It'd Be Better If You Wrote Nothing At All

Do all flames come across as being unsophisticated taunts or can they bear more complexity? It's easy to simplify situations like this, "Killing people is bad." But when it comes to issues such as human suffering, euthanasia, medical emergency, and life support the statement takes on more complex dimensions. If the difference between a comment being a flame and not a flame is simply drawing out a snide one sentence remark to an elaborate paragraph then does that still constitute as being a flame?

I believe that I simplified my definition of flaming a bit too much because I view it as the least important component of conversation and preferred to keep my discussion focused on the other topics. I intended to portray flaming as simply any sort of comment that has little logical basis, does not contribute to any future discussion, and is aimed at causing other posters to abandon helpful discussion, including but not limited to personal insults to try to provoke a poster to insult back. It can be implemented with proper grammar and impressive vocabulary. Paragraphs that only deem a poster an "idiot" are obviously inflammatory. However, if you instead take the approach of pointing out why you find a poster to be an idiot by opposing his/her flawed ideas and offer sound reasoning for your opposition, then you have successfully countered that user's misinformation while avoiding an inflammatory response.

It's interesting that your definition goes as follows, "... when a user seems to be completely oblivious of other presented arguments with merit and continues down a non-productive trail of logic." You used a simple mathematical example again so that I could understand your point for which I am grateful. But let's say for example that the 1 + 1 = 3 person is a Christian who is posting about their belief that God created the world and the other two people stating 1 + 1 = 2 are atheists arguing about Darwinism and providing scientific papers. If you've read this sentence without questioning my choice of association then your logic is biased. There is no reason why the person who is mathematically wrong should be the Christian unless we associate with Christianity being a wrong ideology in this time and space. It is interesting that we think of Christianity as illogical when the premise behind logic is having a bias to advocate rationality rather than irrational comments. When it comes to how the world truly works, how much actions are actually rational? Does it make sense that affirmative action was enacted in order to make up for discrimination by advocating discrimination? Does it make sense that Howard Univesity's mission statement when it comes to accepting applicants of African American descent is to support "minorities" when the school is located in the District of Columbia which according to 2008 population statistics is 60% African American? Does it makes sense that people like Michael Brown somehow manage to run departments like FEMA and make phone calls stating, "These people are so fucking annoying." When it comes to an irrational world, does it always make sens to always interpret everything through a rational perspective? Again. I'm curious.

Religion was a poor choice as a counter-example. There are reasons that religious arguments are not valid in professional communities and many organized debates and are disallowed on Southperry from my understanding. If I get a "go ahead" from a moderator, I will elaborate further. I am currently making no personal statement of the validity of religion and would like to emphasize that fact to any reader.

Many discussions have no right or wrong answer. However, when that is the case, there are solid arguments for both sides, and either side must be willing to acknowledge those arguments.

I disagree with your statement that irrationality rules the world. Affirmative action, for example, is only entirely irrational to those who oppose it and refuse to acknowledge other arguments.

Proponents claim affirmative action is an attempt to promote equal opportunity, or increase ethnic diversity or other forms of diversity. That the impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: first to maximize diversity in all levels of society, along with its presumed benefits, and second to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination. The manifest justification for this may be to compensate for past persecution or exploitation, or to counteract a current supposed discrimination against the protected groups. This may come with the implication that there is an imbalance of power.

They may regard the basis of the transgressor's discrimination, as an irrational prejudice, such as a xenophobia, or they may view it as exploitation for selfish gain, etc. (Usually a combination of these elements.)

Opponents argue that affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Some argue that racial affirmative action is actually motivated by racism (racial chauvinism, racial identity politics. Most claim to value merit as the appropriate qualification for employment or even tax-funded (tertiary) education, and that affirmative action is counter to this goal.

Another claim is that discrimination based on affirmative action, will give reason for the perception that any members of a group who would qualify for affirmative action, are not qualified for their position. That this may be counter-productive, particularly to those who (they predict) would have qualified and been accepted, without the need for affirmative action.

Opponents also counter that affirmative action is a politically correct form of discrimination, divides groups on socioeconomic or racial grounds rather than uniting them and thus fosters animosity instead of mutual understanding.

Being in opposition to an idea must carefully be distinguished from the idea itself being irrational.

Do you feel that writing complaints to the Consumerist is a constructive method in getting Nexon to address it’s method of conducting it’s business?

It's a healthy form of communication. I believe that Nexon is unlikely to take any action because of it.

Off Topic:
This thread is really starting to feel better suited for the "Rubik's Cube".