CDZ What is the Value of Having a Debate with Disingenuous Posters?

[jwoodie]

I am referring to individuals who contribute nothing other than personal insults and attempts to sabotage a particular topic through irrelevant and/or deceitful postings. The latter can be identified by their refusal to cite factual authority and ignoring requests for clarification of their bogus assertions.

I have found that the value of discussions on this board is enhanced by Ignoring these people rather than engaging them as if they were serious participants in the discussion. At the very least, their postings only deserve a "funny" rating with no further encouragement.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I am referring to individuals who contribute nothing other than personal insults and attempts to sabotage a particular topic through irrelevant and/or deceitful postings. The latter can be identified by their refusal to cite factual authority and ignoring requests for clarification of their bogus assertions.

I have found that the value of discussions on this board is enhanced by Ignoring these people rather than engaging them as if they were serious participants in the discussion. At the very least, their postings only deserve a "funny" rating with no further encouragement.

Couldn't help but give you a funny rating.

The usual poster version of debate is telling you that you are wrong, and if you do not agree with their opinion then they will explain to you in explicit language how you are wrong.

So just keep on doing what you have been doing and just ignore those that you feel are not offering anything to the debate.

 

[Freewill]

I am referring to individuals who contribute nothing other than personal insults and attempts to sabotage a particular topic through irrelevant and/or deceitful postings. The latter can be identified by their refusal to cite factual authority and ignoring requests for clarification of their bogus assertions.

I have found that the value of discussions on this board is enhanced by Ignoring these people rather than engaging them as if they were serious participants in the discussion. At the very least, their postings only deserve a "funny" rating with no further encouragement.

In 90 percent of the cases, if the poster's avatar features a clown, in any way, you might as well call yourself an ahole and move on. Nothing of value will be found.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"What is the Value of Having a Debate with Disingenuous Posters?"

Which illustrates the fact that 'debate' does not occur on message boards, nor should one expect it to occur.

 

[anotherlife]

Disingenuous posters are not disingenuous, but only trying to cling to a lie for mental comfort. For example, if you are proud to be French and enjoy all its benefits, you will invent 100 reasons why you are not a free loader on all the people that the French state robs.

 

[Arianrhod]

I am referring to individuals who contribute nothing other than personal insults and attempts to sabotage a particular topic through irrelevant and/or deceitful postings. The latter can be identified by their refusal to cite factual authority and ignoring requests for clarification of their bogus assertions.

Any poster who, when asked for clarification, resorts to insults instead, is thereby exposed as a fraud. I tend to just scroll past them rather than put them on Ignore.

Then there are the posters who, when presented with clarification, respond with insults. My favorites are the ones who feel compelled to start every reply with "Listen, moron..." Very persuasive...though not in the way they intend.

This board has survived for a very long time. I'm assuming threads are archived somewhere. If researchers were to access them a hundred years from now, they'd provide an intriguing study of a particular segment of society.

 

[Rotagilla]

"What is the Value of Having a Debate with Disingenuous Posters?"

Which illustrates the fact that 'debate' does not occur on message boards, nor should one expect it to occur.

composition fallacy

 

[Arianrhod]

"What is the Value of Having a Debate with Disingenuous Posters?"

Which illustrates the fact that 'debate' does not occur on message boards, nor should one expect it to occur.

composition fallacy

It's possible that post was meant to be ironic.

 

[Rotagilla]

"What is the Value of Having a Debate with Disingenuous Posters?"

Which illustrates the fact that 'debate' does not occur on message boards, nor should one expect it to occur.

composition fallacy

It's possible that post was meant to be ironic.

so? I don't recall asking for your interpretation.

 

[Arianrhod]

"What is the Value of Having a Debate with Disingenuous Posters?"

Which illustrates the fact that 'debate' does not occur on message boards, nor should one expect it to occur.

composition fallacy

It's possible that post was meant to be ironic.

so? I don't recall asking for your interpretation.

And yet you have it. No charge.

 

[320 Years of History]

Disingenuous posters are not disingenuous, but only trying to cling to a lie for mental comfort. For example, if you are proud to be French and enjoy all its benefits, you will invent 100 reasons why you are not a free loader on all the people that the French state robs.

Excuse me? I suppose red shoes aren't red either.

What your "Frenchman" example identifies is "spin," not a lack of candor or integrity.

 

[320 Years of History]

In 90 percent of the cases, if the poster's avatar features a clown, in any way, you might as well call yourself an ahole and move on. Nothing of value will be found.

