I think some of my questions are deleted because it's "too obvious" which one is right and wrong.

The truth is I was not trolling. While I think it's obvious, others do not find it obvious. People tend to believe falsehood when it supports their political agenda. Hence no matter how obvious something is, a lot of people think it's false.

For example, I asked whether minimum wage affect salary of those whose salary are higher than minimum wage. You think that's obviously yes.

Well, what happened is I was arguing with a socialist. I explained that jobs are moving to China because American workers are overpriced due to minimum wage. The socialist in economist forum claim that minimum wage has little effect anyway because very few works for minimum wage

So I thought I'll ask sceptic and nail that down once and for all. You guessed that, the question is closed for being too obvious. Notice I was arguing with an economist there. Even they doubt it.

I asked whether poverty has adverse effect on child's well being. Basically rich parents have rich kids. Is it obvious? Yes. Is it obvious for everyone? No.

I once argued with a socialist that welfare program is not really necessary. Just allow the rich to rent women to breed biological children through market mechanism. Rich parents have rich kids. There goes poverty.

The socialist then argue that it won't solve problem because your wealth is not decided by your genes but by "quality time" with dad. Arguing is useless. Gene what? All I assume is rich parents have richer kids.

By the way, this is what OddThinking said:

"No, I do not think I am saying that first sentence. I am saying there needs to be someone making a claim that you are dubious about. Nobody is dubious that poor people tend to have poor children. No conflict = no motivation. Some people believe that same-sex parents are detrimental to the welfare of the children, and some are dubious, so there is something worth looking at. "

Well some people are dubious that poor people tend to have poor children.

Again I thought I'll just nail that down in sceptic stack exchange forum so I can show him that it's too obviously true. Guess what, it's so obvious the question is deleted.

So you see, yea I asked questions that's obvious. However, trust me on this. Somebody would think it's false. Seriously.

Basically I simply question all claims that justify violation of individual freedom. Am I the only one doing it here? Is that always off topic?

As for whether the guy behind facebook is the real God, that's NOT obvious. C'mon. Yea it's obvious for you because most of you are atheists.

Other similar claims are not *obviously false for everyone *. If the other similar claims (Torah, Gospel, Quran) are not obviously false, how come this one is obviously false?

I used to spend half of my life believing bible is 100% true. I know it's not true. But there is no way it's obvious.

  • I had trouble understanding the second part here. Am I right in saying, you found a claim you believed to be obviously true, and you posted it because you thought that maybe, just maybe, there might be someone who believes it to be false, so we should spend our time proving it now, just in case?
    – Oddthinking Mod
    May 31 '12 at 7:33
  • "Basically I simply question all claims that justify violation of individual freedom." Be careful you aren't falling for an appeal to consequences fallacy.
    – Oddthinking Mod
    May 31 '12 at 7:40
  • While I am no longer political I just need to point out that most justification for violation of individual freedom are based on vague claim (this drug is dangerous) or obviously false claims (people are inherently monogamous). Most people do not think it's vague or wrong though. Most people think it's true. That's why I thought it worths asking.
    – user4951
    Jun 2 '12 at 13:57
  • Yea it's obvious for you because most of you are atheists. Could you support that assertion? I am atheist, but I think that the membership here represents a wide variety of people. I would agree that the skeptical community may attract a higher percentage of atheists, much like "the internet" does, but saying "most" may be stretching it. :) Jun 2 '12 at 16:06

You seem to assume that we close questions because they are obvious. I assure you we don't.

Your questions were closed because they were of poor quality.

Furthermore, you didn't (or couldn't) fix them and thus they got deleted after a while. Closure either ends in re-opening or it ends in deletion, eventually.

  • Excellent supporting examples
    – Ben Brocka
    May 27 '12 at 23:42

I think some of my questions are deleted because it's "too obvious" which one is right and wrong.

No. They were deleted because they did not fit the format of this site. They were missing some element that would make the question appropriate. While I am glad to work with people to improve their questions, sometimes a question is so far beyond the scope of Skeptics that it really has no place here.

  • What elements? If I may know? Can I see the question again. What element is missing? Notability? Falsifiability?
    – user4951
    May 28 '12 at 4:32
  • @JimThio basically they were not questions based on skepticism, but rather idle musings. The deleted questions would probably fit better at the Yahoo! Q&A site. Jun 1 '12 at 23:50
  • How do you differentiate idle musings and skepticism? What exact element can differentiate that.
    – user4951
    Jun 2 '12 at 13:58
  • FAQ on good questions: meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/882/… Here is a listing of all the FAQ tagged meta questions: meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/faq Jun 2 '12 at 15:58

You must log in to answer this question.