Opinions in the Politics Section: What's Yours?

[iNow]

There have been numerous threads in Politics where members like myself are castigated for challenging unsupported opinions, and in doing so have been repeatedly told by the Moderator that "All opinions are equal on this forum."

 

I disagree with that. I think opinions which are supported with fact, substance, and logic will nearly ALWAYS be better than those which are simply put forth as opinion alone and left at that.

 

This is not about silencing people who don't support their opinion. This is not about censoring unsupported opinions or saying they have no place here. This is about acknowledging that not all opinions are equal and that it's fair to acknowledge that while posting here that a supported opinion is better than one merely put forth.

 

What do you think?

[John Cuthber]

I think all the Mods are pink elephants, but this is an unsupported opinion.

They may think otherwise but their opinion, apparently, has no more validity than mine.

[Phi for All]

Discussions shouldn't assume the reader is incapable of reason. You're basically arguing to justify an Appeal to Support. I think people have a right to read all the opinions they want and judge for themselves which are more substantiated.

 

So if you get a majority behind you on this, does this mean your opinion is now *officially* going to be the best, iNow?

[jackson33]

iNow;

Not only in Politics, but Religion, History, LAW or many social subjects, their is no set standard for factual or opinion, as you would like to equate to science. In Science the world is round, you can prove it a thousand ways and logically no one could dispute the facts. However on the above subject matter, issues are a matter of interpretation of the same facts, information, observations and analysis, that can be formed to fit the persons general conception of importance. For instance here, "The Civil War Freed thousands of slaves", yes but 60 thousand people died and two million injured for life. Where the end justifies the means, then goes on to the hundreds of other issues involved, each of which will be observed and evaluated differently by Historians or the general public in "discussion". This, I believe the purpose of the 'Forum Model", even on Science issues where questioning the established, IMO is a show of interest, not always a rebuttal of the facts...

 

Stated as an "opinion", I would think your harassment is coming from METHOD (style) for discussing an issue, not your opinions or the fact you can substantiate some (not all), by others with the unlimited number of sources available over the internet. As some one described it to you elsewhere, it's like seeing who can find the most eggs on Easter. In your defense, you have not changed, it has been your style/method, going back years to my knowledge and this sudden shift in acceptance, is puzzling, not justifiable or warranted after years of precedence....

 

This is not about silencing people who don't support their opinion. This is not about censoring unsupported opinions or saying they have no place here. [/Quote]

 

What your failing to understand and have demonstrated many times with comment, is the acceptance of your comments by posters, indicating/implying exactly what you say you are not. A new poster or less experienced poster in stating opinions, facts as he/she understands them, simply has no other means of responding, than to reply in kind or simply not respond at all. The end result, "they have no place here"!!!

 

I can't answer your poll, since your assuming any disagreement with you are unsubstantiated, ill informed or HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEOLOGY.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So if you get a majority behind you on this, does this mean your opinion is now *officially* going to be the best, iNow?

 

Of course not. My opinion is always officially the best.

[iNow]

Phi for All / Jackson33 - The question in the thread is clear and plain:

 

 

Do you think unsupported opinions should be deemed equal to supported opinions? Yes or No.

 

 

All of this other stuff you're talking about is (IMO) irrelevant to this thread.

[mooeypoo]

There have been numerous threads in Politics where members like myself are castigated for challenging unsupported opinions, and in doing so have been repeatedly told by the Moderator that "All opinions are equal on this forum."

That's an unfair representation. You're not being chastised for challenging unsupported opinions, iNow, you're beign chastised for the *way* you choose to challenge the opinions.

 

I, too, challenge unsupported opinions. But the main problem I encounter when I try to point out that the attitude you choose to take in 'calling out' members, is that you immediately go on the defensive, followed by an offensive, which causes the threads to just degrade into anger, personal attacks and away from a rational debate.

 

The irony here is that I tend to agree with many of what you say, iNow, but the attitude you sometime take causes me to move away from you, not because I disagree with what you say, but because I disagree with the way you say it. It makes it hard for me to support your opinion when you choose to attack people instead of continuing on a proper debate.

