If you read the conversation I did stop having discussion with them and told them to stop having a discussion with me.
Facts don't always tell a story or explain the "why". Often times you have to form an opinion based on the facts and that is what you're bringing to the table when discussing stuff. I don't see why I need to explain this concept on a site like this.
In general I don't believe in simply abandoning a conversation someone clearly spent time participating in. On the other hand, I'm not going to continue with someone who ultimately isn't able to have the discussion at hand, for various reasons.
My reasons in this case are your 1) purposeful misinterpretations, 2) unequal demands in needed evidence for claims, 3) insults about my person and 4) misunderstanding of the topic at hand.
Because I don't have any desire to prolong a conversation with someone who feels like a possibly poor choice of words on my part renders my entire argument useless.
Choosing to opt out of a discussion is not the same as attempting to prevent others from having one.
Having a discussion with someone whose principle argument is that the discussion shouldn't be had seems like folly to me. Call it unfruitful if you like, but I wasn't attempting to start an argument as much as do my duty and explain the downvote.
We could go on and talk about the hypocrisy of how your attempts to extend the conversation are being made in order to bolster your argument against having one in the first place, but truly, I was not, nor am not trying to be condescending, as much as expressing my outright rejection for the idea that there is ever grounds for preventing an intellectual discussion on the grounds that someone might not like it.
Odd. From my POV, there's nothing to argue here. You've decided. And per you, that decision is final.
Once you said, "I'm not going to read...to learn new things..." the conversation was over on my end. The line was drawn. But, for the record, there are other here that might be interested in new ideas and new perspectives, and the flaws in their own. It's why I'm here. So for completeness and fairness to others, I played through.
I'm fairly confident you didn't hear an idea I referenced. So to me, it's odd that you perceive someone was trying to argue with you. Why would anyone bother? You're immune to all outside influences, yes?
I'm trying to have a civil conversation and I tried to express everything I know and my opinions. This sort of "if you don't agree with me you hate facts" is not a good way to discuss anything.
Although you resolved it later, you started it the way I have described, which is what I am taking issue with. I don't care how the argument ended, I'm taking issue with how it started. Most people lose interest when shut down the way you shut that guy down.
How is it remotely logical to expect someone to denounce someone else's rhetoric before they're allowed to discuss the argument with you? I'm not going to apologize to you for something that somebody else said, but if I agree with his points, you know what, I agree with his points.
You didn't get a point of my message. But I'm not going to keep explaining conversation with a person who is writing to me to stop expressing my own opinion which is backed by some experience, you better keep chatting with your bus driver.
If the truth is on your side, you have a strong incentive to let out some significant details to change the conversation.
It depends on your view. Many times it's not worth commenting on, and unless you can refute it completely, it devolves into a he-said/she-said argument.
If someone is making an argument with obviously invalid logic, then I think it's reasonable to not continue the conversation if they are unwilling to present a logical argument.
In my experience, asking people for clarification, regardless of which side of a discussion they are on, leads to inflammation. People seem to be attached to the idea that they perfectly understand the others point of view and therefore the other perfectly understands their own point of view. To them, more talk will not help.
Typically i find when you ask for clarification you find the person doesn't even understand their own point of view. Probably also partly why they react so badly to being asked for clarification.
Unfortunately, we are stuck in this world where most do not actually listen to, let alone evaluate, the content of arguments, just the context. And in online discussions the context is diminished. What to do apart from wait for the world to catch up?
It's not a debate but a conversation. Treat it like an exchange of information, not something you can win or lose. If the other person doesn't follow, then you can stop replying.
Can you at least see how that kind of thing isn't conducive to a useful discussion, but is really just a way to stop someone from saying things you don't want to hear?
A: I think X.
B: Interesting, why do you think that?
A: I have 10 years of thinking about it.
B: I have 10 years of thinking about it and have the opposite opinion.
A: If you're suggesting I'm not telling the truth then it's not possible for us to have a good faith discussion on this topic.
I might've made a fallacy, but this is what popped to mind when I read this comment.
But more likely too let the person leave the discussion.
There are definitely things said that can cause me to leave a discussion, even if said in a civil manner. I am not going to stick around to debate a person who believes the earth is flat, no matter how polite.
And saying that "you are not allowed to have this conversation" is like saying: "If you argue against me you are part of the problem". So it is a good way of just throwing out an argument and killing conversation.
Facts don't always tell a story or explain the "why". Often times you have to form an opinion based on the facts and that is what you're bringing to the table when discussing stuff. I don't see why I need to explain this concept on a site like this.
reply