Please get rid of the disagree button

[Had a dad]

Another problem is when you make a long post (hello wall of words), you cannot tell with what part of your argument, proposition or even facts they disagree. Then that is not very helpful.

Can you provide an example of when this would be used? I can't think of a situation where this would be applicable while being useful. A simple disagreement does not contribute to a discussion unless it is elaborated to counter the original argument.

either is an agree, by said logic

 

[Nicolas I]

either is an agree, by said logic

I was talking about long post with multiple arguments, with shorter posts agree or disagree is more clear/helpful.

 

[Had a dad]

I was talking about long post with multiple arguments, with shorter posts agree or disagree is more clear/helpful.

I was pointing out that with either argument, isolating it to just disagree was flawed

 

[RELee]

And I'm just saying, I don't care. Either way.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

either is an agree, by said logic

No. Agree is a ∀ statement; it automatically means you agree with all clauses of any worth. Disagree is an ∃ statement; it means you could disagree with any or all of the clauses. That is what the problem with disagree is.

If you don't agree with all the clauses in a post, then you disagree with it. Which makes "disagree" ridiculous for all except the most simple of posts.

 

[P-51]

lawls @ respectfully disagree

What was that supposed to achieve?

 

[Had a dad]

No. Agree is a ∀ statement; it automatically means you agree with all clauses of any worth. Disagree is an ∃ statement; it means you could disagree with any or all of the clauses. That is what the problem with disagree is.

If you don't agree with all the clauses in a post, then you disagree with it. Which makes "disagree" ridiculous for all except the most simple of posts.

No, you really can't say that as a fact. just as you say disagree could be for any part, agree can be also. Unless you have some way of reading everyone's mind that clicks "agree" how can you quantifiably claim to know what anyone means?

you can't, just like you can't for sure know what someone's intention is on the disagree on multiple clauses. The agree might be for general principle.... I have a few posts in this thread that have 3 to 10 statements in replies to various posts that have multiple agrees, and some of the replies are questions. Do you thing the agree applies to the questions too, or the sentiment of the post as a whole?

I'm really amazed as people keep saying the disagree is vague, but fail to accept / realize the same is true for the agree.

 

[Pellaken]

It doesn't encourage debate, instead it allows the childish to get away with a pure emotional response saying "I hate this" without ever actually expressing the reasons for it - something that, if they did it, might actually lead them to deciding that they don't actually hate it.

99% of disagrees are exactly like this - you write a post, which may even be a question that does not actually express a point of view, and someone "disagrees" with it without explaining why. If you PM the person who "disagreed" and ask them why, you'll find that many of them simply clicked on "disagree" because they think it's the "do not like" button and do not actually disagree (or at least don't have any reason for disagreeing). One person who I asked about this said simply: " I looked at [your comments] and + and - a few" - that is, they AREN'T using the disagree button to express disagreement, simply to express dislike.

By all means keep the agree button, since that does at least indicate how popular a post is and avoids all the "+1"s, but get rid of the disagree button that serves no valid purpose.

Oh, and before everyone does the oh-so-funny "I'm going to click disagree on a post about the disagree button" thing, spare me.

I disagreed with this because your post has lead to the utterly ridiculous "respectfully disagree" becoming a thing.

 

[Pellaken]

Now you can only Respectfully Disagree, Does that help?

No. That only makes it far worse.

Frankly, both disagree and agree buttons should be removed, IMHO, and "helpful" should be replaced with "useful" with no"non-useful" option.

 

[Had a dad]

No. That only makes it far worse.

Frankly, both disagree and agree buttons should be removed, IMHO, and "helpful" should be replaced with "useful" with no"non-useful" option.

nope if they get rid of the two they need to get rid of all 3. One option left will be abused and not leave any chance to know if there are counter arguments of those that mainly remain silent.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

No, you really can't say that as a fact. just as you say disagree could be for any part, agree can be also. Unless you have some way of reading everyone's mind that clicks "agree" how can you quantifiably claim to know what anyone means?

you can't, just like you can't for sure know what someone's intention is on the disagree on multiple clauses. The agree might be for general principle.... I have a few posts in this thread that have 3 to 10 statements in replies to various posts that have multiple agrees, and some of the replies are questions. Do you thing the agree applies to the questions too, or the sentiment of the post as a whole?

I'm really amazed as people keep saying the disagree is vague, but fail to accept / realize the same is true for the agree.

There are two separate things: What people do, and what things mean. Your first and second paragraphs deals with what people intend. That's fine. They're allowed to call the sky green.