 

I know that things can be frustrating; they're frustrating to me too. But we both chose to participate in this forum, knowing that there are people here who disagree with us. The point of this forum is to conduct rational debates with the people we disagree with - sometimes strongly so.

 

I take it as a challenge. As a way to improve my debating skills, as a way to learn what the people I disagree with think, how they rationalize their arguments, and what can be effective in arguing back to them.

 

When I visit a forum that's purpose is more 'debunking' psuedoscience/religious-topics, or when I go to an atheist forum, my attitude might be different. If any psychich, for instance, 'dares' come into an anti-pseudoscience forum, then it's on him. He walks into a dangerzone, and he will probably be blazed.

 

But this isn't an atheist forum. It's not an anti-pseudoscience forum. It's a science forum.

 

We define ourselves as arguing rationally with people who probably don't really know why things are wrong. While in something like Dawkin's forum the people who argue against the mainstream belief are usually strong believers. They're usually people who won't be convinced by logic. Ridicule (as much as I, PERSONALLY, don't believe in it) is understandable.

 

This isn't the case in this forum, though. We get more people who don't know better, either as active participants of the debate, or random readers. We can't use the same methods we use to argue amongst ourselves than we do in front of them. It defies the point. Instead of convincing them, we show ourselves as the arrogant pricks our opponents claim we are.

 

You are not being chastised for challenging unsupported beliefs, iNow. We all challenge unsupported beliefs; D H does that often in the physics section regarding many a-pseudoscience "theories". Swansont calls out people's unsupported claims in psuedoscience and in physics. I call out people in Pseudoscience. This is a science forum. We require rational debates, not unsupported preaching.

 

But DH, swansont and myself (and the others) give the people a chance. We go into a debate trying to imagine the other person as someone who is just confused, or someone who might say what he says because he never heard anything better. We start from a fair perspective - if we discuss rationally, we might actually have a nice discussion.

 

We only move on to the more "attacking" attitude (either more forceful arguments or requesting other moderators to intervene) when we see the other person is not cooperating, the argument has lost its rational basis and there's no use to continue arguing.

 

Because htat' the point of THIS SPECIFIC FORUM.

 

You have no idea how frustrating it is for me to step away from arguments you are making, iNow. I agree with many of them, but your attitude tends to be so far out there "in your face" to the opponent, that I rather step away from the argument entirely, because I feel that if I don't, the argument will become one about attitude rather than about what actually matters (the opinions and facts themselves).

 

So please. Please. Stop saying we chastise you for calling out people. We really don't. We chastise you for having a very specific attitude that doesn't belong in *THIS* forum.

 

It might belong in Dawkin's forum. It might belong in the JREF forum. They are both excellent forums, but they're not us, and their purpose is different, and hence their method of debating these particular things is also different.

 

I wish we could go back to the old times, iNow, where you, I, and few others, totally and completely show unchallenged-opinions to be wrong by discussing the RATIONALITY of them, rather than by going into an offensive, transforming the thread into an insult fest, confusing new-members into thinking that we're the pigheaded irrational stuckup people, and ruining it for our own side.

 

 

Just think about it, please.

 

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

That's an unfair representation. You're not being chastised for challenging unsupported opinions, iNow, you're beign chastised for the *way* you choose to challenge the opinions.

 

I, too, challenge unsupported opinions. But the main problem I encounter when I try to point out that the attitude you choose to take in 'calling out' members, is that you immediately go on the defensive, followed by an offensive, which causes the threads to just degrade into anger, personal attacks and away from a rational debate.

 

The irony here is that I tend to agree with many of what you say, iNow, but the attitude you sometime take causes me to move away from you, not because I disagree with what you say, but because I disagree with the way you say it. It makes it hard for me to support your opinion when you choose to attack people instead of continuing on a proper debate.

 

I know that things can be frustrating; they're frustrating to me too. But we both chose to participate in this forum, knowing that there are people here who disagree with us. The point of this forum is to conduct rational debates with the people we disagree with - sometimes strongly so.

