3 ms·

> Great! Finally! Glad you agree with me completely. I'm pretty sure that I do not agree with you, most certainly we don't reason about these things the same.

> Great! Finally! Glad you agree with me completely. I'm pretty sure that I do not agree with you, most certainly we don't reason about these things the same. Along the way during this conversation I wondered if I'd learn anything about your position. I'm not sure if I did. It seems like you'd rather bully your way through a debate, like with the above statement and many others you have made. Some of the things you said left quite an impression. Personality differences, I guess.

stale2002 5y ago
> I wondered if I'd learn anything about your position. I'm not sure if I did. Its pretty simple. When people say stuff like "X is bad", there are people out there who hide their real position, and try to attack that idea by saying "well stopping it impractical!" or "You say we should stop X, but what about Y thing that is also bad!", or "X is only bad from your perspective!". They do this to misdirect around their real position, which is that they do not actually agree that X is bad. It is a bad faith way of hiding someone's beliefs, and not actually talking about the main point. Next time, if you don't want to be confused with these bad faith people, just start off by say "Hey, I totally and completely agree with you that X is very bad! That is a good moral position for you to have! But what about these other things, or issues with how we go about stopping X?" This much more accurately seems to be your position, that you completely agree with me that X is bad in this case. Because if you don't do that, and just start talking about "Well what about if from their perspective, actually they don't think X is bad", then that very clearly implies that actually you don't think that X is bad, but you just don't want to admit it, and back up your position, and are acting in bad faith.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Leaving aside how we got here, that is something interesting to think about, the insight you just offered about our miscommunication around this issue. I knew I was not engaging in misdirection. At first I did leave unsaid that I always believe it is wrong to impose on others (China and Taiwan, for example). It's hard to completely state ones position in every comment. I jumped right into a geopolitical discussion, where I'm still convinced that might makes right is the primary driver of interactions between countries, as opposed to morality, given that countries are run by less than perfect politicians. I was thinking more along the lines of the practicality of the U.S. getting involved, factors driving that, likely outcomes, how motivated the parties involved are, etc. Wars so often create more tragedy, and it seems there's so often questionable motives involved. I guess that it's often the case that it takes a while to sort through the different context people bring to a discussion. I've seen this before, a better discussion after getting the initial yelling back and forth over assumptions out of the way.

stale2002 5y ago

> I wondered if I'd learn anything about your position. I'm not sure if I did. Its pretty simple. When people say stuff like "X is bad", there are people out there who hide their real position, and try to attack that idea by saying "well stopping it impractical!" or "You say we should stop X, but what about Y thing that is also bad!", or "X is only bad from your perspective!". They do this to misdirect around their real position, which is that they do not actually agree that X is bad. It is a bad faith way of hiding someone's beliefs, and not actually talking about the main point. Next time, if you don't want to be confused with these bad faith people, just start off by say "Hey, I totally and completely agree with you that X is very bad! That is a good moral position for you to have! But what about these other things, or issues with how we go about stopping X?" This much more accurately seems to be your position, that you completely agree with me that X is bad in this case. Because if you don't do that, and just start talking about "Well what about if from their perspective, actually they don't think X is bad", then that very clearly implies that actually you don't think that X is bad, but you just don't want to admit it, and back up your position, and are acting in bad faith.

mikem170 5y ago
Leaving aside how we got here, that is something interesting to think about, the insight you just offered about our miscommunication around this issue. I knew I was not engaging in misdirection. At first I did leave unsaid that I always believe it is wrong to impose on others (China and Taiwan, for example). It's hard to completely state ones position in every comment. I jumped right into a geopolitical discussion, where I'm still convinced that might makes right is the primary driver of interactions between countries, as opposed to morality, given that countries are run by less than perfect politicians. I was thinking more along the lines of the practicality of the U.S. getting involved, factors driving that, likely outcomes, how motivated the parties involved are, etc. Wars so often create more tragedy, and it seems there's so often questionable motives involved. I guess that it's often the case that it takes a while to sort through the different context people bring to a discussion. I've seen this before, a better discussion after getting the initial yelling back and forth over assumptions out of the way.