3 ms·

That's quite the reach. Morals are more general than that. This isn't high school debate club.

• robertlagrant 3y ago
  > That's quite the reach. Unexplained claim about what's being reached for. > Morals are more general than that. Yes, obviously. How does this apply to what I said? > This isn't high school debate club. Okay?
  • uoaei 3y ago
    Your interpretation of "equivalency" is hard to understand in any context except one which seeks to limit the disagreement to an extremely narrow "debate" that just so happens to validate the ideology implied by your selective defense. My response is to point out that your narrowing of the space of dicussion is not only noticed but acknowledged and explicitly challenged. In a conversation about morals this framing of yours is inappropriate and counterproductive. It is notable that you responded in the way you did, implying you're trying to keep this tactic subversive rather than explicitly acknowledging it. Classic move in rhetoric, to be sure. You're acting like a smarmy high schooler who thinks they're good at reasoning because they're good at "debate". Clear?
    • robertlagrant 3y ago
      > that just so happens to validate the ideology No, it doesn't "just so happen", any more than saying "everyone should be given a fair trial" in a legal system "just so happens" to apply to the guilty and innocent. > Clear? Your response is entirely rhetoric, attempting to criticise me rather than my argument. It's clear how you feel; not what you think.
      • uoaei 3y ago
        Just saying something doesn't make it true :) You're going to have to do better than that to sneak your ideology by.