 

I take it as a challenge. As a way to improve my debating skills, as a way to learn what the people I disagree with think, how they rationalize their arguments, and what can be effective in arguing back to them.

 

When I visit a forum that's purpose is more 'debunking' psuedoscience/religious-topics, or when I go to an atheist forum, my attitude might be different. If any psychich, for instance, 'dares' come into an anti-pseudoscience forum, then it's on him. He walks into a dangerzone, and he will probably be blazed.

 

But this isn't an atheist forum. It's not an anti-pseudoscience forum. It's a science forum.

 

We define ourselves as arguing rationally with people who probably don't really know why things are wrong. While in something like Dawkin's forum the people who argue against the mainstream belief are usually strong believers. They're usually people who won't be convinced by logic. Ridicule (as much as I, PERSONALLY, don't believe in it) is understandable.

 

This isn't the case in this forum, though. We get more people who don't know better, either as active participants of the debate, or random readers. We can't use the same methods we use to argue amongst ourselves than we do in front of them. It defies the point. Instead of convincing them, we show ourselves as the arrogant pricks our opponents claim we are.

 

You are not being chastised for challenging unsupported beliefs, iNow. We all challenge unsupported beliefs; D H does that often in the physics section regarding many a-pseudoscience "theories". Swansont calls out people's unsupported claims in psuedoscience and in physics. I call out people in Pseudoscience. This is a science forum. We require rational debates, not unsupported preaching.

 

But DH, swansont and myself (and the others) give the people a chance. We go into a debate trying to imagine the other person as someone who is just confused, or someone who might say what he says because he never heard anything better. We start from a fair perspective - if we discuss rationally, we might actually have a nice discussion.

 

We only move on to the more "attacking" attitude (either more forceful arguments or requesting other moderators to intervene) when we see the other person is not cooperating, the argument has lost its rational basis and there's no use to continue arguing.

 

Because htat' the point of THIS SPECIFIC FORUM.

 

You have no idea how frustrating it is for me to step away from arguments you are making, iNow. I agree with many of them, but your attitude tends to be so far out there "in your face" to the opponent, that I rather step away from the argument entirely, because I feel that if I don't, the argument will become one about attitude rather than about what actually matters (the opinions and facts themselves).

 

So please. Please. Stop saying we chastise you for calling out people. We really don't. We chastise you for having a very specific attitude that doesn't belong in *THIS* forum.

 

It might belong in Dawkin's forum. It might belong in the JREF forum. They are both excellent forums, but they're not us, and their purpose is different, and hence their method of debating these particular things is also different.

 

I wish we could go back to the old times, iNow, where you, I, and few others, totally and completely show unchallenged-opinions to be wrong by discussing the RATIONALITY of them, rather than by going into an offensive, transforming the thread into an insult fest, confusing new-members into thinking that we're the pigheaded irrational stuckup people, and ruining it for our own side.

 

 

Just think about it, please.

 

 

~moo

QFT. This should be stickied on iNow's account page. Well said mooeypoo.

[iNow]

Moo - Would it perhaps drive home my point if I responded to your well-reasoned, well-supported, well-intentioned, and well thought-out post above by typing the word "shrug?" Just curious.

[mooeypoo]

Moo - Would it perhaps drive home my point if I responded to your well-reasoned, well-supported, well-intentioned, and well thought-out post above by typing the word "shrug?" Just curious.

If that's your only response, you should consider leaving this forum.

[iNow]

I think perhaps you've missed my point. More often than not I am responding to, not initiating, the lack rational discourse. I'm not saying this to let myself off the hook, but instead to perhaps hang others from it justifiably.

