Topic: Natural permitted flow of a thread - 3. flawed reasoning on the basis of prior (Read 199 times)
April 04, 2019, 06:44:47 PM
You are the inspiration for every sensible person on this forum ...........
April 04, 2019, 05:15:16 AM
Local rules - No contributors to my fanzine thread here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-boycott-of-replies-to-the-recent-extensive-trolling-by-cryptohunter-5088527 can post here
so if you posted there already (not including myself) then you are not permitted to post here certainly no qwk either. Also no direct examples or making it personal or I will insist on deletion. I would have previously welcomed debate by any person but since my reasonable requests not to make it personal before were ignored then I have no choice.
This one is VERY important
Opinions voiced that are clearly disingenuous, demonstrate double standards or flawed reasoning.
This is similar to the precedents one although not exactly the same so requires a separate thread to avoid confusion.
Say you stumble on to a thread debating certain actions to be taken on the basis of certain prior instances of behaviour. You start to read through and you notice that a person is advocating actions that are completely contradictory to his prior reactions on an identical matter? or perhaps is advocating/suggesting punishment for things they have done themselves and feel it was okay in their case.
I mean surely for the novice reader or any reader that wants the full picture? Sometimes people just give out opinions without substantiating them at all. If you come to a thread and the 10 people there are all advocating a certain action be taken then you may be persuaded they are correct just through force of numbers and their consensus.
I mean if you are able to demonstrate that these people are clearly demonstrating double standards and that their comments should be viewed in that context then you are assisting the optimal solution. So the reader says to himself hang on a moment perhaps I should withhold my judgement until I do a bit more research here and see if these actions they are all suggesting are fair and consistent and appropriate in this instance.
Also now that I am aware that these members are demonstrating either clear double standards or flawed reasoning then I must be wary of taking anything they say at face value. I mean surely it is the responsibility of all members to highlight double standards and flawed reasoning when it is clearly a very similar/identical and relevant scenario being discussed?
It seems like it is hiding relevant information not to bring this to light. The people that are demonstrating clear double standards/flawed reasoning then have the opportunity to expand or explain if they have been misunderstood or have something new or as yet unmentioned to present that will demonstrate they appear to be exhibiting double standards /flawed reasoning but are actually not guilty of that at all. Perhaps they did not reveal some information that all readers should be privy to for them to reach the optimal solution. Once that is revealed then again the debate is more likely to reach the optimal outcome.
Again this being called off topic and irrelevant seems counter productive for a debate that intends to reach the optimal solution
so if you posted there already (not including myself) then you are not permitted to post here certainly no qwk either. Also no direct examples or making it personal or I will insist on deletion. I would have previously welcomed debate by any person but since my reasonable requests not to make it personal before were ignored then I have no choice.
This one is VERY important
Opinions voiced that are clearly disingenuous, demonstrate double standards or flawed reasoning.
This is similar to the precedents one although not exactly the same so requires a separate thread to avoid confusion.
Say you stumble on to a thread debating certain actions to be taken on the basis of certain prior instances of behaviour. You start to read through and you notice that a person is advocating actions that are completely contradictory to his prior reactions on an identical matter? or perhaps is advocating/suggesting punishment for things they have done themselves and feel it was okay in their case.
I mean surely for the novice reader or any reader that wants the full picture? Sometimes people just give out opinions without substantiating them at all. If you come to a thread and the 10 people there are all advocating a certain action be taken then you may be persuaded they are correct just through force of numbers and their consensus.
I mean if you are able to demonstrate that these people are clearly demonstrating double standards and that their comments should be viewed in that context then you are assisting the optimal solution. So the reader says to himself hang on a moment perhaps I should withhold my judgement until I do a bit more research here and see if these actions they are all suggesting are fair and consistent and appropriate in this instance.
Also now that I am aware that these members are demonstrating either clear double standards or flawed reasoning then I must be wary of taking anything they say at face value. I mean surely it is the responsibility of all members to highlight double standards and flawed reasoning when it is clearly a very similar/identical and relevant scenario being discussed?
It seems like it is hiding relevant information not to bring this to light. The people that are demonstrating clear double standards/flawed reasoning then have the opportunity to expand or explain if they have been misunderstood or have something new or as yet unmentioned to present that will demonstrate they appear to be exhibiting double standards /flawed reasoning but are actually not guilty of that at all. Perhaps they did not reveal some information that all readers should be privy to for them to reach the optimal solution. Once that is revealed then again the debate is more likely to reach the optimal outcome.
Again this being called off topic and irrelevant seems counter productive for a debate that intends to reach the optimal solution
Jump to: