So this started in the Gun Control topic, but I wanted to expand on it so it gets it's own topic. Personally it aggravates me when people start chiming in on something they have no experience with. I asked that the people chiming in in the Gun Control debate at least have expirence under American Gun laws. Berry pointed out that the topic isn't actually about American gun control, and she's right. However she also replied: My reply: Her reply to my reply: Okay I think I got everything relevant to the conversation, now for the new stuff. This is not meant to be a back and forth between me and Berry Punch, so anyone is free to add their two cents. If I did a bad job of making it clear the subject of this topic is who should and shouldn't add their two cents. What's relevant to a topic, what's not. Is it asking to much for someone to have "skin in the game" to participate in a conversation? You separated a single point I'm going to bring it back together cause don't get the first part of your reply at all. What I was trying to say is people with the same experience can easily have different opinions. People can have different degrees of experience that also changes their opinion. I never said anything about the whole picture rather I was simply saying you have to at least seen part of the picture. Just hearing about the picture or reading about it? I don't think that enough to partake in a conversation about the picture. If you haven't seen the episode, why comment on it? Why is it asking to much to have seen the episode? Certain people yes, but again I don't see how someone who's not seen the episode can really add merit to the conversation. First I will admit that I ignored your original comment about the topic this conversation original took place in not being about American Gun control laws. But to be fair it started on American Gun Control laws, so that's what led to my assumption.
Uhm... Not to sound rude... but, who really cares? If you have an issue with this, this is best resolved with the person than airing it out to the public. If you are just looking for an opinion, fine, but this is basically calling out the person your having a problem with... AGAIN.
Because that would be off topic. Which is why this new topic exists, specifically to discuss whether or not experience with a subject is necessary to discuss it intelligently.
Yes to both comments. I'm really not trying to single out Berry Punch it's just how the conversation started, I did learn my lesson the first time I just thought that this was a legitimate subject for a serious discussion wanted to continue it. I guess I could have made the quotes without placing her name, but well I feel that would be incorrectly sourcing them. I also was afraid someone would take it the wrong way if I didn't say who I was quoting. At the same time I felt the quotes were absolutely needed to shape the discussion so I couldn't just leave them out.
Personally, I'd say experience will always be better that book knowledge. If you were in a plane and the pilot suddenly had a heart attack, who would you rather have take over? An aeronautics expert with an expert knowledge of how planes work, or a guy with a pilot's license and ten years flying experience?
The point I was trying to make which led to this topic in the first place was they don't have to have ten years, they just have to have flown a plan. Simulator or video game doesn't count. If it's just a general discussion having no experience makes very little sense, but for a serious discussion it doesn't make any sense to put your two cent into a subject you don't have experience with.
Mate, it's really simple, you don't get to tell people what they can or cannot say or do, not even moderators do unless it breaks the FUA, or they just don't like your face. Merit isn't a requirement to post on a public forum, 10char is . I think what you are after is the debate section albeit I think it has the wrong rules and setup, so I don't blame you for not using it, as it doesn't function any differently from the rest of the site. It should be a place where two people have a limited number of posts with word limits, and must post citation to make their case, and only those two people, you know, a debate. As for Serious Discussion it exists so people can start political orientated threads without worrying if it's too serious for a MLP site. Cuz there's a place for it, it's encouraged, not to limit people's speech. Whether or not that aggravates you, or posts have merit beyond being on topic, is none of mine, or anyone's concern but your own. If what you want is echo chambers, which is what you are suggesting, then the validity of the topics therein are compromised due to the obvious bias in them for anyone who can see through the facade, which ruins it for the people who do know what they are talking about, as they won't be taken as seriously. "an echo chamber is a metaphorical description of a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an "enclosed" system, where different or competing views are censored, disallowed, or otherwise underrepresented." ~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media) If you want me to respond directly to what you've posted, please let me know. Don't worry Poisonous Nightmare, I'm used to the spotlight
I never once asked for an echo chamber. Again going back to the "Raider of the lost Mark" Example, all I'm asking is that you've seen the episode. How does your echo chamber apply to that? I'm not saying you couldn't have seen more than that episode, I'm not saying you could have read the chatter about the episode in addition to seeing it, I'm just asking that you've seen it. Not everyone would have the same experience, but they would all have the experience needed for the conversation. I don't see that in anyway creating a single bias or viewpoint. This topic is more about conversations in general. Not simply in forums. Granted since it came up in forums forgive me for using them in the examples.
You never know what people without that specific experience, have experience and knowledge in and can bring to the table, to dismiss them outright does everyone a disservice. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324900204578286272195339456 "In 2007, she sent her findings to the Journal of Roman Archaeology. "It's amazing how much chutzpah you have when you have no idea what you're doing," she says. "I don't write scholarly material. I'm a hairdresser." John Humphrey, the journal's editor, was intrigued. "I could tell even from the first version that it was a very serious piece of experimental archaeology which no scholar who was not a hairdresser—in other words, no scholar—would have been able to write," he says." Still applies, change moderators to government, and FUA to law in the first two sentences. In just a passing conversation, yes that is asking too much, people shouldn't dictate who can and cannot talk to you, to do so would be pretentious. By all means though talk *squee!* get hit.
People get hit more than enough for butting into to conversation they don't belong in. Passing conversation is more like general discussion.