But in your third paragraph you try to extend that too far. Because I'm looking at what the words actually mean in terms of logical quantifiers and satisfiability arguments, it's perfectly clear that they rest on different arguments that makes disagree vague where agree is not. There is a clear, objective difference that is only possible to disagree with by rejecting thousands of years of philosophy and mathematics.

And this time around I'm not making a pedantic argument, because time and time again I see people disagreeing with posts in ways that reveal absolutely no information whatsoever, because there's not the slightest indication what they're disagreeing with. Magyar's post 28 in this thread for example. There are a lot of ideas there, none of which are obviously wrong. The only thing I can guess is people just don't like Magyar, or are blindly clicking disagree on anything that makes them think too hard about what other people might think.

The person who agrees with Magyar on the other hand is quite clear. Because if there was anything he disagreed with, he wouldn't have signed his name to it, or he would have quoted Magyar and said "mostly yes but with this caveat". Nice and simple.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

nope if they get rid of the two they need to get rid of all 3. One option left will be abused and not leave any chance to know if there are counter arguments of those that mainly remain silent.

People are allowed to just say what their counter argument is, instead of living in lala-land with the idea that a red cross says anything worthwhile. Disagree is precisely what has removed robust counter argument. Nothing is stopping you from agreeing with someone who already made a counter argument if it's already been said.

 

[Had a dad]

There are two separate things: What people do, and what things mean. Your first and second paragraphs deals with what people intend. That's fine. They're allowed to call the sky green.

But in your third paragraph you try to extend that too far. Because I'm looking at what the words actually mean in terms of logical quantifiers and satisfiability arguments, it's perfectly clear that they rest on different arguments that makes disagree vague where agree is not. There is a clear, objective difference that is only possible to disagree with by rejecting thousands of years of philosophy and mathematics.

And this time around I'm not making a pedantic argument, because time and time again I see people disagreeing with posts in ways that reveal absolutely no information whatsoever, because there's not the slightest indication what they're disagreeing with. Magyar's post 28 in this thread for example. There are a lot of ideas there, none of which are obviously wrong. The only thing I can guess is people just don't like Magyar, or are blindly clicking disagree on anything that makes them think too hard about what other people might think.

The person who agrees with Magyar on the other hand is quite clear. Because if there was anything he disagreed with, he wouldn't have signed his name to it, or he would have quoted Magyar and said "mostly yes but with this caveat". Nice and simple.

agreeing with a post reveals just as much as a disagree. I fail to see Socrates', Plato's, or Aristotle's view on philosophy being modeled by most interaction on the forum, so why should we assume that a click of a button would automatically assume that philosophy has been rejected? The whole concept is philosophical in nature, not the other way around. You cannot know, you just assume.

However;
If what you postulate is true, the same holds true to the disagree, they signed their name to is, why should we not believe it is 100% lest they say "mostly disagree except for this caveat"

The only thing I can guess is people just don't like Magyar, or are blindly clicking disagree

I actually like him (he probably will be shocked to read this), but that hasn't stopped me from disagreeing with more than one post of his, with no comment.

 

[Had a dad]

People are allowed to just say what their counter argument is, instead of living in lala-land with the idea that a red cross says anything worthwhile. Disagree is precisely what has removed robust counter argument. Nothing is stopping you from agreeing with someone who already made a counter argument if it's already been said.

Yet you continue to state what can be said for the agree button. Interesting... as maybe the counter has already been said and you wish to reiterate it with an agree on it and a disagree on the statement the counter replied to.

 

[Had a dad]

People are allowed to just say what their counter argument is, instead of living in lala-land with the idea that a red cross says anything worthwhile

Actually I will stop you right there, just because you disagree with it, does not allow you to insult everyone that has used it.

 

[Soranya]

Can you provide an example of when this would be used? I can't think of a situation where this would be applicable while being useful. A simple disagreement does not contribute to a discussion unless it is elaborated to counter the original argument.

I think X is the best Nation in EU4 and Y the worst -> exact opposite, well Y is the best and X the worst.

 

[Soranya]

People are allowed to just say what their counter argument is, instead of living in lala-land with the idea that a red cross says anything worthwhile. Disagree is precisely what has removed robust counter argument. Nothing is stopping you from agreeing with someone who already made a counter argument if it's already been said.

I have the strong impression the OP wants to live in a LaLa land (Which means you want too if you agree with him on his initialpost).
Or not?

