> I feel like you are just going off on a random tangent without a lot of data here, just because you don't want to say "yeah, i guess the parent was wrong".
Okay, but, uh... having never been involved in the conversation until that point, I could have just... not said anything about the parent? It just sounded like you were trivializing something which likely wasn't an easy thing to do.
It wasn’t my intention to claim to be an expert on the situation, as much as it was mostly to share a story and point out that there’s a large grey area here.
The parent definitely was factual and correct, but the tone made it sound a bit as if they thought my reasons for doing so were incorrect. That would be a bit of a stretch, and I think that’s what was bothering @naikrovek
This is not helpful either. You could have said what you thought without implying someone is a bad parent (in the same way that nobody should have implied that you are a pedophile).
This is a great example of the kind of hyper-reactivity that makes conversation on most of the internet absolutely impossible. The parent said they didn't see this in the article, don't imagine they'd gain from it, and asked for more info about it - all totally reasonable thoughts and expressed without negativity. And yet you responded with snide superiority, as though your dialogue with this person was already an argument before it even started.
I think the parent isn't actually questioning that someone in authority should or should not have the same repercussions, but rather rhetorically calling out, as you explicitly did, they often are held to a lower standard.
You're right, I should have been more careful and I get the irony. The comment sounded like it was a defense by the parent and I made an assumption.
However I don't consider it giving someone a hard time. I think of it as calling out people who decrease the quality of the conversation. You could throw that accusation back at me for my mistake but it is just that, a mistake.
Yes. Bad actors ask these sorts of questions in order to stofle conversation. You basically asked this person to do a research papers worth of research in order to prove his argument while you put basically zero effort into your comment. If you think the stats dobt align with what he said look it ul yourself and tell us. Asking questions like the parent did is lazy and often badly intentioned
> I don't get the feeling that you and the parent are taking my comment in good faith.
I'm only playing by the rules you yourself set out. People in this thread were discussing how measuring "greatness" is subtle and very difficult, and then you came in asserting you could solve it with a snappy 2.5-word manta. If you're now claiming that additional clarification is needed, well, yeah, that's what everyone was saying to begin with.
>which refuses to consider the possibility of there being some truths here, and there not being some litany of horrible reasons against this person.
The parent, and we, don't "need" to consider the above.
It's already available to us, as that is the original framing in the linked post. If someone is content with that, they can stick with it and it's authors own explanation.
What people DO need to consider, and the parent did remind us of, is the possibility that this might not be the true reality. Which, more often than not, is the case when one speaks about themselves and how good and balanced they are.
(Your tone - e.g. "repulsively small minded" is also kind insulting).
> My problem with this term is it centers around parents
To be fair, the term in question is "parental involvement". It's understandable that some might be confused about why the "parental" part of the phrase is offensive.
Okay, but, uh... having never been involved in the conversation until that point, I could have just... not said anything about the parent? It just sounded like you were trivializing something which likely wasn't an easy thing to do.
reply