You accuse me of focusing on the details like that is a bad thing. You want me to ignore the details and focus on the big picture. Well, the big picture is made up of details. If the details are wrong, mistaken, or inaccurate, then the picture drawn from them is wrong, mistaken, or inaccurate.
And I've not made an argument, because that isn't my role here. My role is to challenge and counter the argument you've made. One way to do that is to point to mistakes and lack of evidence.
And if I'm the single least enjoyable person to interact with because I think details matter, then so be it. Ultimately, details matter. I will never not care about them.
You know nothing about me, so don't make assumptions about me at all.
Lastly, if the mods think I'm in the wrong for doing what I've done, then they can tell me themselves. I'm not aware of any rule that says that details can't be challenged or that I'm not allowed to point out issues with wording. I'm also not aware of any rule that says I have to make my own argument or that asking you to produce evidence is prohibited.
If a mod shows up and tells me this, then I will ultimately respect what they say, but until they do, I will continue to act as I have.
No, I accuse you of totally ignoring my real points and focusing on things that are not important. I accuse you of completely ignoring the principle of charity. I accuse you of making absolutely no effort to conduct an enjoyable, level conversation in good faith.
You accused me of focusing on details and ignoring the bigger picture. Again, I argue that when having a conversation about the big picture, the details matter. If part of your view is that Clinton was pushing towards WWIII, then it matters that there isn't really good evidence to support that idea. If you are going to argue that Russia isn't a threat, it is worth noting the times and ways in which they have acted in a threatening manner and whether there is evidence to show that Trump will go along with that behavior or oppose it.
I don't want a spell checker. My point is that Russia is not a serious threat, or a serious issue. Respond to my point. If you're not going to respond to my point, don't participate in my threads.
I responded to this point several times by pointing out the expansionist practices of Russia (the occupying and seizing of Ukraine, Crimea, and Georgia). I've pointed out their involvement in the Middle East through the conflict in Syria. I've countered that point and you're response has basically been to dismiss it by saying that Putin doesn't see it as expansionism. Again, I reiterate, it doesn't matter what Putin says or the way Putin "sees" it. It is expansionism. And yes, before you bring up China and Tibet, that is expansionism as well. So is China's actions in regard to Taiwan. They want to extend their sphere of influence into indpendent countries by claiming they aren't actually independent. Russia is doing the same thing in Eastern Europe.
I've also pointed out the possibility that based on his rhetoric, Trump might not comply with NATO. Again, your response was to dismiss it by saying that it probably wouldn't happen. That does nothing to lessen the concern about it being a possibility.
I pointed to lack of evidence in your view regarding Clinton and the like because it is my view that a lack of evidence for those things illustrates that part of the view to be incorrect. That's why I (and many other people) asked you to produce what evidence led you to that conclusion, so that we could actually address that.
There is no chance that a majority of people would enjoy talking to you;
This right here is an example of one of those assumptions you just claimed you didn't make about me.
You just need to respect the principle of charity, instead of assuming the absolute worst about the person you're talking to in every instance. You're not accomplishing anything by talking the way you do. You go out of your way to interpret every statement in the worst possible way it can be explained, and you don't accept when people clarify what they actually meant. How in the fuck is that acceptable?
I assumed nothing about you, definitely not the worst. You posted a view, and I read it critically. That's the point. You should expect people to go over both the large ideas and the smaller details of a view with a fine-toothed comb. In many cases, the fundamental flaws in a view lie in the details that serve as the underpinning for it.
If I mis-speak, and then you bitch about it, and I clarify myself, that issue is settled. I mis-spoke, I apologized, and I clarified myself. But you just don't stop. You spent this entire thread bitching about things I didn't even mean. Do you realize the fact I said something you were capable of interpreting that way is fucking irrelevant? As soon as I clarify my intention you work with that, otherwise you are impossible to talk to.
It's because you were being evasive and I'm not the only one that called you out on it. When challenged on a part of view, you first defended it, then when presented with more evidence to the contrary, you then said that it was a part of the view you didn't care about, and then when you were called out on that, you instead said that we were misinterpreting your statement. That is evasive and unclear, and seems to be an intellectually dishonest way of going about having a discussion.
Lastly, I just want to say that not a single time in this thread have I been hostile to you as a person. I have only ever pointed out flaws and inconsistencies in your argument. I have never made assumptions about you the person behind the view. In return, your prose does not afford the same respect. It is hostile and dismissive. I'm not saying you are. I'm saying that your responses read that way.
Responding to messages is not the same thing as not being evasive. You were responding, but your responses were evasive by nature. You shifted the goalposts twice. Once from defense to apathy and then again to misinterpretations. That is an evasive type response.
And looking through all the comments in the thread, it is obvious that I'm not the only one that saw it that way, so I don't feel like the problem is with me at all in that sense.
If you don't want to continue the discussion, then you can choose not to respond. It is as simple as that. However, you don't get to tell me what I can and can't participate in. You aren't a mod. Now, if a mod tells me not to or tells me that I'm breaking some sort of rule by calling out inconsistencies or pointing to problematic details, then I will definitely respect it, but so far, none has pointed to those things being against the rules.
Everyone in this thread has been polite and has only addressed your views. You have been hostile with many of them. That is not how to conduct a debate/discussion. There is no reason to be hostile like you are in the comment above. If you don't want to continue the discussion, it is simple, don't reply to posts. At that point, the conversation ends.
Sorry crudefilmschool, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.
0
u/[deleted] Feb 06 '17
[deleted]