You had said, "per your advice, I will not be responding."
My only advice was that you not respond IF you could not accept the possibility of having your observations challenged or questioned... What would you call speaking without interjection if not lecturing?
It's more subtle and nuanced than that. Nobody has a problem with their debate counterparts responding to their points. However, it doesn't come anywhere near a proper debate if one of the parties assumes that the discussion concerns their correct, valid and reasonable arguments versus the other person's arguments, which are wrong before they were even stated.
Obviously people debate positions while considering themselves to be correct. However, you are missing even a trace of acceptance that you could be wrong. I, personally, am not interested in this sort of discussion. It is superbly off-putting to read things like "and before you get defensive, because I know you'll get defensive, I'm going to smack you down with reason, because you are unreasonable and bad". That is simply not an atmosphere that I'm going to engage in. If you are unwilling to change your style, you're unlikely to find conversation partners.
As I said, if you can't engage the topic without having someone ply you with follow-up questions, by all means, sod right the fuck off.
I did, originally (with amendments to your statement as per the above), but then you asked why you're not getting responses, so I explained. If you don't like that... well, sorry, I guess? Perhaps Reddit will be better-suited to your needs?
Let's just go over a few lines from the OP and my replies, and you tell me which part stands out as particularly "I am supreme reason-y."
Okay, let's. Though I'm going to expand beyond the OP, since you've revealed your positions with more detail afterwards. Emphasis mine, obviously.
Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking.
Sorry, the very moment you say something like that, you're not "just asking". You can protest this all you want, but that's just not how human communication works. It's one of those "I'm not <x>, but..." phrases - they're a tell-tale sign that you are, in fact, <x>.
I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections.
The problem here is that your objections are presumed to be reasonable. You are elevating your position in the debate to that of, effectively, a referee. I do not accept your attempts at assuming that position, and hence I am staying out of any debate that involves these terms. Note that I do
not, in turn, propose another referee. I propose that you sit yourself down and follow the same rules and conventions as everyone else. Most threads remain public and open for everyone to view and make their own mind about what is and isn't correct. That's what this place is about.
If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.
This statement is the most benign of the lot, but of course you have since shown yourself to not be particularly civilised in this thread. Your biggest sin here is that, again, you are imposing your own rules on a thread (even when they identically mirror the forum rules, which actually have some authority here). I understand why you might want to do that, but this is not the right place for it (go set up your own forum/subreddit/whatnot), and I am not personally interested in following your rules.
[/quote]
Guys, please. Don't just ignore inconvenient data. Address it head on. Give me SOMETHING to respond to, SOME kind of rationale, so I can hopefully show you... why that rationale falls short.
This is where you've completely wiped away any pretence of good faith, and pushed me to clarify that I won't be engaging you on your terms. The "I'm right, you're wrong, talk to me so I can tell you you're wrong" attitude simply cannot be missed or forgiven. This, good sir, is how you kill a forum thread.
Oh! Speaking of which, this was also in the OP:
Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.
: l
Am I "supreme reason" yet?
Right, but I'm not discussing your assumptions. I made no statement about them either way, because I am not debating this subject on your terms.
So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.
Okay, I'll try to show some good faith. Here are my suggestions:
- Start a new thread about the subject and request this one to be locked. The well has been poisoned by both sides here, and I doubt the final result of any discussion would be particularly readable to future visitors. (This is important - people view our threads years after they have concluded. I know some of our rules and their enforcement are controversial, especially to newer posters, but this is one of the overarching reasons behind it)
- In said thread, avoid starting by explaining why you think the other side is wrong. Leave it to them to explain their point of view, and explain why you think RET is right instead. So, instead of saying "I assume FET says this, but it contradicts x, can you fix it?", say something like "The Sun appears to set behind the horizon, this appears to support RET for these reasons, can you please explain in more detail what FET has to say about sunrise and sunsets?
I'm especially interested in the apparent lack of change in size of the Sun over time, and the sinking effect itself." Obviously each of my descriptions here is extremely brief and simplified, but I hope you can see how both approaches dig at the same subject in very different ways. - Avoid personal assessments of your opponents, or your supporters. Saying things like "please don't get defensive (sorry, that's what tends to happen)" is most likely to cause people to get defensive. Don't call yourself reasonable (not everyone might agree), your opponents unreasonable (nobody likes that), don't say things like "please show me SOME reasoning so I can show you why it's wrong" (i.e. don't presume you'll win the debate - if you've already decided the winner, why have the debate at all?). Focus on your argument, and don't dilute it.
- Avoid presumptions in your thread title. "How come 'sun sink' and not 'sun shrink?"' is not only a forced joke that doesn't make grammatical sense, but it is yet another sign that you've already made up your mind on who is right here. Again - if you're already completely certain you're right, why have the debate?
I will omit the rest of your post. Most of it was personal insults, and general expressions of unhappiness. These are precisely the reason why I suggest that this thread should be locked.
Oh, and finally: *ahem*
Oh, excuse me. How could I be so thoughtless? I'm such an egotistical turd.
Yes, I'm glad you're beginning to see things my way.