Can we at least agree to this?

[Christie insb]

As one who frequently tells others to look it up for themselves I disagree. Some facts are so widely known that corroboration isn't needed. If one wants to refute the obvious they should bring forth such evidence. Often those who want the op to provide evidence are intentionally asking never-ending questions, like a child repeatedly asking "Why".

Well, give a couple of examples of facts we should agree on.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So I should also not hold you to this standard?

I usually look up things that I may question for myself as it's much faster and less confrontational. I also have a wider choice of information. I also rarely provide chapter and verse when I use a bible quote as I believe anyone discussing the bible should be acquainted with familiar scriptures and their meaning. However I will happily provide scriptures for subjects that are less familiar.

 

[GeorgeJ]

Okay. But to be clear, I shouldn't expect you to be held to this standard?

...as I stated before, you can't hold anyone to a standard here. They're not being held accountable, so they feel like they can just say "google it" and be done with it....it matters not if this shows a lack of intelligence on their part and a hindrance to meaningful discussion.

 

[JGG]

The problem is that it still leaves room for genuine disagreement about whether you've actually answered it with sufficient reason/evidence.

It's entirely possible that what you think is enough, isn't. And the reverse is true too - what others may think is lacking may actually be sufficient, either due to their misunderstanding, or willful ignorance, or bias.

Because of this, I think it's always better to produce the evidence again. To write off continual questions as usually/always being due to argument for argument's sake, while perhaps accurate (to some degree), really doesn't help the situation

True. But we have to start somewhere, and I think this is a place to start. We are each responsible for the claims we make.

 

[Christie insb]

Another thing.
I would like to have a list of sources we can agree are too unreliable to even cite. Someone found a source recently that I would like to not see used.

 

[GeorgeJ]

I would like to have a list of sources we can agree are too unreliable to even cite.

You'll never get anyone to agree on that list. Folks are gonna believe the sources they wanna believe.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Another thing.
I would like to have a list of sources we can agree are too unreliable to even cite. Someone found a source recently that I would like to not see used.

Like using scripture to refute science?

 

[JGG]

Another thing.
I would like to have a list of sources we can agree are too unreliable to even cite. Someone found a source recently that I would like to not see used.

Baby steps.

 

[Almost there]

Okay. But to be clear, I shouldn't expect you to be held to this standard?

Exactly!

The good news is that I rarely make unsupported claims. When I do, it's in the vein of "the sun sets in the west" or, "no, the earth is not flat."

There is no point to just making claims unless they are intuitively obvious to a reasonable and rational person who is not an indoctrinated precious snowflake.

The problem is that it still leaves room for genuine disagreement about whether you've actually answered it with sufficient reason/evidence.

The problem is that with some people there is NEVER enough evidence.

It's entirely possible that what you think is enough, isn't. And the reverse is true too - what others may think is lacking may actually be sufficient, either due to their misunderstanding, or willful ignorance, or bias.

This gets into the problem: For some people there is never enough. And what happens a lot is people just keep asking for more, more, more, trolling you as you try to jump through their hoops. It's not worth it.
[uote]
Because of this, I think it's always better to produce the evidence again. To write off continual questions as usually/always being due to argument for argument's sake, while perhaps accurate (to some degree), really doesn't help the situation[/QUOTE]
It's always better until it isn't. And the fun thing is that you get to decide when you think someone is simply, well, what you described in your first paragraph.

I've argued controversial issues on the internet since 1998, and for decades before that. I think its cute when a newbie who clearly agrees with my position will throw out a clear and well thought out article to support our position against someone with strong bias against our position, and the newbie is shocked when the other guy doesn't say, "Gosh, you're right. I never really saw it that way. Thanks for setting me straight."

And Adam covers this really well:

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Exactly!

The good news is that I rarely make unsupported claims. When I do, it's in the vein of "the sun sets in the west" or, "no, the earth is not flat."

There is no point to just making claims unless they are intuitively obvious to a reasonable and rational person who is not an indoctrinated precious snowflake.

The problem is that with some people there is NEVER enough evidence.

