4 ms·

>It's not exhausting, you're just refusing to understand the other side of the argument. Do you also accept the "other side" of the argument that the author of

>It's not exhausting, you're just refusing to understand the other side of the argument. Do you also accept the "other side" of the argument that the author of the blog post could be wrong?

cinntaile 4y ago
The grandparent misunderstood why the author was being vague. This is a separate issue from whether the author of the blogpost is right or wrong, it gets very confusing if you try and conflate the two as you are doing right now.
- passivate 4y ago
  >The grandparent misunderstood why the author was being vague Perhaps, but only the author can confirm this.
Kranar 4y ago
I don't accept either side of the argument as true, my point is simply that telling someone to keep their story to themselves unless they can present an argument that satisfies a scientific standard is missing the point being made. People make arguments that are purposely vague to avoid causing undue harm both to themselves and, believe it or not, to the people they are accusing. Usually you do this because you're not interested in bringing to light the specifics of one particular instance as if this is an isolated case, but rather to let others who may find themselves in a similar circumstance know that they aren't alone.
- passivate 4y ago
  >telling someone to keep their story to themselves unless they can present an argument that satisfies a scientific standard I don't see where they made this claim, or a reference to a 'scientific standard'. Can you please point to it?
  - Kranar 4y ago
    >If you can't be specific enough to be scientific about it, just keep it to yourself.
    - passivate 4y ago
      I'm in favor of specific criticism rather than lumping everyone together or painting with a broad brush, so on that specific point, I agree with the OP. There is no mention about needing to satisfy any specific 'standard' as you claimed. What you quoted doesn't say that either. Anyway, there isn't much meat in this thread arguing over such minutia, so I will just let you have the last word if you'd like to.
      - Kranar 4y ago
        You can be in favor of whatever you want, some people like vanilla, some people like chocolate. The issue is when someone who likes vanilla claims that people who like chocolate are acting unprofessionally and doing something wrong or doing something that is purposeless when all that's really happening is the person who likes vanilla fails to even make an attempt to understand why someone would like chocolate. Feel free to have whatever preference you want, but understand that others may have different preferences from yours and they may have good reasons for those preferences that you simply are not aware of instead of assuming the worst of them. >What you quoted doesn't say that either. It absolutely does and the fact that you don't realize that is a good indication you are not discussing this matter in good faith so I thank you for choosing to cease discussing this any further.

>It's not exhausting, you're just refusing to understand the other side of the argument. Do you also accept the "other side" of the argument that the author of the blog post could be wrong?

cinntaile 4y ago

The grandparent misunderstood why the author was being vague. This is a separate issue from whether the author of the blogpost is right or wrong, it gets very confusing if you try and conflate the two as you are doing right now.

passivate 4y ago
>The grandparent misunderstood why the author was being vague Perhaps, but only the author can confirm this.

Kranar 4y ago

I don't accept either side of the argument as true, my point is simply that telling someone to keep their story to themselves unless they can present an argument that satisfies a scientific standard is missing the point being made. People make arguments that are purposely vague to avoid causing undue harm both to themselves and, believe it or not, to the people they are accusing. Usually you do this because you're not interested in bringing to light the specifics of one particular instance as if this is an isolated case, but rather to let others who may find themselves in a similar circumstance know that they aren't alone.

passivate 4y ago
>telling someone to keep their story to themselves unless they can present an argument that satisfies a scientific standard I don't see where they made this claim, or a reference to a 'scientific standard'. Can you please point to it?
- Kranar 4y ago
  >If you can't be specific enough to be scientific about it, just keep it to yourself.
  - passivate 4y ago
    I'm in favor of specific criticism rather than lumping everyone together or painting with a broad brush, so on that specific point, I agree with the OP. There is no mention about needing to satisfy any specific 'standard' as you claimed. What you quoted doesn't say that either. Anyway, there isn't much meat in this thread arguing over such minutia, so I will just let you have the last word if you'd like to.
    - Kranar 4y ago
      You can be in favor of whatever you want, some people like vanilla, some people like chocolate. The issue is when someone who likes vanilla claims that people who like chocolate are acting unprofessionally and doing something wrong or doing something that is purposeless when all that's really happening is the person who likes vanilla fails to even make an attempt to understand why someone would like chocolate. Feel free to have whatever preference you want, but understand that others may have different preferences from yours and they may have good reasons for those preferences that you simply are not aware of instead of assuming the worst of them. >What you quoted doesn't say that either. It absolutely does and the fact that you don't realize that is a good indication you are not discussing this matter in good faith so I thank you for choosing to cease discussing this any further.