Sounds like you're saying, 'Argue with me, dammit, and on my terms ...'
That's not what I intended. You are, of course, free to operate any way you want as long as you don't violate SI's terms of use. As I have said, we are all free to form beliefs and opinions however we are equipped and comfortable. And we can discuss on SI in whatever mode we choose. You can use argumentation or rhetoric or debate when you engage others over issues. Or not deal seriously with issues at all, just glad hand or rant or bond or sloganeer or whatever. There are no rules, and certainly not my rules.
I do have some "terms" regarding my participation. I expect the people with whom I engage to operate in good faith as do I. If they violate that I may call them on it. Usually I just disengage.
That said, I do have some sensitivity to a few things, mainly hypocrisy, obvious logical fallacies, absolutism, certain cognitive biases, especially illusory superiority, willful ignorance, any kind of bogus claim. Sometimes it's hard to let them stand unanswered. If offends my sense of intellectual integrity.
Any poster who make assertions utterly lacking in credibility should not be be surprised by a challenge from me. Of course, my challenge does not obligate the poster to answer the challenge. Declining the challenge is a good-faith option. But, if engaged, I do expect it to be dealt with in good faith.
...and prove whatever it is I want proven on my terms.
For proof there are extant rules. They sure weren't invented by me. There is a lot of space along the continuum between bald assertion and proof. While bald assertions are utterly unacceptable, proof is likely impossible. For our purposes here, I am generally satisfied by anything that appears thoughtful and plausible, a state well short of proven. Trying to pass bald assertion off as the proof sets off the bullshit alarm. |
