[wpietri]

As another brand new account, I could see why you'd say that. But in practice, our understanding of what people say is rooted in who they are.

If somebody wants to write a book making a formal, evidence backed argument on something, I'm less concerned with who they are. But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable. Especially on a topic where, as with this one, billions of dollars are on the line.

There are now plenty of people whose whole job is to argue a party line that may have no relation to the truth or to what the speaker believes. There's literally no point in having a serious discussion with, say, a tobacco company PR rep, because they are paid to mislead people forever, to never be convinced, and to distort the dialog as long as possible. With somebody like that, treating them like an honest interlocutor is not only a waste of time, but I believe it actively harms the discussion.

[baddox]

> But when somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentences, asking who they are and what their motivations are is much more reasonable.

Not really. You're not taking the idea of ad hominem far enough. When somebody jumps into a discussion with a few sentence and no citations or evidence, you ought to reject the validity of that argument regardless of who is presenting the argument. That argument is unsubstantiated, period, whether it's posted by a brand new throwaway account or a renowned expert in the area of discussion.

[CzechsMix]

I just feel like if he's so trivially wrong, and you're so obviously right, wouldn't it be better just to explain that? Instead of sinking so low on the debate pyramid as to only be one step above the bottom?

[wpietri]

If you are not a serious interlocutor, then there is no point in explaining anything to you. It's like trying to get to know a bot. And getting off in the 101 stuff for the zillionth time is a distraction from having a more interesting and substantive discussion.

And given that you're apparently mainly here to throw shade on people discussing this in ways you don't approve of, I have no reason to think you're a serious participant who's actually after a useful discussion.