This gets into the problem: For some people there is never enough. And what happens a lot is people just keep asking for more, more, more, trolling you as you try to jump through their hoops. It's not worth it.
[uote]
Because of this, I think it's always better to produce the evidence again. To write off continual questions as usually/always being due to argument for argument's sake, while perhaps accurate (to some degree), really doesn't help the situation

It's always better until it isn't. And the fun thing is that you get to decide when you think someone is simply, well, what you described in your first paragraph.

I've argued controversial issues on the internet since 1998, and for decades before that. I think its cute when a newbie who clearly agrees with my position will throw out a clear and well thought out article to support our position against someone with strong bias against our position, and the newbie is shocked when the other guy doesn't say, "Gosh, you're right. I never really saw it that way. Thanks for setting me straight."

And Adam covers this really well:

[/QUOTE]

True. Some who question the obvious are terribly uninformed. My dad had a great saying: "Never argue with someone that you have to educate first."

 

[RogerRoger]

True. But we have to start somewhere, and I think this is a place to start. We are each responsible for the claims we make.

I agree!

 

[RogerRoger]

Exactly!

The good news is that I rarely make unsupported claims. When I do, it's in the vein of "the sun sets in the west" or, "no, the earth is not flat."

There is no point to just making claims unless they are intuitively obvious to a reasonable and rational person who is not an indoctrinated precious snowflake.

The problem is that with some people there is NEVER enough evidence.

This gets into the problem: For some people there is never enough. And what happens a lot is people just keep asking for more, more, more, trolling you as you try to jump through their hoops. It's not worth it.
[uote]
Because of this, I think it's always better to produce the evidence again. To write off continual questions as usually/always being due to argument for argument's sake, while perhaps accurate (to some degree), really doesn't help the situation

It's always better until it isn't. And the fun thing is that you get to decide when you think someone is simply, well, what you described in your first paragraph.

I've argued controversial issues on the internet since 1998, and for decades before that. I think its cute when a newbie who clearly agrees with my position will throw out a clear and well thought out article to support our position against someone with strong bias against our position, and the newbie is shocked when the other guy doesn't say, "Gosh, you're right. I never really saw it that way. Thanks for setting me straight."

And Adam covers this really well:

[/QUOTE]

I definitely sympathize with you, people do take advantage, and do troll, and there's even evidence out there to suggest that some people are PAID to troll.

As a personal philosophy, I always try and lean towards responding with evidence than not. It also helps my conscience when I inevitably ask a lot of questions!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

True. But we have to start somewhere, and I think this is a place to start. We are each responsible for the claims we make.

True. If I don't back it up you are free to reject it. I'll happily take responsibility for that.

 

[Almost there]

As a personal philosophy, I always try and lean towards responding with evidence than not. It also helps my conscience when I inevitably ask a lot of questions!

This is what I do as well. But I've had to tell people to look it up because they have reached the point where I figure they are either being intentionally obtuse, blinded by their own bias, sincerely stupid, or a bot.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, give a couple of examples of facts we should agree on.

That would derail the thread.

 

[archer75]

Nope.

Too many people here will try to wrap you around in circles, asking the same question in different ways, and "somewhere 50 posts back" you covered it all, I have the right to say I've answered it before. This is especially true when I've answered more than once.

I've learned that some argue just to argue. I've not got time for that. When I offer ample evidence and they just keep asking questions as though they are my professor and my grade depends on responding to their every inquiry, it's time to bow out of that particular discussion, and maybe the thread.

Much of the OP is reasonable -if the people involved are arguing in good faith.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I don't troll but I often try to pose provocative questions, and as self-discovery is more rewarding than 'being told' I leave it to respondents to reward themselves.

 

[majj27]

Rationally, yes this makes good sense.

Filter it through humans and it usually comes out: "Yes, unless I'm obviously right and you're obviously wrong. Or any combination of the two. Or I don't like what your source is saying. Or I have a completely different argument I'd rather have. Or I don't like you. Or the day ends in 'y'. But other than that, sure! Maybe!"

 

[Almost there]

Much of the OP is reasonable -if the people involved are arguing in good faith.

Yep. I'm talking about when they are not. And I get to decide, regarding when I offer up extra credit work for them.

 

[Almost there]

BTW, my response is always the same when someone makes an unsupported claim. I put in the same work they did and say, "Opinions vary. Thanks soooo much for sharing yours!"