Oh, my. I suppose it's a good thing I went with my watch avatar rather than the Micky Mouse one of which I'm quite fond. Perhaps the timepiece makes my comments see more sincere?

 

[anotherlife]

Disingenuous posters are not disingenuous, but only trying to cling to a lie for mental comfort. For example, if you are proud to be French and enjoy all its benefits, you will invent 100 reasons why you are not a free loader on all the people that the French state robs.

Excuse me? I suppose red shoes aren't red either.

What your "Frenchman" example identifies is "spin," not a lack of candor or integrity.

So, why are they disingenuous then, if not for the spin?

 

[320 Years of History]

Disingenuous posters are not disingenuous, but only trying to cling to a lie for mental comfort. For example, if you are proud to be French and enjoy all its benefits, you will invent 100 reasons why you are not a free loader on all the people that the French state robs.

Excuse me? I suppose red shoes aren't red either.

What your "Frenchman" example identifies is "spin," not a lack of candor or integrity.

So, why are they disingenuous then, if not for the spin?

To be honest, I wasn't addressing "why" they are disingenuous. The point I was making had to do with the way you presented the nature of their extancy. I can no more here enumerate the myriad reasons one might have for being disingenuous than I can tell you why red shoes are red; there are scores of reasons for both things being as they are.

What's important is to recognize duplicitousness when it presents itself just as it's important to distinguish red shoes from black ones. Denying or debating why the shoe is red, to say nothing of whether in fact it is, is of no value. Similarly, knowing why one is duplicitous doesn't me any good, but understanding them well enough to know they are so is helpful. I doubt it does anyone other than psychologists/psychiatrists any good either.

 

[anotherlife]

Disingenuous posters are not disingenuous, but only trying to cling to a lie for mental comfort. For example, if you are proud to be French and enjoy all its benefits, you will invent 100 reasons why you are not a free loader on all the people that the French state robs.

Excuse me? I suppose red shoes aren't red either.

What your "Frenchman" example identifies is "spin," not a lack of candor or integrity.

So, why are they disingenuous then, if not for the spin?

To be honest, I wasn't addressing "why" they are disingenuous. The point I was making had to do with the way you presented the nature of their extancy. I can no more here enumerate the myriad reasons one might have for being disingenuous than I can tell you why red shoes are red; there are scores of reasons for both things being as they are.

What's important is to recognize duplicitousness when it presents itself just as it's important to distinguish red shoes from black ones. Denying or debating why the shoe is red, to say nothing of whether in fact it is, is of no value. Similarly, knowing why one is duplicitous doesn't me any good, but understanding them well enough to know they are so is helpful. I doubt it does anyone other than psychologists/psychiatrists any good either.

Even then, they still may be worthy of discussion because they represent a view that goes around.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I am referring to individuals who contribute nothing other than personal insults and attempts to sabotage a particular topic through irrelevant and/or deceitful postings. The latter can be identified by their refusal to cite factual authority and ignoring requests for clarification of their bogus assertions.

I have found that the value of discussions on this board is enhanced by Ignoring these people rather than engaging them as if they were serious participants in the discussion. At the very least, their postings only deserve a "funny" rating with no further encouragement.

Once you realize a user's like that, if you don't put them on ignore as a troll (who for myself are only those who never offer anything redeeming) andf continue interacting with them, you have only yourself to blame. I disagree with many, but as long as there's at least a speck of legitimacy I'll go a few rounds with them. But an actual troll has nothing to offer so I ignore them. Got 3 on ignore atm for this reason. Usually only take people off ignore when I can't remember why they're there, but these 3 that's not a problem.

 

[320 Years of History]

Disingenuous posters are not disingenuous, but only trying to cling to a lie for mental comfort. For example, if you are proud to be French and enjoy all its benefits, you will invent 100 reasons why you are not a free loader on all the people that the French state robs.

Excuse me? I suppose red shoes aren't red either.

What your "Frenchman" example identifies is "spin," not a lack of candor or integrity.

So, why are they disingenuous then, if not for the spin?

To be honest, I wasn't addressing "why" they are disingenuous. The point I was making had to do with the way you presented the nature of their extancy. I can no more here enumerate the myriad reasons one might have for being disingenuous than I can tell you why red shoes are red; there are scores of reasons for both things being as they are.

What's important is to recognize duplicitousness when it presents itself just as it's important to distinguish red shoes from black ones. Denying or debating why the shoe is red, to say nothing of whether in fact it is, is of no value. Similarly, knowing why one is duplicitous doesn't me any good, but understanding them well enough to know they are so is helpful. I doubt it does anyone other than psychologists/psychiatrists any good either.

