4 ms·

I didn't say that you should support the idea of role models. I said that the argument provided in pjc50's post supported the idea that "role models are probabl

I didn't say that you should support the idea of role models. I said that the argument provided in pjc50's post supported the idea that "role models are probably a bad idea". Your comment only included a sentiment, not a rational reason to support the idea you tried to express.

Chris2048 9y ago
That's all that is needed when the burden of proof is not upon you. I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space, anyone with such a claim themselves bear that burden. MY 'idea' is the rejection if an unsupported claim, requiring no more rationalisation than that.
- TuringTest 9y ago
  > I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space In that case you didn't needed to write down your rejection of it either, and your post became redundant. No wonder that it got downmodded into oblivion.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Pointing out something as unjustified is not redundant, especially ion a context where it appears to have been assumed.
    - TuringTest 9y ago
      You left out commenting on the part where your post came as dismissive. If your post had made a neutral assertion that "role models have been assumed but that may be unjustified", it might have been acceptable. But that is not what your post did. Now you may learn to avoid writing remarks like that and contribute with constructive dialog in the future, or keep defending a post which the community decided to flag dead and bury, by making rationalizations about it that were not explicit in the original.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        > But that is not what your post did. What did it do instead? That's exactly what it said. It's your assertion that the comment was "dismissive". > Now you may learn the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community"; The remark "like that" was fine in my own judgement, and that's what matters to me, not the handful of internet points I might lose to people who care for no dialogue at all. The comment was constructive as far as I'm concerned, and my "rationalizations" are clear - I think you've jumped the gun in assuming your opinions here.
        TuringTest 9y ago
        > the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community" The post is hidden from view once it becomes flagged dead; and before it happened, no one bothered to mod it up to undo what they'd think could be an unfair down vote. You may rationalize all you want, but fact remains that pjc50's post was not flagged down, and yours was, even though they were "suggesting exactly" the same point. I just pointed out this factual difference, and proposed what I think is the most likely reason. If you keep thinking that you got downmodded not for the style of your post but for its contents, by "people who care for no dialogue", then how do you explain that pjc50's post was not downmodded as well?
        Chris2048 9y ago
        "No one bothered to mod it up" But doo you know how many saw it at that point? Many nested comments see no active users in any case, other than those already participating in the thread. This means voting is biased by that. The fact that pjc50's post was not down-modded is also consistent with the down votes being non-representative. You're applying "logic" where it doesn't apply, but feel free to apply probability or statistics.

Chris2048 9y ago

That's all that is needed when the burden of proof is not upon you. I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space, anyone with such a claim themselves bear that burden. MY 'idea' is the rejection if an unsupported claim, requiring no more rationalisation than that.

TuringTest 9y ago
> I don't need to argue why there is no teapot in space In that case you didn't needed to write down your rejection of it either, and your post became redundant. No wonder that it got downmodded into oblivion.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Pointing out something as unjustified is not redundant, especially ion a context where it appears to have been assumed.
  - TuringTest 9y ago
    You left out commenting on the part where your post came as dismissive. If your post had made a neutral assertion that "role models have been assumed but that may be unjustified", it might have been acceptable. But that is not what your post did. Now you may learn to avoid writing remarks like that and contribute with constructive dialog in the future, or keep defending a post which the community decided to flag dead and bury, by making rationalizations about it that were not explicit in the original.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > But that is not what your post did. What did it do instead? That's exactly what it said. It's your assertion that the comment was "dismissive". > Now you may learn the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community"; The remark "like that" was fine in my own judgement, and that's what matters to me, not the handful of internet points I might lose to people who care for no dialogue at all. The comment was constructive as far as I'm concerned, and my "rationalizations" are clear - I think you've jumped the gun in assuming your opinions here.
      - TuringTest 9y ago
        > the post ended up around -2 which is not "the community" The post is hidden from view once it becomes flagged dead; and before it happened, no one bothered to mod it up to undo what they'd think could be an unfair down vote. You may rationalize all you want, but fact remains that pjc50's post was not flagged down, and yours was, even though they were "suggesting exactly" the same point. I just pointed out this factual difference, and proposed what I think is the most likely reason. If you keep thinking that you got downmodded not for the style of your post but for its contents, by "people who care for no dialogue", then how do you explain that pjc50's post was not downmodded as well?
        Chris2048 9y ago
        "No one bothered to mod it up" But doo you know how many saw it at that point? Many nested comments see no active users in any case, other than those already participating in the thread. This means voting is biased by that. The fact that pjc50's post was not down-modded is also consistent with the down votes being non-representative. You're applying "logic" where it doesn't apply, but feel free to apply probability or statistics.