0

I don't want to belittle anyone, that's not why I argue with some answers. I do, however, think that some people need to be more aware, not only to what is being explicitly asked, but also what whoever asked the question wanted to ask. Answering based on what you think the person who asked the question needs to know, if it does not strongly overlap with both of the preceding points, can come off as wilfully stupid and patronising, especially on religious based stackexchanges.

That is all.

2 Answers 2

0

I honestly think you overreacted, but in general I agree and comply with the Answers vs. Advice policy, even if occasionally my answers cross the line into "challenge the assumptions" territory.

I don't know what made you so upset though, compared to other answers that also focused on the interpretation of the Pure Land concept.

Especially since the question originally said "looking for discussion, contemporary or historical" - and by this definition the answers on this site are "contemporary discussion", are they not?

20
  • I did not know you misunderstood, and that is why I over-reacted. If 'discussion' how I meant it can't be "historical", I would assume, if reading it, that it's not meant in that sense.
    – user23973
    Jul 28 at 16:42
  • 1
    Oh no, I did not misunderstand. I knew you were looking for quotes/references. But the way you phrased it as "contemporary discussion" legally included opinions (=discussion) of people living at this time (=contemporary). So I used this loophole to provide what I thought was a useful perspective, mostly to other readers, knowing that you would most likely stay closed.
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Jul 28 at 16:50
  • haha ok, odd. please just ignore me then.
    – user23973
    Jul 28 at 17:00
  • idc man, this is a stupid game. I came here to learn, not to be lectured. please, just leave me alone (exactly as I said before)
    – user23973
    Jul 28 at 17:02
  • I thought you said you came here to learn?
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Jul 28 at 20:35
  • most people would want that on their terms
    – user23973
    Jul 28 at 20:45
  • How do you imagine that "on their terms" working if the process of liberation in Buddhism is all about overcoming your neurotic ego's self-serving fixations and stereotypes?
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Jul 28 at 22:50
  • answers vs advice.
    – user23973
    Jul 29 at 10:49
  • if you are primarily interested in collecting boxes of medicine instead of taking it... you're on this site since 2015, right?
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Jul 29 at 16:08
  • yes. and the same people are still making the same mistakes.
    – user23973
    Jul 29 at 17:34
  • how about yourself?
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Jul 29 at 18:03
  • yes, I should not be using this site and should not talk to you it seems
    – user23973
    Jul 29 at 18:06
  • I have tried to encourage you not to answer my questions.
    – user23973
    Jul 29 at 18:08
  • oh you did? under a different username?
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Jul 29 at 18:23
  • 1
    It's okay, the incident is exhausted. Please don't curse at other users though, we don't want to tolerate that here. I promise I won't bother you with my answers as long as you keep the same username.
    – Andriy Volkov Mod
    Jul 29 at 23:10
0

Yes that's more-or-less a policy, a recommendation of this site.

Answers vs Advice

The best answers deal directly and solely with the question(s) specifically asked in the first place. Take care when "reading into" a question and answering some "deeper" question (that perhaps you think the questioner should have asked)...

wilfully stupid and patronising

Please avoid inter-personal argument -- see Code of Conduct and Be nice.

A comment like, "What I wanted to ask about was XXX not YYY" is probably OK.


You're referring to this answer.

Your first comment was, "Yeah, it'a not what I asked for. I asked for studies that discuss it, not your opinion. -1 if I can."

In fact your original question asked for "discussion" and didn't ask for "studies", so...

If you're asking for a reference it's useful to dd the tag to the question, otherwise some answers might be unreferenced.

5
  • I asked for discussion, contemporary or historical. how could someone's opinion be a historical discussion? seemed obvious I meant studies. is it wrong to criticise a behaviour as stupid?
    – user23973
    Jul 28 at 8:44
  • If it's posted today then it's "contemporary" not "historical" -- I don't think that what you wanted was entirely clear -- but this site also has (unlike other SE sites) an explicit policy of allowing questions which aren't entirely clear, in which case users try to answer as they can. And yes I think it could be wrong to criticise a behaviour as "stupid", I think that goes against the Code of Conduct's saying to avoid "subtle put-downs or unfriendly language" and so on.
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jul 28 at 8:51
  • ok well I see no reason to argue about whether or not what I said was misunderstood. most sites have a rule where you can criticise behaviour but not people.
    – user23973
    Jul 28 at 11:01
  • Yeah I learned that from my mum, and wife, who were preschool teachers -- i.e. "criticise the behaviour, not the person". And in fact instead of criticising, my mum preferred to praise examples of good behaviour! On an SE site you can maybe focus on the "content" of an answer, more than on the "behaviour" of a person -- I mean again, the Code of Conduct says, "No name-calling or personal attacks. Focus on the content, not the person. This includes terms that feel personal even when they're applied to content (e.g. “lazy”)."
    – ChrisW Mod
    Jul 28 at 11:51
  • OK fine. I did not know that they were asking us not to make it feel personal. Having someone misunderstand your question can often feel like a "personal attack". Cheers
    – user23973
    Jul 28 at 12:01

You must log in to answer this question.