[jackson33]

Do you think unsupported opinions should be deemed equal to supported opinions? Yes or No.[/Quote]

 

iNow; By definition, an opinion is unsubstantiated, then carried to the persons knowledge or understanding of that thought. Your asking an impossible question to answer. In law, specifically the Constitution and/or laws concerned with the pledge (your thread base) have been, are and will be based on opinions established through discussion/debate in front of a Judicial System (court), designed to settle an issue for a period of time ONLY. Even the Supreme Court when deciding an issue, will release it's finding in law, then based on OPINIONS from both sides. Why should a forum or it's moderation, be held to any higher standard, even if to conform to your style or method for discussion. That's suggesting arrogance toward those that may simply disagree with you. I might add, those dissenting opinions, to a ruling by the SC, are often used to bring back an issue, with a slightly different angle in the pursuance of a unanimous decision of opinions. This could be no less true, for a poster...

 

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).

 

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

 

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

 

The prevailing view: public opinion.

Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.[/Quote]

[mooeypoo]

I think perhaps you've missed my point. More often than not I am responding to, not initiating, the lack rational discourse. I'm not saying this to let myself off the hook, but instead to perhaps hang others from it justifiably.

But iNow, you're not just a big boy (who can handle and avoid someone else's traps), you're also an extremely intelligent, very resourceful debater. Bringing it back to rationality and, as some say, "pwning" the debate through rational argument, is SO MUCH more effective, specially as these threads stay forever on google searches (and we do see traffic here from google.. quite a lot).

 

We're not talking about the others at the moment. Believe it or not, the moderators are not a solid unit, we argue among ourselves as well about methodologies used by certain members in certain threads before we decide what to do with it. This is meant to make sure we all keep ourselves balanced regardless of personal beliefs.

 

However,you're the one who opened *this* thread at the moment. You presented a strawman to draw out a trap for other users. Nice for you, but you missed your own point as I called you out on it now. And I am trying to see if we can, perhaps, gain back the old iNow, the one whose methods of 'pwning' an irrational argument were known to be witty, resourceful, full of the no-question links and totally pseudoscience-crushing.

 

This was much more effective, much more interesting, and created much more challenging debates than the current in-your-face, I-dont-care-what-you-think-I-know-I'm-right, do-your-own-research, youre-all-idiots iNow that we tend to see lately.

 

Bring back the wittiness, get rid of the snappiness. You'll be surprised how many people you might start to convince. Is that too much to ask?

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

iNow; By definition, an opinion is unsubstantiated, then carried to the persons knowledge or understanding of that thought.

Actually, that would be the definition of belief, not of opinion.

 

But regardless, just like I said to iNow, I will say to you: We are a science forum. The rules here are of rational debate and of evidence-based reality. That's how *our* politics forum is different from *other* politics forum.

 

Our politics forum is an "extra" to this forum, and it follows the same mentality. We are a science forum, we go by rules of evidence and rationality. We avoid logical fallacies, we call out unsupported claims. What you deduce out of the evidence is then your right to hold as opinion, but in THIS PARTICULAR FORUM, we require rationality. And evidence. And supported claims.

 

If you can't handle supporting your opinions with factual claims, then you should go to another politics forum.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

There's a difference between challenging someone's opinion, and elevating your own unsupported opinion above someone else's unsupported opinion. I object to the latter, not the former.

[jackson33]

Actually, that would be the definition of belief, not of opinion.[/Quote]

 

mooeypoo; Nonsense and that was taken from the first site, followed by wiki's definition.

 

 

http://www.answers.com/opinion&r=67

 

 

An opinion is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments. [1]

An opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. In casual use, the term opinion may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

 

If you can't handle supporting your opinions with factual claims, then you should go to another politics forum.[/Quote]

 

More nonsense; NOBODY supports their opinions more than iNow, and I'm probably second, just to get along around here. There is simply nothing definitively factual in Politics, Law, History (for the most part) or many other issues addressed here daily (AGW).

 

For the record, Political Forums (base/purpose) deal as 'Political Science Forums' or 'Social Science', just as arguable, as any issue involved.

 

Political science is a social science concerned with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. It is often described as the pragmatic application of the art and science of politics defined as "who gets what, when and how", leaving out of the picture most of the "why".[1] Political science has several subfields, including: political theory, public policy, national politics, international relations, and comparative politics. [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

 

Your simply trying to do the same, you accuse iNow of doing, in pressing your opinions on what the definition for 'how' a 'Political discussion', should or should not be addressed. By the way, I'm here by choice and you best hope iNow, makes the same choice.