Even then, they still may be worthy of discussion because they represent a view that goes around.

As I wrote earlier, for psychologist and psychiatrists, there is plenty of worth in discussing the reasons why disingenuous people are in fact so comported. For the rest of us, such a discussion is but speculation, and to what end? It's not as though we can have any impact or lean something of use to ourselves. For us, such a discussion only barely, if at all, rises to the level of being an academic pursuit.

I mean, really. What you've said substantively in your most recent remarks is that there is merit in our, folks in general, discussing outside of medical forums why people are dishonest. There are just too many reasons why people are dishonest, be it as small children, aged seniors or at any life stage or circumstance in between. Sure, by all means therapists and shrinks should figure out and discuss those things, but not on a political forum.

 

[anotherlife]

I am referring to individuals who contribute nothing other than personal insults and attempts to sabotage a particular topic through irrelevant and/or deceitful postings. The latter can be identified by their refusal to cite factual authority and ignoring requests for clarification of their bogus assertions.

I have found that the value of discussions on this board is enhanced by Ignoring these people rather than engaging them as if they were serious participants in the discussion. At the very least, their postings only deserve a "funny" rating with no further encouragement.

Once you realize a user's like that, if you don't put them on ignore as a troll (who for myself are only those who never offer anything redeeming) andf continue interacting with them, you have only yourself to blame. I disagree with many, but as long as there's at least a speck of legitimacy I'll go a few rounds with them. But an actual troll has nothing to offer so I ignore them. Got 3 on ignore atm for this reason. Usually only take people off ignore when I can't remember why they're there, but these 3 that's not a problem.

I dunno, I have no such strict criteria. No one is on my ignore list. I can imagine I would put someone on ignore if their avatar was revoltingly disgusting, like zombies and such. Hasn't happened yet.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I am referring to individuals who contribute nothing other than personal insults and attempts to sabotage a particular topic through irrelevant and/or deceitful postings. The latter can be identified by their refusal to cite factual authority and ignoring requests for clarification of their bogus assertions.

I have found that the value of discussions on this board is enhanced by Ignoring these people rather than engaging them as if they were serious participants in the discussion. At the very least, their postings only deserve a "funny" rating with no further encouragement.

Once you realize a user's like that, if you don't put them on ignore as a troll (who for myself are only those who never offer anything redeeming) andf continue interacting with them, you have only yourself to blame. I disagree with many, but as long as there's at least a speck of legitimacy I'll go a few rounds with them. But an actual troll has nothing to offer so I ignore them. Got 3 on ignore atm for this reason. Usually only take people off ignore when I can't remember why they're there, but these 3 that's not a problem.

I dunno, I have no such strict criteria. No one is on my ignore list. I can imagine I would put someone on ignore if their avatar was revoltingly disgusting, like zombies and such. Hasn't happened yet.

Was here along while before ever using ignore. Figured what's the point of being on a discussion site if I'm gonna ignore everyone I disagree with? But for some they're not here to discuss and exchange ideas, they're here to disrupt that pursuit.

 

[anotherlife]

I am referring to individuals who contribute nothing other than personal insults and attempts to sabotage a particular topic through irrelevant and/or deceitful postings. The latter can be identified by their refusal to cite factual authority and ignoring requests for clarification of their bogus assertions.

I have found that the value of discussions on this board is enhanced by Ignoring these people rather than engaging them as if they were serious participants in the discussion. At the very least, their postings only deserve a "funny" rating with no further encouragement.

Once you realize a user's like that, if you don't put them on ignore as a troll (who for myself are only those who never offer anything redeeming) andf continue interacting with them, you have only yourself to blame. I disagree with many, but as long as there's at least a speck of legitimacy I'll go a few rounds with them. But an actual troll has nothing to offer so I ignore them. Got 3 on ignore atm for this reason. Usually only take people off ignore when I can't remember why they're there, but these 3 that's not a problem.

I dunno, I have no such strict criteria. No one is on my ignore list. I can imagine I would put someone on ignore if their avatar was revoltingly disgusting, like zombies and such. Hasn't happened yet.

Was here along while before ever using ignore. Figured what's the point of being on a discussion site if I'm gonna ignore everyone I disagree with? But for some they're not here to discuss and exchange ideas, they're here to disrupt that pursuit.

I guess thread destruction is worthy for the ignore punishment indeed.