Pos(t)ers I Have Known

[taykair]

Here's another beef I have:

Person A offers an opinion - only an opinion, mind you - something on his mind that he wants to share.

Person B immediately leaps in screaming. "Evidence! I demand scientific (?) evidence for your statement!" or "Sources! I demand at least three independent sources for your assertion!"

Now remember that person A was only offering an opinion. There may or may not be evidence (scientific or otherwise) for his statement. Does this mean that his opinion is worthless? To some, perhaps. To person B certainly. But not to person A. And not to me.

As for sources: The source of A's opinion was A's brain. Does this source invalidate the statement? If so, then what is the source of those other sources? Nothing more or less than the brains of the sources which are cited.

I also find it rather odd that those who clamor for sources are often the same ones who will reject a statement on the grounds that it is an "appeal to authority". I also find it strange that, on occasions where sources are cited, such are almost always deemed to be "out of context" or whatever. Nothing seems to be good enough for these folks.

Don't misunderstand, sometimes a call for evidence or sources is made in order to help to clarify the original statement, and this is fine. More often, however, the constant drumbeat of evidence!, source!, evidence!, source! is simply a way to silence an opinion which we do not wish to hear - or want others to consider.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think I started going online around 2000-2001. Of course, I have no way of proving it, since most of the forums I contributed to back then have since gone belly-up for one reason or another. Still, except for a short "vacation" from the internet (which ended up lasting about three years), I have been a (more or less) active part of scores of online forums.

In that time, I have observed a few different species of posters who have, for one reason or another, made me want to take a permanent vacation. Here's my list. Please do not hesitate to make your own additions to it.

THE TROLL - I have to start with this one, because no list of forum pos(t)ers would be complete without him. Indeed, I've never seen a forum that didn't have at least one of these creatures. Fortunately, they aren't allowed to run free for very long, and concientious webmasters eject them after giving them a chance to change their ways. They seldom do, though. The troll thrives on the attention he gets by instigating heated arguments (instead of friendly discussion), engaging in personal attacks, and generally making trouble. This is why folks should NEVER FEED THE TROLL. A subspecies of the troll is...

THE MISSIONARY - This is someone who purposely joins a website that promotes an idea which is contrary to his own for the purpose of insulting the people there. Examples of this would be an atheist who disrupts a "Christians-only" forum, or a "scientist" (note the quotes) who horns in on a forum devoted to paranomal activity. Now, there's nothing wrong with observing, or even joining, a website whose values are at odds with your own. In fact, it's a great way to learn about other folks and what they believe, as long as you are respectful and don't ask questions which are designed more to disrupt rather than to gain a better understanding. However, if you join a website solely in order to impose your point-of-view where it's not wanted, then you are a missionary. You are a troll. Live with it.

MR. NON-SEQUITOR - This fellow is rather harmless compared with the two above, but he still gets under my skin. Imagine you're taking part in a thread about karma as it relates to the problem of good and evil. You read post after interesting post, until you get to Mr. Non-sequitor's posting of a YouTube video about how to stuff a turkey for Thanksgiving. "What the hell?" you say to yourself, until you see the poster's name and realize he's done this kind of thing before. Lots of times. Then you just sigh and move on.

THE GRAMMARIAN - Folks, if the only thing you can contribute to a discussion is that a word has been misspelled, or that a comma should have been inserted after the third word in the second sentence of the first paragraph, then - despite what you may think - you're part of the problem, not the solution. You should understand that this is the WORLD WIDE web. There are folks who, because of age, or education, or simply because English is not their first language, cannot express themselves as masterfully as you can. (Or, as masterfully as can you. Whatever.)

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME - Yes, I have read Plato. Yes, I'm aware that before any meaningful discussion can take place, we should define our terms. There comes a point, though, when it seems that an entire thread seems devoted to arguing definitions instead of discussing ideas. Frankly, arguing semantics bores the hell out of me. Example: "Atheism is not a belief that there is no God, it is a disbelief in God." Yawn. Okay. Fine. Can we get to the point now please?

THE FALLACY PHALLUS: "You are guilty of circular reasoning." "Your argument is also known as inductive fallacy." "I totally reject such appeals to authority." And on. And on. And on. It's true that some arguments are better than others, and we should all try (I said TRY) to avoid fallacious arguments to support our views. However, some folks would rather critique the argument itself rather than the point of the argument. Many times, this is because they have nothing of any real value to add to the discussion. They're kind of like the Grammarians - mostly harmless, but real pricks nonetheless.

That's my list. I'm sure there are more, but I'll let you folks add to it. Take care.

I like the "Your wrong. I'm right and you're to stupid for me to even tell you what's right."

 

[taykair]

I like the "Your wrong. I'm right and you're to stupid for me to even tell you what's right."

I get that attitude a lot. It's a shame that they won't take the time and effort to enlighten me. Oh well. I suppose I'll just have to wallow in my own ignorance.