When we're trying to make sense of things in the big picture, forest from the trees sort of thing, we have to take broad sweeps. We should be able to address co

When we're trying to make sense of things in the big picture, forest from the trees sort of thing, we have to take broad sweeps. We should be able to address counter-points when making high level arguments. Their existence doesn't mean broad sweeps are useless or incorrect. Arguments in the weeds are disingenuous when they're not challenging the actual pattern. They believe to invalidate an argument as if by demonstrating an axiom in a mathematics proof false, when they may actually demonstrate ignorance of variance.