You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect.
These are serious civility issues. If you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.
You're just reducing debate to a yes/no squabble which isn't even a debate. It's just a declaration of opinion.
I'm not sure a rule change would even fix this. It's more of a rule interpretation matter.Are you asking for a rule change or just general comments on discourse around here?
I've seen it among both right and left wingers here across issues...You sure have learned a lot in your 3 days here New Guy.
Tell me...how did you find us?
But to your point: there is a certain ardent gun "enthusiast" here that constantly declares any counter argument "irrelevant"...I guess that is the same as declaring victory? I won't mention any names because its hard to know what does and does not constitute a breach of forum rules. LOL.
You are very perceptive, and such a quick study!
We don't need a rule change...just enforcement of existing rules.Are you asking for a rule change or just general comments on discourse around here?
I'm not sure a rule change would even fix this. It's more of a rule interpretation matter.
We don't need a rule change...just enforcement of existing rules.
Please, share examples to support your assertions.You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect.
These are serious civility issues. If you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.
You're just reducing debate to a yes/no squabble which isn't even a debate. It's just a declaration of opinion.
When I see more examples, I'll let you know.Please, share examples to support your assertions.
But you had time to make a litany of churlish observations about others? Hmmm.When I see more examples, I'll let you know.
I was busy participating on the forum, not recording that participation.
We look forward to your providing of evidence. After all, if you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.I was busy participating on the forum, not recording that participation.
...except evidence isn't the point.We look forward to your providing of evidence. After all, if you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.
Here is another unsubstantiated statement that we need evidence for.The problem here is nobody wants to do that.
You would agree observations can be made without being recorded, yes?But you had time to make a litany of churlish observations about others? Hmmm.
What do you mean by substantiation?Here is another unsubstantiated statement that we need evidence for.
Sure, but that doesn't excuse you from providing evidence for your assertions.You would agree observations can be made without being recorded, yes?
...except evidence isn't the point.
You can have rational conversations by discussing the meanings of words and how they must be defined in certain ways for ideas to make sense. The problem here is nobody wants to do that.
Mmm... if you want to be utopian, sure.Sure, but that doesn't excuse you from providing evidence for your assertions.
Well, you claimed 'nobody' converses rationally in the manner you described as desirable. Nobody means no one--including yourself. So, you've now made an universal claim that applies to the hundreds/thousands of posters across this site, and imputes yourself in the process.What do you mean by substantiation?
OK, I've responded to two of your claims in other threads. The first was that Trump was a Democrat at one time, which is true. He was also a reform party member, and a republican, then a democrat, then Republican. So he was whatever he decided he was when he woke up that morning, and what he believed served his interests at that time. He's certainly not ever been anything like a 'leader' of the Democratic party - at best an occasional member of it who sometimes donated when doing so might have advanced his interests. That's fine, but no one ever looked to Trump about the Democratic party's position on anything, any more than they prior to 2016 looked to him about where the Republican party stood on anything. So you made a point - he was a Democrat - but what you didn't say is why that matters to anything, when in this reality he is, as we sit here, the de facto head of the GOP.You guys really seem to have an addiction to just dismissing arguments out of hand here for seeming disagreeable, and claiming points are irrelevant just because they explain themselves in a direction you didn't expect.
These are serious civility issues. If you're participating in a discussion yet to be resolved, resolving it is just begging the question of reasserting conclusions from your premises. You're not explaining how or why your points make sense or comparing your path of explanation to another's.
You're just reducing debate to a yes/no squabble which isn't even a debate. It's just a declaration of opinion.
Most of us use the accepted meaning / definition of a "word". Are you suggesting a poster can make up their own meaning of a word?
If you were truly concerned about the level of discourse, the first thing you would have done is provide evidence for your assertions. Instead, you chose to start a thread of vague insults.
Making vague insults while finger-wagging about civility and squabbles seems ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?