ED. First of all, anything completely and entirely verifiable in fact WILL NOT spur on an extended discussion.

If someone asks "what is 2 + 2" and we can definitely give an answer of 4, there is no discussion. It is over.

Similarly, if someone asks "can you litigate in civil courts for vandalism", and the answer is yes, how the hell does that facilitate an extended discussion? Can you answer this for me?

The only possible discussions that will at all spur on more than a simple answer are those things that are open ended. Topics about abortion, the death penalty, does God exist, none of these topics truly have any kind of definite answer, since it's based off of belief, and yet they're the type of things that would spur on an extended discussion. Asking what's your favorite sports team, beverage, super power etc. all do more to go on to spur on an EXTENDED discussion than any potential asking of a question with a definite answer.

So, requiring facts to support my assertion? If there is a definitive yes or no answer, and that's all that's allowed in the ED, than why have an ED? Anything that can be definitely proved wrong or right has no need for an extended discussion, it's been proven.

If all my points have to be dictated by facts than there is no discussion, it's just source mongering. This isn't a discussion, it's just spouting out truths.

And if that's the way the ED has to be, than the ED is self destructive of it's own goal. Having to require facts eliminates entire areas of conversation, and perhaps the only true things you can have a discussion about. Are we alone in the universe? Does God exist? Is there a weird creepy guy in my basement? If the only things we're allowed to post are questions like "Is lady Gaga an alien", and the answer is obviously a definite resounding maybe, than how do we really have a real discussion?

Everyone has to say the same thing since it's a fact, or flat out be lieing.

No half truths are allowed, then.

And that destroys debate.


So, what do you think, ED?

Do you think this rule is stupid or what?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Long story short, anything requiring facts has a definite answer, and therefore won't facilitate a true extended discussion, since the answer is not beyond a simple yes or no answer.

Therefore the rule requiring facts to support your claims is absurd.

[Sarah Louise Kerrigan]

Facts are still being disputed by many groups here.

The christian right will insist the world was created in its present form 6,000 years ago. They will believe in natural selection, but only for corporations and it does not extend to the rest of reality.

Sociology will be disregarded entirely by some entities, yet this aversion is promptly forgotten when they go on long tirades about human nature and provide anecdotes that suit their personal interpretation of social interaction.

Global warming is disputed on the basis of "it is cold here, where I live, today".

Guns will be said to sentiently protect people from the great wide outside, yet when the roles are reversed, the gun does not play an active role at all in killing people.

Other sciences will be mocked and people will disregard statistical facts on the basis of their own personal ideology.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Sarah Louise Kerrigan

Facts are still being disputed by many groups here.

The christian right will insist the world was created in its present form 6,000 years ago. They will believe in natural selection, but only for corporations and it does not extend to the rest of reality.

Sociology will be disregarded entirely by some entities, yet this aversion is promptly forgotten when they go on long tirades about human nature and provide anecdotes that suit their personal interpretation of social interaction.

Global warming is disputed on the basis of "it is cold here, where I live, today".

Guns will be said to sentiently protect people from the great wide outside, yet when the roles are reversed, the gun does not play an active role at all in killing people.

Other sciences will be mocked and people will disregard statistical facts on the basis of their own personal ideology.

Exactly.

If we all just say "yes" where does the discussion go?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Filling the ED with an assortment of yes men doesn't facilitate discussion, just a lot of chirping.

If you are serious in wanting complex multi faceted discussion, basing everything on facts has to go.


People don't argue about the truth.

They argue about what they don't know.

[Knobist]

Suicidesoldier#1

Filling the ED with an assortment of yes men doesn't facilitate discussion, just a lot of chirping.

If you are serious in wanting complex multi faceted discussion, basing everything on facts has to go.

This is where you and I agree, facts are nice in debate but discussion doesn't always have to revolve around one-upping someone.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Jacque De Molay

Suicidesoldier#1

Filling the ED with an assortment of yes men doesn't facilitate discussion, just a lot of chirping.

If you are serious in wanting complex multi faceted discussion, basing everything on facts has to go.

This is where you and I agree, facts are nice in debate but discussion doesn't always have to revolve around one-upping someone.

Mhhm. xp

[Sarah Louise Kerrigan]

Suicidesoldier#1

Sarah Louise Kerrigan

Facts are still being disputed by many groups here.

The christian right will insist the world was created in its present form 6,000 years ago. They will believe in natural selection, but only for corporations and it does not extend to the rest of reality.

Sociology will be disregarded entirely by some entities, yet this aversion is promptly forgotten when they go on long tirades about human nature and provide anecdotes that suit their personal interpretation of social interaction.

Global warming is disputed on the basis of "it is cold here, where I live, today".

Guns will be said to sentiently protect people from the great wide outside, yet when the roles are reversed, the gun does not play an active role at all in killing people.

Other sciences will be mocked and people will disregard statistical facts on the basis of their own personal ideology.

Exactly.

If we all just say "yes" where does the discussion go?

If we can agree on basic facts it becomes possible to elevate the discussion to an actual debate.

[Dostya]

Well, someone's trying to justify their being a contrarian troll.

