4 ms·

Breaking up a comment into isolated parts removes context and is intellectually dishonest, please don't do it. What you're doing now is invoking moral outrage,

by dimino 10y ago

Breaking up a comment into isolated parts removes context and is intellectually dishonest, please don't do it. What you're doing now is invoking moral outrage, which is completely useless in any real conversation, so what you're signaling is that you've completed being useful to talk to, and are now commencing your own justifications for continuing to believe as you do, despite a well-reasoned argument to the contrary. You've unleveled the playing field by removing rationality from this conversation, but by continuing to use terms from the world of rationality (evidence, claims), you try to mask that fact. Do you realize that when you do this, you isolate yourself and alienate the person you're talking to? I don't want to talk to you anymore, regardless of the validity of your other points, simply because of how... annoyingly self righteous you're being. It's like a religious conversation now, and why would I engage someone on the Internet in something like that?

pritambaral 10y ago
> Breaking up a comment into isolated parts removes context And it is necessary sometimes, to discuss the individual parts. Just because one strung together a big comment doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to question an individual part of that bigger comment. > and is intellectually dishonest One could argue the same about trying to hide a weak argument in a bigger comment with a plea like "please don't break up the comment, it removes context". > What you're doing now is invoking moral outrage, which is completely useless in any real conversation, so what you're signaling is that you've completed being useful to talk to, and are now commencing your own justifications for continuing to believe as you do, despite a well-reasoned argument to the contrary Funny, I see the same in you. I feel you were trying to provoke moral outrage by using words like "luddites" and comparing to antivaxxers. If you wanted to have "real conversation", you should have treated your conversation partners with a reasonable amount of respect. You think your argument is well-reasoned. Guess what, almost every participant in every debate thinks their argument is well-reasoned, or they wouldn't be debating any longer. > You've unleveled the playing field Again, our perceptions differ, yet in a mirror-like manner. I felt you had unleveled the playing field by being so sure of your beliefs being well-reasoned that you think anyone that didn't agree with you were stupid; elevating yourself. > by removing rationality from this conversation, but by continuing to use terms from the world of rationality (evidence, claims), you try to mask that fact. Completely disagree, and totally understand why you'd think so. Only your own reason makes sense to you (this has been a theme in your other comments, also, see above), so obviously anyone that disagrees with you is unreasonable and irrational. > I don't want to talk to you anymore ... It's like a religious conversation now Same here. Only, it seemed like a religious conversation from the beginning that I took a risk while getting into. I guess when one describes thoughts or beliefs (or conversations) as "religious", they mean firm, unbudging belief. And I guess you see that in my arguments as much as I do in yours. Obviously, we can no longer discuss with each other. Good day to you, sir.
- dimino 10y ago
  There's a lot wrong with what you wrote, but I'll summarize into one point; this isn't a conversation between you and me, it's a discussion in a group. Your replies are not congruent with that, and it ruins my experience of this site. I didn't read what you wrote, but I'm sure it was important enough to use tricks like selective quotation to get across.

by dimino 10y ago

pritambaral 10y ago

> Breaking up a comment into isolated parts removes context And it is necessary sometimes, to discuss the individual parts. Just because one strung together a big comment doesn't mean others shouldn't be able to question an individual part of that bigger comment. > and is intellectually dishonest One could argue the same about trying to hide a weak argument in a bigger comment with a plea like "please don't break up the comment, it removes context". > What you're doing now is invoking moral outrage, which is completely useless in any real conversation, so what you're signaling is that you've completed being useful to talk to, and are now commencing your own justifications for continuing to believe as you do, despite a well-reasoned argument to the contrary Funny, I see the same in you. I feel you were trying to provoke moral outrage by using words like "luddites" and comparing to antivaxxers. If you wanted to have "real conversation", you should have treated your conversation partners with a reasonable amount of respect. You think your argument is well-reasoned. Guess what, almost every participant in every debate thinks their argument is well-reasoned, or they wouldn't be debating any longer. > You've unleveled the playing field Again, our perceptions differ, yet in a mirror-like manner. I felt you had unleveled the playing field by being so sure of your beliefs being well-reasoned that you think anyone that didn't agree with you were stupid; elevating yourself. > by removing rationality from this conversation, but by continuing to use terms from the world of rationality (evidence, claims), you try to mask that fact. Completely disagree, and totally understand why you'd think so. Only your own reason makes sense to you (this has been a theme in your other comments, also, see above), so obviously anyone that disagrees with you is unreasonable and irrational. > I don't want to talk to you anymore ... It's like a religious conversation now Same here. Only, it seemed like a religious conversation from the beginning that I took a risk while getting into. I guess when one describes thoughts or beliefs (or conversations) as "religious", they mean firm, unbudging belief. And I guess you see that in my arguments as much as I do in yours. Obviously, we can no longer discuss with each other. Good day to you, sir.

dimino 10y ago
There's a lot wrong with what you wrote, but I'll summarize into one point; this isn't a conversation between you and me, it's a discussion in a group. Your replies are not congruent with that, and it ruins my experience of this site. I didn't read what you wrote, but I'm sure it was important enough to use tricks like selective quotation to get across.