Yeah I said that, but I don’t believe that people have internally consistent ideas. Like I said, you could disagree with me and feel repulsed by my words and still believe that oppression exists. It’s not a problem, no one’s gonna whip out the uno contradiction card.
It’s not a debatelord tactic to accept the possibility that people can hold different ideas at the same time and try to understand them instead of boxing them into a corner and whipping out logical fallacy words.
I’m not being a debatelord when I entertain the possibility that you could think two things that are in opposition at the same time.
You’ll have to forgive me for reading you extra carefully and responding based on that. I don’t want to come across as having only skimmed your well thought out responses.
What are the goalposts here and how does someone score? I’m not thinking like that, I’m just trying to understand someone who seems to have an interesting viewpoint that’s different than mine.
Oh my responses were written hastily, mainly because I have other things to do. Especially better than talking to someone who’s clearly only interested in winning the “conversation”.
Who knows? It’s your game, I’m not the one making a mountain out of a simple concept. I’m also not the one cherrypicking.
I’m not trying to win, I’ve only asked questions to try and understand you. In response I’ve been accused of skimming and not reading multiple times, called names, cussed and insulted.
I want you to understand that this isn’t Reddit and I’m not trying to get you. We’re not having some kind of fight where someone wins and the other person loses.
Yeah I said that, but I don’t believe that people have internally consistent ideas. Like I said, you could disagree with me and feel repulsed by my words and still believe that oppression exists. It’s not a problem, no one’s gonna whip out the uno contradiction card.
Ugh, this is why I called it over in the other reply. Debatelord tactics are fucking slimy.
It’s not a debatelord tactic to accept the possibility that people can hold different ideas at the same time and try to understand them instead of boxing them into a corner and whipping out logical fallacy words.
I’m not being a debatelord when I entertain the possibility that you could think two things that are in opposition at the same time.
No, you’re being a debatelord for picking apart a message written in my spare time as if it were an MLA cited essay.
You’re being a debatelord for having changed the goalposts 5-6 times, the way you’re trying to do in the other message.
Slimy.
You’ll have to forgive me for reading you extra carefully and responding based on that. I don’t want to come across as having only skimmed your well thought out responses.
What are the goalposts here and how does someone score? I’m not thinking like that, I’m just trying to understand someone who seems to have an interesting viewpoint that’s different than mine.
Oh my responses were written hastily, mainly because I have other things to do. Especially better than talking to someone who’s clearly only interested in winning the “conversation”.
Who knows? It’s your game, I’m not the one making a mountain out of a simple concept. I’m also not the one cherrypicking.
It can be hard to carve out time to chat online.
I’m not trying to win, I’ve only asked questions to try and understand you. In response I’ve been accused of skimming and not reading multiple times, called names, cussed and insulted.
I want you to understand that this isn’t Reddit and I’m not trying to get you. We’re not having some kind of fight where someone wins and the other person loses.