I would expect no one's claims to be flawless, but even if OP claimed the sky is green, claiming that he is wrong because he's not a physicist is still wrong.
For some value of wrong. But the claim that the Fed is literally printing money js also wrong, for some value of wrong. Its like youre saying one side in the discussion deserves charity, and the other doesn't.
Random Commentator's comment was not "You are not an economist, so you are wrong", it was "Are you an economist?". That can .be read as a legitimate concern about understanding the topic.
Jumping on people for making "obvious fallacies" that actually arent explicitly stated at all , is probably a reflection of bias on the part of the jump-.er.
(The Ancient Geeks Law: Any comment by anybody in any discussion will look like an obvious fallacy under a sufficiently uncharitable interpretation)
and their responses arent completely invalidThey seem pretty much like obvious examples of fallacies to me
....when read without the charity you are extending to the OPs claims.
.Your suggestions are possible ways to segue from what OP said into a better discussion, but the replies quoted or paraphrased above aren't conducive to such a discussion.
What does that mean? Maybe you have decided that even if charity is extended, or middle ground sought, nothing good will come of it. But have you tested that, or is it all in your head?
In the paraphrased or hypothetical exchanges above, OP at least made a claim that could be evaluated, and the other commenters dismissed even the possibility that they had anything worthwhile to say for pretty poor reasons. They didn't make any actual argument to give any charity to. "What experience do you have with economics?" and "what solutions do you propose?" are perfectly valid questions, but the other commenters follow-up doesn't continue the discussion, it seeks to end it.
Especially in the comments of political articles or about economic issues I find myself arguing with people who question my authority about a topic rather than refute my arguments.
----
Examples may be:
1:
Me: I think money printing by the Fed will cause inflation if they continue like this.
Random commenter: Are you an economist?
Me: I am not, but it's not relevant.
Random commenter: Ok, so you are clueless.
2:
Me: The current strategy to fight terror is not working because ISIS is growing.
Random commenter: What would you do to stop terrorism?
Me: I have an idea of what I would do, but it's not relevant because I'm not an expert, but do you think the current strategy is working?
Random commenter: So you don't know what you are talking about.
----
It is not about my opinions above, or even if I am right or not, I would gladly change my opinion after a debate, but I think that I am being disqualified unfairly.
If I am right, how should I answer or continue these conversations?