Human language and Argumentation is not a mathematical expression. It never is, you always have subtet inuendo and unintended associations with the reader/listener. It is unprecise and for that you can not be certain about anything, no matter how certain you are you know what someone had said. I would even go so far to say you can not even be certain of what you did say without further contemplation uppon your statement. And even then, you are in a certain mood, post something, half a year later you are in a different mood, can not remember the original mood precisly b.c. memories are ultimately flawed all the time, and your statement means something completly different to your self.

Another thing i just thoguht off, most of the time the internet, even on a forum, is used to express opinions and not to discuss opinions, especially with an open end result. So to expect everbody with an Opionon but not the wish to discuss it to do this exact thing is somewhat beside the generalexpectaitons many people have. (Funny enough, most people dont realize this and keep exchanging opinions for ever without ever reaching a conclusion)

Am i allowed to say that this thread is really entertaining?

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

agreeing with a post reveals just as much as a disagree. I fail to see Socrates', Plato's, or Aristotle's view on philosophy being modeled by most interaction on the forum, so why should we assume that a click of a button would automatically assume that philosophy has been rejected? The whole concept is philosophical in nature, not the other way around. You cannot know, you just assume.

However;
If what you postulate is true, the same holds true to the disagree, they signed their name to is, why should we not believe it is 100% lest they say "mostly disagree except for this caveat"

I actually like him (he probably will be shocked to read this), but that hasn't stopped me from disagreeing with more than one post of his, with no comment.

I'm a mathematician/statistician in my day job. To prove something is in agreement with another thing I have to show it for all cases. To prove something is in disagreement I merely have to show one single counter example anywhere. That one contradiction is sufficient. It's at least as old an idea as Euclid. Likewise the Socratic method is underpinned by the idea that something can't even be in accord with itself if it disagrees in one thing.

Which sounds great, but the trick is finding that one contradiction. It's not a trivial task; in fact for sufficiently complex arguments it's as hard as breaking your internet banking encryption. There are a lot of different potential ways to disagree with something, and in the context of forum debate we don't even have a way of checking if our guess on where the disagreement is is right - unless we're told. Which is why it would be nice if people could present the contradiction they've found if they have one. Or at least to point out where their opinion is different.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

I have the strong impression the OP wants to live in a LaLa land (Which means you want too if you agree with him on his initialpost).
Or not?

Human language and Argumentation is not a mathematical expression. It never is, you always have subtet inuendo and unintended associations with the reader/listener. It is unprecise and for that you can not be certain about anything, no matter how certain you are you know what someone had said. I would even go so far to say you can not even be certain of what you did say without further contemplation uppon your statement. And even then, you are in a certain mood, post something, half a year later you are in a different mood, can not remember the original mood precisly b.c. memories are ultimately flawed all the time, and your statement means something completly different to your self.

Another thing i just thoguht off, most of the time the internet, even on a forum, is used to express opinions and not to discuss opinions, especially with an open end result. So to expect everbody with an Opionon but not the wish to discuss it to do this exact thing is somewhat beside the generalexpectaitons many people have. (Funny enough, most people dont realize this and keep exchanging opinions for ever without ever reaching a conclusion)

Am i allowed to say that this thread is really entertaining?

A mathematical expression is not mathematics. Mathematics is a language, and one in which all thoughts and language are believed to be expressible in (Church-Turing thesis, essentially). A single expression is like a single sentence; it's not the language itself. But the language can be bent to many such sentences.

As for the purpose of the forums, I mostly dwell in OT. You'll get shot down in seconds if you try to merely drop an opinion and run there. I'm aware it's different in the game subforums, but my problem is that disagreeing does not actually present an opinion in the first place. It's a negation of an opinion, but there are many ways to negate something. It's more useful to everyone else if you agree with something that is an opinion.

 

[Had a dad]

I'm a mathematician/statistician in my day job. To prove something is in agreement with another thing I have to show it for all cases. To prove something is in disagreement I merely have to show one single counter example anywhere. That one contradiction is sufficient. It's at least as old an idea as Euclid. Likewise the Socratic method is underpinned by the idea that something can't even be in accord with itself if it disagrees in one thing.

Which sounds great, but the trick is finding that one contradiction. It's not a trivial task; in fact for sufficiently complex arguments it's as hard as breaking your internet banking encryption. There are a lot of different potential ways to disagree with something, and in the context of forum debate we don't even have a way of checking if our guess on where the disagreement is is right - unless we're told. Which is why it would be nice if people could present the contradiction they've found if they have one. Or at least to point out where their opinion is different.

Yes but you are applying a set of criteria that you cannot know for a fact are being used by those that interact with the buttons, so no matter how much you quote the statistical model, you are making assumptions, which is counter intuitive to your said profession