Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes.

14 (18.9%)

No.

27 (36.5%)

I had no idea it existed until I read this.

33 (44.6%)

Total Members Voted: 73

[wierd]

Hey, them's the breaks right?

[DJ]

There's no ignore button IRL, so I think relying on it too much may impair the ability to ignore annoying people in meatspace. Of course, Internet people are a LOT more annoying, but that just means you'll be better trained.

[Max White]

It is an internet forum, we come here to enjoy ourselves. If there is somebody who insists on making themselves a problem, I don't see the problem in altering the situation to make life a little more pleasant for yourself... It isn't like you are muting them to the world, they can continue to post and talk with people who want to listen.

[wierd]

Indeed, but this reinforces the idea that you are "right", and they are "wrong". (And also does the same to them! It makes them more extreme and radical!)

Again, yes-men, and doctors of celebrities. 

[Max White]

No, it reinforces the idea that you don't care for their bullshit, and you no longer care for their opinion. Maybe a similar opinion from somebody else able to maintain some semblance of rationality, but not them.

[wierd]

Exactly-- you believe that you are right, and that they are wrong. (Not just wrong, but also stupid.)

[Mictlantecuhtli]

So, what amount of irrationality does it take for a chosen 'rational' to become an ignored 'irrational'? How do you know if someone 'irrational' has changed their ways? Or is disagreement the end-all to interaction?

[Max White]

Exactly-- you believe that you are right, and that they are wrong. (Not just wrong, but also stupid.)

Just stupid. Somebody can be correct and stupid, but their inability to actually talk about a topic in an intelligent way makes it a waste of time. You can get over talking to somebody and not just assume they are wrong, but instead just to mentally impaired to be worth the effort.

[wierd]

No, they have a different box of axioms from yours. That's why it seems like irrational bullshit. Yours sounds just as irrational to them.

Neither is actually stupid.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

How much ability to 'talk about a topic in an intelligent way' is required? And when do you determine when a person is 'just to [sic] mentally impaired to be worth the effort'? Is there an amount of disagreements required before they are shunned to ignoration [it's a word!], and is this independent of their mental impairment determination? Do you ignore people on the spot quite often with such an attitude?

I don't see many people ever coming about Bay12 with silly troll-minded-only arguments. There's hardheaded disagreements sure, but nothing truly hateful/spiteful/against the spirit of debate. If anything the 'I should ignore people who annoy/disagree with me [too much?]' attitude is an example of being against the very spirit of constructive debate in the first place.

[wierd]

Agreed. But it *can* be too hard for some people, and for them, throwing in the towel is the right call. But I do feel they need to try first.

[Max White]

How much ability to 'talk about a topic in an intelligent way' is required? And when do you determine when a person is 'just to [sic] mentally impaired to be worth the effort'? Is there an amount of disagreements required before they are shunned to ignoration [it's a word!], and is this independent of their mental impairment determination? Do you ignore people on the spot quite often with such an attitude?

When their reply turns to semantics and logical fallacies, I will deal with it. When it is just giving you the finger, or at least a close approximation to over the internet,  with nothing more than than that, I'm done.

[scriver]

But what if your argument consists of semantics and logical fallacies, max. How do you go on when you've put yourself on ignore?
 

Actually, I go to the DRPK's website specifically to read the propaganda. Otherwise I will have an uninformed opinion of it.

That is the opposite purpose of propaganda, you know

[Max White]

But what if your argument consists of semantics and logical fallacies, max. How do you go on when you've put yourself on ignore?

When their reply turns to semantics and logical fallacies, I will deal with it.

So I guess to answer your question; I will deal with it. That is to say I will cope, I will accept it, I will not feel the need to add to the ignore list. Semantics and fallacies do not warrant the ignore list, because at least they are trying. Maybe failing, but at least trying.

But when their only response is "You're an ass!" then that is it, they aren't trying, and they have nothing of value to say, I'm done. I'm sure any little idea still floating around in their head will be better heard from somebody else.

[wierd]

I actually take the opposite position;

It does not matter if I am polite about it-- if I am correct, and can prove I am correct, that's what matters. How one "feels" about the answer is immaterial.

The issue I have mostly encountered is that others may not accept the proof of correctness, because the proof may require the use of axioms outside of their mental toybox.

A good example of this would be a creationist VS an evolutionist/secular scientifically literate person, debating the origin of humans.

From the axiom toolkit of  the creationist (at least for the typical christian variety), the argument is that the physical reality we experience is actually an illusion to be overcome to achieve the true prize in a supernatural afterlife, and humans were directly created the way they are specifically to facilitate this role (as such, the assertion that objective reality is a manifestation of truth is immediately exclude-able as false)-- but to the evolutionary/scientific axiom toolkit, the physical reality is the objective manifestation of truth, and the religious axiom is nonsense that is immediately exclude-able as false.

Both are using logic to arrive at a conclusion-- but both cannot be correct.