Comment by nextlevelwizard
5 years ago
You didn't make an argument why it isn't a silly protocol. You didn't make an argument for why it is better in any way than HTTP. You didn't make an argument why we are worse off having replaced everything with HTTP.
Your entire post was stupid and had no point other than trying to be a gotcha.
The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. I've made no claim on this subject. I haven't even entirely formed my opinion on this and am not even playing Devil's advocate. The point of my post was to try to improve the quality of the discussion here. Unsupported random opinions aren't generally relevant to strangers.
Unsupported random opinions are the lifeblood of internet forums, not that the comment was really that much of an unsupported random opinion. Strangers do not owe you presentation of their views to your exacting specifications. It's perfectly fine to be confused by things they say and it's perfectly fine to ask them what they meant.
What's lame and actually damages discussion is haranguing people over things they've said you can't make good sense of. That's not curious conversation, it's not really much of a conversation at all.
Completely agree. Also dismissing a post as 'stupid' does not quite sound good to me. I mean, probably we have better arguments to dismiss a particular post!
This has become a meta-debate, but I'd argue that the burden of proof is on anyone who wants something. If the thing you want is to get to the bottom of a question, then it's your own desire which has imposed that burden on you.
If you want something, it would be a shame if you didn't get it because an internet proponent failed to detail their arguments.
If you want me to believe something, it's up to you to convince me, otherwise I have no obligation to believe it based on what you've said. It doesn't mean I have or don't have an obligation to believe it in general, only that I do not based on what you said. This is all I meant. That someone should look into something they're interested in is orthogonal to burden of proof. One can still look into something while being unconvinced by something because someone didn't give an argument. It's only a judgement that their contribution is not useful in the investigation and is no indication that the investigation does or doesn't continue despite that.
5 replies →