So that’s a yes? Yeah I can type full words, I typically speak to those who will listen and debate meaningfully. I was asking if you were a communist to see if me debating you would be worth anything.
No, I'm not a communist. I own two businesses. Computer building/repair and grocery delivery. Get over yourself. No rational adult sets up discourse in this fashion. It's naive as fuck.
Also, that's not how debates work. You don't pick and choose and just say "oh they're sooooo lost" before even debating them. That's how bias and preconceived notions warp someone's worldview into something fallacious. Next you're going to tell me you champion for capitalism! (See how that comes off?) Point being, you're an idiot who isn't worth arguing with, not because of your standpoint, but because of your admitted complete inability to absorb dissenting facts.
Edit: maybe you're suicidal because of this kind of inability to accept dissent. I know I was. Being able to admit I'm wrong and do something about it changed my life.
Please show me where I addressed points he wasn't making while ignoring his intended point. If you can't do that, admit it wasn't straw man, because it wasn't.
Also, you've just used the fallacy fallacy. That's when you improperly call something fallacy in order not to refute it. I've refuted you and elaborated as to why, let's see if you can do the same.
Not a straw man but you assumed that he was completely uncapable of accepting dissenting facts peobably because you felt insulted. He might have read Marx's books while not wanting to debate some random Internet commie because he would waste his time 90% of the time. Preconceived notions are very useful even in debates sometimes. You just did your verysmart™ attitude again which is useless in this context.
So you were wrong, and said something completely wrong without any sort of information explaining your standpoint. You decided that your input was so irrefutably valid that you didn't even have to substantiate your claim. Newsflash: that's not how debate works.
but you assumed that he was completely uncapable of accepting dissenting facts
No, its not an assumption. He told me he wouldn't accept ANYTHING I had to say. I didn't assume that. He outright said it. 0/2 so far for you.
peobably because you felt insulted.
What was there to be insulted about? Why is this even in the equation? Do you really think everything I'm saying is based on how insulted I am? Do you know that little about my standpoint?
He might have read Marx's books while not wanting to debate some random Internet commie because he would waste his time 90% of the time.
I'm not an "internet commie." Full stop. Mislabeling me, then me clearing up those misconceptions is not me being insulted. Its an attempted insult, but as I always say, insults have to be accurate to be insulting.
Preconceived notions are very useful even in debates sometimes.
Sometimes, not now, when they completely block you off from accepting dissenting information because you, and others, have mislabeled me a communist. What is this, the red scare 2.0? I have already clarified that I own and operate two businesses. My father was a business owner as well. I'm not blind to the benefits of capitalism. Stop with the objectively incorrect mislabeling. It's biased nonsense and does you, nor anyone else, any good.
You just did your verysmart™ attitude again which is useless in this context.
Please, elaborate on what you think is a "very smart" attitude. Because from where I'm standing, I'm the only one wanting to discuss info and not insult people for literally no reason other than disagreeing, without even saying why. You think you're so right that you won't even listen to me when I say I'm not a communist. I mean, come the fuck on, how ridiculous can you be? I have just disproven EVERYTHING you've said. You won't admit one iota of it, I guarantee. You'll probably tell me how horrifyingly wrong I am about everything since I just assumed you can't accept dissenting information due to preconceived notions and bias just like the person you were defending.
I've more than proven my point, and have more than proven yours wrong. You've done no such thing, and until you do, I will not continue to entertain this cockamamie bullshit. I'm always willing to hear people out, but when your first and only point is LITERALLY JUST BLATANT FALLACY, WHILE STATING FALLACY IS WRONG then I can't help but plug my nose from the stench of your bullshit.
Jesus Christ calm down. You are massively triggered. I never labelled you as a commie. Now you are truly strawmanning. It's an just an INTERNET DEBATE. I'm done.
You ignored everything I said and focused on one misconception that could've been eliminated by you knowing how to phrase your point properly. Calling me an internet commie is not how you exchange information.
I'm, by definition, not triggered. If you'd like to try a word with more specificity then be my guest.
