I have seen many times on this forum someone claiming to put forth an argument and then proceeding to paste long blocks of text, use flowery language, and seem to take the longest path possible in presenting their case. I claim this is immoral.
The goal of argumentation is to convince others, obfuscation is in direct opposition to this goal, therefore TL:DC is the perfect response to these posts. Further more no one is off base in demanding a non obfuscated argument.
Do you guys agree?
Of course clarity is a virtue, but you have to realize that some issues can be very complex.
Obfuscation is a rhetorical tool. You will see a lot of different rhetorical approaches used here, particularly fallacies.
Some people do it intentionally, but I suspect most do it accidentally.
For some people, obfuscation is as much about trying to avoid giving an answer, as trying to reason an answer out for themselves.
Complex issues are the ones that need exposition.
It’s immoral if the purpose is to win arguments by posting texts so long that no one bothers reading them and concedes victory. Personally I say I have not the wherewithal to read such huge posts and thus if the author wants me to respond they should make them easily digestible, as I have dozens of other posts and articles to read in a normal day, and if I want long reading i will stick to a book or lengthy article. If I think an argument needs a lengthy exposition I’ll rather refer the reader to a work on it.