Hub of Reason

« first day (3766 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1343 days later) »

LаngLаngС

08:30

What kind of argumentation fallacy is 'retreat to unused words' when the words in question are used to *describe* the situation, not to quote anynoe in the first place?
I gave you direct quotable material for the effect to be seen here in the Gaspé-Pine Q thread. There are more. And the undesirable effect on display there continues, now.

What do you see here:
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/51891/do-covid-19-vaccinations-during-early-pregnancy-lead-to-a-higher-miscarriage-rat
What explains the downvotes?
This isn't 'push'? It is widely believed? Etc. Yet 2 DVs on that.

And the A?
Repeats the claim, offers an *'own commentary'* on that, with seemingly *own* math and *own* stats, but of 'own design', no external references, no reputable sources.

But it says, – again 'in effect' / not a direct quote – 'claim is bogus'.
Nice statement. No comment from to veracity, truthfulness, or whatever on content as it may relate to claim in question.

Now, that answer gets applause — and is against the rules as I read them. Comments below that (excl the first still standing ;) ) are also not for "improving the post" but 'elevating trench morale': pure tribalism, with the direct quote "anynoe who … is grossly ignorant", "idiotic"! With two dozens of comment upvotes for employing the word idiotic alone, I bet.

BUT:
However rule violating that answer is, it tries to shoot down an unwelcome thought 'very unpleasant claim, terrible if true'), and that alone is reason for ample UVs, especially from HNQ. The BIG trouble here is, that very much too many regulars upvoted this rule violation, too few regulars downvoted this rule-violation. Don't you agree?

13 hours later…

LаngLаngС

21:13

@Oddthinking And again on that lovely religiously coloured post/thread: No one needs to use the word "enemy": "[that site] is the worst kind of anti-vax BS. […] is just one batshit crazy idea in the article. FFS. No fact- check needed, it's idiocy on its face." — Stands for quite some time, apparently no one flagged it. Do you see the pattern?

2 hours later…

Nostradamus

23:00

Q: What was wrong with this edit suggestion?

I submitted this suggested edit to replace "amount of guns" (which is grammatically incorrect as "gun" is a countable noun) with "number of guns", but it was rejected with the following reason: The edit does not improve the quality of the post. Changes to the content are unnecessary or make the ...