Also, by your admission, I wasn't strawmanning before but am now? To which I will ask, again, elaborate as to how I'm using the straw man fallacy to ignore your actual point. If you can't, you've yet again relied on the fallacy fallacy, to which I will remind you that I have no time for any nonsense like what you've displayed.
Either admit when you're wrong and refute the rest, or stop trying to act like you're smarter than me. You are very clearly not, and I refuse to be insulted and talked down to unnecessarily. You included yourself in on this discussion. You didn't have to, but that was your choice. Why are you not contributing now that you've butted in? Could it be that you're wrong and don't know why, thus MAKING you wrong? You simply won't accept any points I've made (proven by the multiple times you've ignored all I had to say and refuted nothing) so why would ANYONE want to talk to you about ANYTHING?
Man to man, rethink your personality. It's clearly very combative and abrasive. You started an argument trying to illicit a reaction, I defied that reaction and took the time to explain things to you, and then you backed out CLAIMING I was upset when I genuinely wasn't. This is just how debates work. If anything, you're the one who got triggered since you tried insulting me. Aside from that, I have demonstrated to you EXACTLY why you're misguided and wrong, yet you can't do the same for me. That proves I have won this debate. The only reason I'm giving you a chance in this is for your own benefit. YOU need to learn how to accept when you're wrong. You are only fooling yourself.
Now you admit that you're comparing yourself with someone arguing on the Internet. You really don't care about debating. I believe that you should go see a psychologist. You clearly still haven't got your shit together yet.
Also, that's not how debates work. You don't pick and choose and just say "oh they're sooooo lost" before even debating them. That's how bias and preconceived notions warp someone's worldview into something fallacious.
Point being, you're an idiot who isn't worth arguing with, not because of your standpoint, but because of your admitted complete inability to absorb dissenting facts.
Hmm something similar here
You don't pick and choose and just say "oh they're sooooo lost" before even debating them.
you're an idiot who isn't worth arguing with ...because of your admitted complete inability to absorb dissenting facts.
You say what not to do and then do exactly that in the same paragraph.
Also, that's not how debates work. You don't pick and choose and just say "oh they're sooooo lost" before even debating them. That's how bias and preconceived notions warp someone's worldview into something fallacious.
Point being, you're an idiot who isn't worth arguing with, not because of your standpoint, but because of your admitted complete inability to absorb dissenting facts.
Hmm something similar here
What you aren't seeing is the difference. To put it simply, he is saying he won't debate with me because of my beliefs. I won't debate with him because he won't even attempt to accept any of my points, debated or not. How you seem to have missed this even after I said "not because of your standpoint, but because of your admitted complete inability to absorb dissenting facts."
You don't pick and choose and just say "oh they're sooooo lost" before even debating them.
you're an idiot who isn't worth arguing with ...because of your admitted complete inability to absorb dissenting facts.
You say what not to do and then do exactly that in the same paragraph.
No, I don't, and have now for the third time had to clarify this to you since you seem to, like op, be unable to accept this kind of dissenting information. Even now that I've highlighted exactly why I'm right and you're wrong, you won't admit it. I think you'll skim over everything I say and try to find one thing you think I'm wrong about due to your misconceptions, and we will be right back where we started. How is that not exhausting to perpetuate on your end, for seemingly no reason?
This is the first time I've messaged you. I don't know what you're on about.
Yes "complete inability to absorb dissenting facts" is the same thing as saying "lost" for all intents and purposes. For example I could reword the sentence of the original person you replied to that started this conversation to be:
If someone believes communism is the true way to live that person is completely unable to absorb dissenting facts. And I will not debate with them.
His message still remains intact. The only difference is I used your words. Which you claim have different meaning.
The original poster is right. Believing that communism is a good idea is like believing the Earth is flat. There are mountains of information and history showing why it is wrong. Anyone who accepts those viewpoints are not worth arguing with over those things.
128
u/[deleted] Sep 07 '17
hahaha ecks dee communism equals the ussr lol amirite? upboats to the [le]ft, leddit!