[FlySammyJ]

If we disregard the requirement of a reasonable attempt to be factual, what will prevent the forum from quickly degenerating into this sort of bullshit:

Exoth XIII

We're not in the academic world. You moron.
This is not a peer reviewed journal. This is not a class lecture. I don't 'have' to cite sources whenever I omit the qualifier 'in my opinion.' Protip for the real world; if I'm saying it, and I'm not giving you a bibliography, you may take it as granted that it is an opinion. I have explained my idea; that, shown that greater pleasure is theirs for the taking, a selfish individual will follow that path instead. But of course, you want a study. What amuses me is that you look not for truth, but for authority. I could easily have invented 'sources' out of thin air to placate you; after all, you're not really going to follow up on them, or even question them if they DID exist.
Your pretensions grant you only an aversion to new ideas. I leave you to your willful ignorance.

In the ED, this has always been read as, "I don't have any legitimate points, so I concede. Congratulations on your excellently framed argument." If I have to give equal weight to this guy's empty speculation as to another guy's well-supported hypothesis, I no longer have a reason to come to the ED at all.

[Sexy English Teacher]

FlySammyJ

If we disregard the requirement of a reasonable attempt to be factual, what will prevent the forum from quickly degenerating into this sort of bullshit:

Exoth XIII

We're not in the academic world. You moron.
This is not a peer reviewed journal. This is not a class lecture. I don't 'have' to cite sources whenever I omit the qualifier 'in my opinion.' Protip for the real world; if I'm saying it, and I'm not giving you a bibliography, you may take it as granted that it is an opinion. I have explained my idea; that, shown that greater pleasure is theirs for the taking, a selfish individual will follow that path instead. But of course, you want a study. What amuses me is that you look not for truth, but for authority. I could easily have invented 'sources' out of thin air to placate you; after all, you're not really going to follow up on them, or even question them if they DID exist.
Your pretensions grant you only an aversion to new ideas. I leave you to your willful ignorance.

In the ED, this has always been read as, "I don't have any legitimate points, so I concede. Congratulations on your excellently framed argument." If I have to give equal weight to this guy's empty speculation as to another guy's well-supported hypothesis, I no longer have a reason to come to the ED at all.

hurhurhurhur

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Dostya

Well, someone's trying to justify their being a contrarian troll.

What's the point of the ED if we have definite answers?

There are no debates when the answer is obvious.


Would 2 + 2 really make a great debate?

Because obvious, set in stone answers, postulates, have no real value as a debate themselves.


Having facts influence your opinion is great.

But when the ED becomes an argument of facts there is no argument, one side is definitely right.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

FlySammyJ

If we disregard the requirement of a reasonable attempt to be factual, what will prevent the forum from quickly degenerating into this sort of bullshit:

Exoth XIII

We're not in the academic world. You moron.
This is not a peer reviewed journal. This is not a class lecture. I don't 'have' to cite sources whenever I omit the qualifier 'in my opinion.' Protip for the real world; if I'm saying it, and I'm not giving you a bibliography, you may take it as granted that it is an opinion. I have explained my idea; that, shown that greater pleasure is theirs for the taking, a selfish individual will follow that path instead. But of course, you want a study. What amuses me is that you look not for truth, but for authority. I could easily have invented 'sources' out of thin air to placate you; after all, you're not really going to follow up on them, or even question them if they DID exist.
Your pretensions grant you only an aversion to new ideas. I leave you to your willful ignorance.

In the ED, this has always been read as, "I don't have any legitimate points, so I concede. Congratulations on your excellently framed argument." If I have to give equal weight to this guy's empty speculation as to another guy's well-supported hypothesis, I no longer have a reason to come to the ED at all.

But the difference is that true, factual evidence has no argument.

A well supported hypothesis is different from raw facts; when the facts themselves are at the core of the ED, we lose an ED.


A stupid's person's response is a stupid person's response.

But if all we argue are the facts themselves then there is no argument.


Pointing out someone is definitely wrong is one thing.

But we aren't supposed to argue about things that are obviously right or wrong in the first place. xp

[Exoth XIII]

Suicidesoldier#1

FlySammyJ

If we disregard the requirement of a reasonable attempt to be factual, what will prevent the forum from quickly degenerating into this sort of bullshit:

Exoth XIII

We're not in the academic world. You moron.
This is not a peer reviewed journal. This is not a class lecture. I don't 'have' to cite sources whenever I omit the qualifier 'in my opinion.' Protip for the real world; if I'm saying it, and I'm not giving you a bibliography, you may take it as granted that it is an opinion. I have explained my idea; that, shown that greater pleasure is theirs for the taking, a selfish individual will follow that path instead. But of course, you want a study. What amuses me is that you look not for truth, but for authority. I could easily have invented 'sources' out of thin air to placate you; after all, you're not really going to follow up on them, or even question them if they DID exist.
Your pretensions grant you only an aversion to new ideas. I leave you to your willful ignorance.

In the ED, this has always been read as, "I don't have any legitimate points, so I concede. Congratulations on your excellently framed argument." If I have to give equal weight to this guy's empty speculation as to another guy's well-supported hypothesis, I no longer have a reason to come to the ED at all.

But the difference is that true, factual evidence has no argument.

A well supported hypothesis is different from raw facts; when the facts themselves are at the core of the ED, we lose an ED.


A stupid's person's response is a stupid person's response.

But if all we argue are the facts themselves then there is no argument.


Pointing out someone is definitely wrong is one thing.

But we aren't supposed to argue about things that are obviously right or wrong in the first place. xp

Do you have a source to back that up?

[Vincent the Forlorn]

I dunno. Evolution is a pretty hot topic here.