Thing
When people don't answer your fucking question and respond with "Well why shouldn't they" or "Why are you against it?" or "Why not?"
I asked why universities allowed high school students in their libraries out of curiosity. And half the responses were Well why shouldn't they" or "Why are you against it?" or "Why not?" or some other variation.
And this isn't even the first time. Some people love to answer questions by not answering the question. Why are you putting the onus on me to answer my own question? If I knew what the answer was, I wouldn't have asked dipshit. Buncha twats the lot of em
That answer ("Why shouldn't they?") is intended to mean "There's no reason for them not to". They are trying to be concise by expressing that answer while also taking the opportunity to invite conversation by asking you what sparked you to ask that question/what your thoughts on the issue are.
Most of these are already genuine answers but this one especially. People aren't being smarmy, they're simply turning the question back around on you because they don't see any reason to deny a service which is already going to be freely provided, beyond just it's campus body. That logic comes natural to them, so they're instead asking you if there is any reason not to do so.
It's not even a shutdown of the question itself, it's just part of conversation
The reason is because you are not questioning a restriction on liberties, but you are questioning the lack of restriction on liberties.
It's essentially like asking "Why is it legal to eat tacos on Friday?". Your response would obviously be "Why not?" because no such law has ever existed and you don't understand why someone would think that restriction should exist, so the questioning of the lack of restriction acts more as a proposition. Whereas asking "Why is it illegal to eat tacos?" is an actually sensible question since it questions a restriction on liberties, so there must have been a reasoning put in place for that restriction. However, the lack of that restriction does not require a reasoning.
Not having a rule is the default until someone makes a rule, so it doesn't make sense to question why a rule that never existed in the first place had never existed.
Because if they give you a reason, you have something to refute right away. If they have your reasoning they're preventing you from refuting their reason as your reason against is likely not going to be the same as their reason for why.
There are a few cases where "why not" is an evasive answer, but your example isn't one of them. The problem with your question is that there is no actual answer to it. "why not" is because they don't understand why you even thought to ask the question, and want to know why you think it's noteworthy that high schoolers are allowed uni libraries. There's no reason their allowed in other than the fact that there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed in.
There are certain cases where "why not" is an evasive answer, but it's mostly used to see why you are confused about the thing you're asking about, so they can answer that. Because if they don't know why you're confused and there no real general answer to your question, they need to know what specifically confuses you.
"Why are you against it?" Is an invalid answer to your question, but "Why shouldn't they?" And "Why not?" Are valid answers. They specifically communicate that there is no reason for the subject not to do something, and the subject doing that thing is the standard or default choice. So basically, they are saying "They would have to actively prevent them from using the library since access is standard by default, and there is no reason for them to do so."
I think "Well why shouldn't they?" can be a good reason. If there is something that shouldn't happen, then there should be an actual reason for that (e.g. "why shouldn't I eat ice cream for every meal? that's very unhealthy, that's why."). I dont really see a big problem with high school students in university libraries. If they cause trouble then it would probably be easy to remove them (and keep them out just by recognising their face), and most troublemakers in my experience dont even read so they wouldn't want to go to the library.
However, if there's no reason to not do something (e.g. "why shouldn't I play Minecraft for a bit? I don't have anything important to do right now, after all") then that means that it doesnt do any harm; it doesn't not need to happen. Oftentimes, this is the reason some things happen. Somebody wanted something to happen, the person/people who control part of that thing didnt see a downside, so then the thing is allowed to happen
If high school students want to enter the library, administrators would have to make a conscious decision to block them. If they have no reason to block them then they are a allowed in.
Essentially it's the default option and nobody saw a reason to intervene. It's like someone asking you why you haven't seen a movie. Because you found no reason to take action to watch it.
It's the Socratic method. You wouldn't accept the answer you would get anyway, so the best way to respond is to ask a simple question that if you would answer that, you would be able to deduce the answer to your actual question.
Your example is...typically, the default is no rule exsists until there is a reason for the rule. So by default, highschoolers can use university libraries.
Needing extremely detailed answers to simple questions is an acoustic trait...
This is a bad example but I feel you bro. Personally I'm on the spectrum and it really triggers me lmao like that isn't how this works, I've spent years studying how people interact in conversation and it's not supposed to be like that
Theyre allowed in university libraries because they are still counted as public libraries, some acclaimed or specific scientific books are kept only in university libraries to rent. I once went to a local uni library for a horror novel that wasnt available anywhere else.
Unless theyre being stereotypical rowdy highschoolers that are there to be disruptive, I dont see a reason to barr them from it.
"Wow why do you have this education program where you give high schoolers books?"
"Oh because I think getting young people to read is really important and good for them"
This is an example of making conversation. It's really not a dumb question in my opinion
asking a genuine is opening a conversation to me? Sorry if I worded that poorly. I do mean that it's strange to act like someone is against something just because they ask why
A dumb question is a question nonetheless. Like I said, if I have a question that I want answered but can't answer myself, I ask. I don't need snarky responses that don't answer the question
41
u/jason_bourne_shell 23h ago
That answer ("Why shouldn't they?") is intended to mean "There's no reason for them not to". They are trying to be concise by expressing that answer while also taking the opportunity to invite conversation by asking you what sparked you to ask that question/what your thoughts on the issue are.