[Mr Skeptic]

Do you think unsupported opinions should be deemed equal to supported opinions? Yes or No.

 

I voted "no" but I think "yes" is actually the correct answer. However, the reason I voted "no" is because all too frequently people call claims of fact an "opinion" and as such the supported ones are better than unsupported.

 

But with real opinions, support is irrelevant. In my opinion, I like chocolate more than vanilla. Why do I like chocolate? Doesn't matter, and no matter how much you might support your position that you like vanilla better it really makes no difference. Because this is an actual opinion, not a claim of fact masquerading as an opinion.

 

This can happen in the politics section, in people's choices of values they use to judge the worth of something. Eg my like of chocolate means that an ugly chocolate cake is better than a pretty vanilla cake, but someone who likes beauty would judge differently as would someone who likes vanilla better. In this case one need only mention what they value, and their values have the strength of unchallengeable opinion.

 

You also get opinion when considering very vague and incomplete evidence; an opinion is then expressed because there is not enough information to reach a conclusion with certainty. This is more troublesome as for this type of opinion there is no dividing line between opinion and argument -- one can make a judgment with more and more conviction as evidence accumulates, but at some point it is opinion and at another an argument. Here support does mean something, but not necessarily very much depending on how clear the issue is. However, one can't go about repeating it as a counter to what someone else is saying, and then turning tail and calling it an opinion when challenged. If you want someone to agree with you it ain't an opinion. Opinions are shared, not preached.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

However,you're the one who opened *this* thread at the moment. You presented a strawman to draw out a trap for other users. Nice for you, but you missed your own point as I called you out on it now. And I am trying to see if we can, perhaps, gain back the old iNow, the one whose methods of 'pwning' an irrational argument were known to be witty, resourceful, full of the no-question links and totally pseudoscience-crushing.

 

This was much more effective, much more interesting, and created much more challenging debates than the current in-your-face, I-dont-care-what-you-think-I-know-I'm-right, do-your-own-research, youre-all-idiots iNow that we tend to see lately.

 

Bring back the wittiness, get rid of the snappiness. You'll be surprised how many people you might start to convince. Is that too much to ask?

 

I'd have to agree with that. iNow has convinced me of one notable thing, the truth of evolution, via a link he shared. Being rude may very well provoke responses (this is known as trolling I believe), but by its very nature is unlikely to change minds. If you appear to be so invested in one particular answer that you are willing to violate social conventions to convert people, you will be seen as a closed-minded, untrusted, biased source. Unfair, perhaps, but the world isn't fair.

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo; Nonsense and that was taken from the first site, followed by wiki's definition.

Perhaps, but in *THIS* forum, we go by rational explanation of opinions. We aren't a political forum, we're a science forum with a political section. We opened it out of request of the users, with CLEAR instructions that we only do that to conduct rational debate.

 

 

If you debate here, you should support your claims. Otherwise, people will call you out on unsupported claims. Period.

 

We are, in this aspect, different than other political forums. As the saying goes: Take it or leave it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Your simply trying to do the same, you accuse iNow of doing, in pressing your opinions on what the definition for 'how' a 'Political discussion', should or should not be addressed. By the way, I'm here by choice and you best hope iNow, makes the same choice.

 

Look. The moderators are not all-seeing. Moreover, many moderators prefer sticking to the science sections here and not debate in the politics section, which is really a 'bonus' extension to the SFN forums.

 

So, if you see people who consistently refuse to support their claims or excessively and repeatedly use logical fallacies, your logical course of action is to REPORT IT, so the moderators see it and deal with it.

 

We are dealing with it when we see it. Just look through the forum and see for yourself. If you have any specific arguments that you think weren't run right, then please, use the report button.

 

We deal with EVERY report we're getting. We might argue on it and decide that the report is wrong, and we might decide it deserves some action, whatever the severity of that action be. Help us out and use the report button.

