4 ms·
> You got me on a semantics issue As of this writing, there are three responses to the comment of yours that I first replied to, each of them posted near-simul
by carussell 12y ago
> You got me on a semantics issue
As of this writing, there are three responses to the comment of yours that I first replied to, each of them posted near-simultaneously with respect to each other. It's important to point out that all of them are calling you out on the same thing here.
(You downplay the issue when you throw out the "ah, semantics!" style resignation. This kind of comment is almost designed to frame it as if you were engaged in a debate over something and I caught you on a minor technicality that doesn't have any real importance to the actual topic at hand.)
Look, I'm not interested in "winning", or points-scoring, or something juvenile like that. What I am interested in is seeing the feeding-my-family "move" eliminated from honest discussion among reasonable people. This is precisely because the "I have to feed my family" refrain is dishonest and–as I said before–an unworthy tactic.
I don't know how to make you to understand this if you don't by now.
- davemel37 12y ago> I don't know how to make you to understand this if you don't by now. I feel the same frustration as you :) > This is precisely because the "I have to feed my family" refrain is dishonest and–as I said before–an unworthy tactic. One last time I will try to explain my point. I agree, This argument might be dishonest, and should be eliminated... but... That doesn't change the reality on the ground that many people, when feeling like they are about to lose something important will view it as a You vs. Them Scenario.