> Two things: firstly, I did not know that was the etiquette and secondly, it is very easy to imagine something you disagree with is poorly reasoned. > When so

> Two things: firstly, I did not know that was the etiquette and secondly, it is very easy to imagine something you disagree with is poorly reasoned. > When someone says something you agree with (say, we need testing) then you automatically think of all the reasons you believe it and fill in the gaps in reasoning. If someone says something you do not agree with (we need more testing), you automatically summon the counter arguments to each point the person has laid out, and you roll your virtual eyes at this person for not thinking through "basic" things you feel you know. > In short, none of our intuitions on what constitutes reasonable or reasoned are innocent. I find an additional issue related to this is when attempting a meta-discussion on controversial topics are down-voting heavily. In the rare event that a reply is left, it usually suggests a belief that the purpose of the meta-discussion is to favor one of the positions in the topic. As if the purpose of having a meta-discussion can only be to cleverly sew seeds of doubt against or in favor a position, as if analyzing the question of "why are we asking this question" is never relevant.