 

~moo

Edited March 21, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

I think all the Mods are pink elephants, but this is an unsupported opinion.

They may think otherwise but their opinion, apparently, has no more validity than mine.

 

Not to pick on John, but since this example is here, I will use this as an example.

 

This falls into the category of what I call a fake opinion. And by this I mean it is a statement that is offered as an opinion, but is really a statement that has a factual basis although the person posting may not actually know the truth of the matter. Whether the mods are pink elephants is something that could, in principle, be affirmed or falsified. As a result, this fake opinion is not equal to others; if appropriate evidence can be presented the poster can be shown to be either right or wrong. That is not the hallmark of an opinion, and is not equal to some actual opinion on the topic. And I think that people here argue fake opinions quite a bit.

 

 

——

 

Moo has made a few thoughtful posts, and I generally agree. Let me add this:

 

The link from wikipedia says, "An opinion may be supported by an argument." Arguments have a logical structure to them, and one may challenge the validity of these arguments and any facts upon which they might be based. But we insist that one do so without belittling the opinion or disparaging the one who holds it.

 

The goal is civil discourse, and one of the rules that we have is that logical fallacies are not permitted. A reason for this is that several of them appeal to emotion rather than fact or logic, so when discussing topics that have a factual basis, they are invalid. But they get used anyway (they are effective, after all) and the mods don't always catch them. A problem is that they are effective — they have a tendency to induce an emotional response, which is often the beginning of a spiral into personal exchanges.

 

What I find dismaying is the shock exhibited by some when their fallacious post induces anger, and what must be understood is this: the are are people, and I count myself among them, that feel insulted at that kind of post. When you see someone pointing out "strawman," "moving the goalposts," "appeal to ridicule," or something else on the list of fallacies, what is really being said is that the posts are rude, in the context of honest debate.

[padren]

Doesn't this really all boil down to the context of the discussion? If a question is raised that involves whether federal funds should be spent on abortions under certain conditions it seems fair for someone to say that in their opinion that should never be allowed, or the opposite. People's gut reactions are a real factor politically on this issue and it doesn't really matter if a voter backs their opinions or not - they'll still vote by them.

 

That said, all someone's unsubstantiated opinion says is that they have an unsubstantiated opinion. They are saying how they "feel" about something and that doesn't build a case one way or another in terms of trying to uncover the most logically and factually consistent approach to a problem.

 

When someone randomly states an opinion but can't back it up I think the best approach is to get them to clarify the intent of the comment... are they saying "I hear what you are saying, but I feel a stalemate coming on since I just can't help but to disagree" or are they taking an "appeal to authority" approach of saying their opinion is more important than all the facts you've brought up?

 

 

Consider if someone brought up a perfectly logical argument as to why it's beneficial to lie, cheat and kill. Regardless of how good they are at making their argument or how hungover you are, you probably won't be won over just because they have good debating skills. You may hope to be able to argue them under the table, but if you couldn't for whatever reason, you'd probably state that in your opinion you just can't agree with them regardless of whether you could back it up.

 

It's good for people to state their opinions and clarify where logic isn't enough to change their minds. As long as they don't try to insist on their opinion carrying "debating weight" in their argument's favor as if it was substantiated by facts, there really is no harm. It's just a matter of context and function.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think perhaps you've missed my point. More often than not I am responding to, not initiating, the lack rational discourse. I'm not saying this to let myself off the hook, but instead to perhaps hang others from it justifiably.

 

When I read this, I had a vision of an Australian wildlife tour guide dangling a chicken from a pole over a crocodile.

 

It's okay to put other people on the hook, but stop trying to eat them. That's the point we're trying to make.

[jackson33]

If that's your only response, you should consider leaving this forum.[/Quote]

 

mooeypoo; It was this comment (to iNow), that generated my rebuttal to your post. I'm not inclined to stand up for well experienced poster, especially on this thread while disputing his stance on 'opinions'. It's my opinion, he and Pangloss are debating style/methods, not necessarily what substantiates an opinion.

