Parts of the parent comment that are particularly wrong:

Hilarious, the point you have abandoned has +2, whilst my point that forced the abandoning still has -1. anyways...

paper-machine fairly well handled that one in terms of "Rule 1 of karma is you do not talk about karma". Also, it was not a point that was abandoned, but a word. It is a common technique here to taboo a word whose definition is under dispute, since arguing about definitions is a waste of time.

Since you do not seem to understand, what happened there is that your 'unpacking' did not convey what Vaniver's statement actually was intended to convey, so Vaniver replaced the word 'impulsive' with a more object-level description less amenable to misunderstanding.

a-yawn-gain

What's the key word there, hmmm?

Strike 2 - straight up the middle of the plate. Batter says, I didn't see that. Too bad says the ref.

hang on, hang on

Strike 3. Yer outta here!

This is not a good way to communicate. If you really don't see what in this language would make someone take your arguments less seriously, someone could explain.

o·ver·es·ti·mate/ˌōvərˈestəˌmāt/ Verb: Estimate (something) to be better, larger, or more important than it really is. (dictionary.com)

hang on, hang on - overestimate = estimate something to be more important than it really is.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the study of risk, but the phrase "overestimate risk" means "estimate risk to be larger than it really is", not "more important". Either you are too ill-informed about risk analysis to be involved in this conversation, or you are trolling.

Also, appeals to the dictionary are just about the worst thing you can do in a substantive argument. If there is a misunderstanding, then definitions (whether from a dictionary or not) are useful for resolving the misunderstanding. They are really not useful to prove a point about what's actually occurring.

Am I being too anecdotal for you guys? Of course, discount outgroup behaviour whilst permitting the same ingroup. The article is itself filled with anecdotes... maybe we should just dismiss the entire article... stop press no no, don't do that there's no counter to my op then, lets just pick and choose the parts of it that support the counter, dismiss those that don't - both in the research and the anecdotes.

This is a clear violation of the principle of charity.

And as a general rule, fixing your own bias is good, but accusing others of bias is bad. We must be particularly careful to remember that knowing about biases can hurt people. EDIT: Updating on this comment: It is useful to point out examples of bias in others; but do so in a way that does not score points in a debate, to be sure you're not fooling yourself..

Please by all means, chuck up the -1, I'm considering them badges of honour now.

You should not. Votes are an indication of whether the readers of this site would like to see more comments like yours. If you're getting feedback that you're making comments we wouldn't like on our site, and you consider that a 'badge of honor', then you're a troll and should actually be banned entirely.