Why is it that when an argument is shown to be unreasonable that the thread ends.

Why don't the people who put up the argument actually continue with the thread, even if it means they accept that there is a better way or that what is happening is often wrong, or, can be improved on.

Why do these posters just abondon the thread?

Two cases came to mind just recently.

1. A person earning $37K and raising 5 kids. I pointed out that they should be happy for others to provide the funding for their kids and to stop whinging. No response!

2. I have put up what I consider strong grounds for the watering down of pay roll tax, again, no reply.

Why bother making a comment if you don't, or won't axcept the answer or defend your position.

Anyone?

Dear rehctub,

This is just going to be a stab in the dark,
because I'm not familiar with the two
examples you've given. So, I can only speak
in a general context.

At a guess, - most people usually leave a thread
when they feel that the discussion has run its
course. And they are actually all "argued out."
They've stated their views - and will only be
repeating them. Or in some cases their views have
been distorted by other posters - and they feel
nothing constructive will be achieved by staying on,
and arguing.

Or, finally, the discussion has stooped to public
insults, and they don't want to be a part of that.

As another poster said, on another thread, and I quote:

"I really don't see the need to publicly insult someone
when you don't agree with them. That seems very immature
to me. If you see factual errors, correct them, but
why get personal?"

It is unfortunate, but some posters do see discussion Forums
as "battle-grounds," in which they always have to be right.
In that case, when you come across
someone like that, your wisest move would be to simply leave
the discussion.

I hope this answers your question.

Cheers.

"Why bother making a comment if you don't, or won't axcept the answer or defend your position.

Anyone?"

Couldn't leave you just hanging. Obviously happens to you a lot.

I think silence is probably a good indication of agreement without actually kneeling down and kissing the hem of your robe.

I would say your part in the conversation is to accept that you at least helped educating another human, by pointing out how wrong their thinking is, and move on to your next victim.

Or... (and I remind you I only came here for the first time today so have no idea how you debate, educate or argue) they couldn't be bothered with your approach and just kind of wandered off ignoring you...?

cont'd

I forgot there is one other category that I've
just remembered. A thread that at first appears
as a serious discussion topic until from various
responses you begin to suspect that it is in actual
fact a "vilification rant," against a religion, race,
or group. That the topic is not really one that has
been put up for a discussion - but for vilification
of the chosen topic.

After several attempts at trying to engage in a discusssion
on the topic, with little success, people do tend to leave.

Well, the two examples you've given are rehctub's opinions, not accepted "truths", so the thread title is innacurate.

It's not quite clear what you mean. If someone doesn't respond to your statements, maybe they either agree, or can't be bothered getting tangled up in potentially circular argument of one person's unprovable personal opinion versus another's.

Contributing to online debate is entertaining, and arguably healthy for society, but I'm not going to take hours out of my real life to try and convince someone that eggplant is the single most revolting non-food in existence [which it is] if they simply don't agree.

Sancho
I disagree entirely. Eggplant is yummy depending on how you cook it.

I expect a reply from you within 5 minutes otherwise you are just not willing to hear the truth.