 

If you debate here, you should support your claims. Otherwise, people will call you out on unsupported claims. Period.[/Quote]

 

And I do, when asked or offer something I know will be contested. That's not the point; Any reference I can offer is equally represented by an opposite viewpoint site, in ALL the areas I prefer discussing. It's just as true in the Science Subjects, I discuss elsewhere and understood to be the truth.

 

So, if you see people who consistently refuse to support their claims or excessively and repeatedly use logical fallacies, your logical course of action is to REPORT IT, so the moderators see it and deal with it. [/Quote]

 

I have no idea where this comes from; First, the issues I'll take a stand on, are going to be controversial and it's extremely unlikely I wouldn't already know the opposite side the argument. Second, while I'd rather not discuss any issue, that's being responded to with moveable goal post (diversionary tactics) it's simply going to happen and a challenge. Third, I would never try to bring an authority into an ongoing discussion (already a problem) and would simply cease my posting, that thread.

 

We are dealing with it when we see it. Just look through the forum and see for yourself. If you have any specific arguments that you think weren't run right, then please, use the report button.[/Quote]

 

Again, who brought this up; Your forum and the work you and other staff does, is fine, especially since you all cut out the blue print. Currently I post more here, than ever before and with the US 2010 elections coming up, will probably do more.

 

We deal with EVERY report we're getting. We might argue on it and decide that the report is wrong, and we might decide it deserves some action, whatever the severity of that action be. Help us out and use the report button. [/Quote]

 

Fine and I suspect a good share are false alarms. "We might argue" indicates some are from moderators themselves, which is to be expected.

 

Note; You of course are welcome to reply, but I'd prefer the topic going back to the threads topic, even though I've pretty well said all I can on the issue.

 

 

That said, all someone's unsubstantiated opinion says is that they have an unsubstantiated opinion. They are saying how they "feel" about something and that doesn't build a case one way or another in terms of trying to uncover the most logically and factually consistent approach to a problem.[/Quote]

 

padren; I think, their trying to instill a 'cause' for an opinion. If you do or don't feel something on any issue, what's the reason. This would commit the poster to a specific ideology on the subject allowing a more informed rebuttal. Contrary to swansont's opinion of an opinion, an opinion does not require a substantiation. It might be my opinion, that the Universe might be infinite or not in an endless emptiness, but could never be substantiated. However, the reasons for that opinion could be argued.

[Pangloss]

It's good for people to state their opinions and clarify where logic isn't enough to change their minds. As long as they don't try to insist on their opinion carrying "debating weight" in their argument's favor as if it was substantiated by facts, there really is no harm. It's just a matter of context and function.

 

Nice post, padren. (Whole post was great, but especially this last bit.)

[swansont]

I think opinions which are supported with fact, substance, and logic will nearly ALWAYS be better than those which are simply put forth as opinion alone and left at that.

 

I think that no matter how eloquently and exhaustively one presents and supports their opinion, I should be able to say "I disagree," and leave it at that should I choose to do so. My disagreement is not worth any less just because I don't want to go into details.

[iNow]

I should be able to say "I disagree," and leave it at that should I choose to do so. My disagreement is not worth any less just because I don't want to go into details.

I contend that... on a discussion forum, unsupported disagreement truly is worth less.

 

It's fine if you choose to disagree. However, if you decide to login, hit the reply button, and then openly express your disagreement for all to see... putting it forth as a piece of the overall puzzle which is a discussion thread or debate... but then fail to support it or provide details when asked, then your contribution truly is worth less... not worthless, but worth less.

 

Am I really that far in left field with this? I'm being treated like I'm talking about the existence of unicorns as a valid part of our reality when, in fact, my points are reasonable overall.

 

Sure... Disagree. Awesome... but don't just disagree and leave it at that... don't put forth your position as counter to that espoused by previous posters and then hide behind calling it an opinion instead of defending/supporting/detailing it when that position is challenged.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that no matter how eloquently and exhaustively one presents and supports their opinion, I should be able to say "I disagree," and leave it at that should I choose to do so. My disagreement is not worth any less just because I don't want to go into details.

 

That's only true of real opinions however.