6 ms·

> reasonable Thats not the adjective I used. > 2 people who tell you the same thing An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biase

by aydyn 1y ago

> reasonable Thats not the adjective I used. > 2 people who tell you the same thing An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument. > That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote, >> Flatly untrue >>> Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously. For clarification (since you seem to need it a lot) I am responding to your claim that incivility started with me. That is flatly untrue, obviously.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
>> reasonable > Thats not the adjective I used. Maybe, but that's what you meant when you said "realistic", right? The holocaust and the holodomor were both, unfortunately "realistic". Surely you're interested in reasonable, acceptable, realistic options, not simply "realistic" ones, however unreasonable and unacceptable? Otherwise, you'll have to share why you're not interested in realistic, reasonable, acceptable options, which as we've seen, are superior to options which are simply "realistic". > An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument. An appeal to the authority of one person with even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument. Since we're on the topic of soliciting alternatives from others: You might suggest a realistic, reasonable, acceptable alternative to what that other poster suggested. This time, I'll play judge, instead of you.
- aydyn 1y ago
  > what you meant when you said "realistic", right? No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic". > even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument. I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic". You must, yet you still have not! Instead, you omitted everything of substance from my response and just focused on snideness here. Maybe reply to the part of the post that followed that sentence? > I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased. This goes even moreso when I say it: Myself and other-poster have not even given our perspectives, so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, those people are biased. Not sure why you took that hard left into accusing others of being biased, but we don't have to have a conversation like that. We can rise above it. Unfortunately, your post contained nothing about the actual topic: you're just arguing. If you're interesting in having an interesting discussion, focus on substance in your response, rather than attacking me. For guidance there, check the parts of my previous reply which you omitted. I am not the topic here, and I'm not interested in you making me it.

by aydyn 1y ago

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

>> reasonable > Thats not the adjective I used. Maybe, but that's what you meant when you said "realistic", right? The holocaust and the holodomor were both, unfortunately "realistic". Surely you're interested in reasonable, acceptable, realistic options, not simply "realistic" ones, however unreasonable and unacceptable? Otherwise, you'll have to share why you're not interested in realistic, reasonable, acceptable options, which as we've seen, are superior to options which are simply "realistic". > An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument. An appeal to the authority of one person with even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument. Since we're on the topic of soliciting alternatives from others: You might suggest a realistic, reasonable, acceptable alternative to what that other poster suggested. This time, I'll play judge, instead of you.

aydyn 1y ago
> what you meant when you said "realistic", right? No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic". > even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument. I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic". You must, yet you still have not! Instead, you omitted everything of substance from my response and just focused on snideness here. Maybe reply to the part of the post that followed that sentence? > I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased. This goes even moreso when I say it: Myself and other-poster have not even given our perspectives, so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, those people are biased. Not sure why you took that hard left into accusing others of being biased, but we don't have to have a conversation like that. We can rise above it. Unfortunately, your post contained nothing about the actual topic: you're just arguing. If you're interesting in having an interesting discussion, focus on substance in your response, rather than attacking me. For guidance there, check the parts of my previous reply which you omitted. I am not the topic here, and I'm not interested in you making me it.