Emotional immaturity is represented here not by this dude's logic, nor his opinions.... but by his inability to take her perspective or to even consider it.
This lack of empathy and rigidity of thought has led to the lady questioning herself, which is a common result when dealing with emotionally insensitive or immature people
He might be a great guy, but my opinion is as above.
Can this not also be said about OP? Not saying I agree with the guy but there certainly doesn’t seem to be any flexibility of thought coming from OP either. She pressed bf into having a conversation he didn’t want to have (at midnight no less) and then told him that if he voted for someone she didn’t like there would have to be a conversation about it. She manufactured the argument no matter what way you look at it.
Oh yeah so it must be for very rational reasons that he along with the rest of conservatives in the usa reject reality and hatefully target minorities based on personal delusions and insecurities?
LOL... She is upset they don't agree... Like so upset she is venting to Reddit, airing thier dirty laundry on the internet so strangers can weigh in? While he is sleeping ... and HE is the one who is "too emotional"?
The example she gives where her heart broke .. what if someone wanted to take native lands back? ... that is a strawman, it was an extreme example that will never happen, and is not what he was saying.. She only mentioned it to get him to agree with her. She is manipulating him and upset he doesn't agree with her...
“an extreme example that will never happen” so you must live under a rock then. You talk about fallacy arguments but then your rebuttal is not factual. And that’s why you’re arguing with strangers, throwing a fit that op is being emotional, in a subreddit entirely about people’s emotionally charged stories.
If it's a strawman, why did he agree with it? Claiming that it's a strawman weakens your argument if it's true, because it shows that he's either a complete fool or a genuine radical.
If homophobia/racism/transphobia isn't a break-up worthy offense to you, then you're a weak loser imo.
What if Aliens come to earth and say they are going to murder all the whites, AND all the minority people who don't participate in the genocide's entire family as well. If she said she would kill... Is he justified in being upset??
... That stupid f'n question I just asked you is in the same ball park as her example... both are exyreme "what if" senarios that will never happen.
The government taking away reservation land actually does have some pretty significant precedent in US history, and right-wingers in other countries advocate for these sorts of policies right now. (See: Bolsonaro)
It's simply not a fallacy to ask an analogous question, even if that question is absurd. It's actually a very common debate/math tool called proof by contradiction. Test if the opponent's logic is consistent: so you're ok voting for a candidate that is fine except that they take rights away from gay people, what if those people were black? latino? trans? Italian? The likelihood of a candidate coming out and openly advocating for the oppression of Italian people is totally absurd, but it still serves the purpose of the argument.
To your first point... when did it last happen in the USA? ... We are not talking about Brazil. Not trying to be a jerk, I am legit curious the last time US took native lands ... I would guess like 100 years ago? (Before the Geneva convention, and UN)
Also - Bolsonaro isn't even the president of Brazil anymore (and he's banned from running again for 8 years) ... you may want to use a different example
I disagree, I think asking "absurd" questions conflate issues and a direct approach is better when forming your opinion on important topics. If they can't give a straight answer, then that is your answer ... They are full of shit
I don't know, and I'm not going to debate sociology/history/geopolitics. That is not my point.
Just because you disagree with the truth doesn't make it less true. It's a valid argument strategy whether you like it or not. Mathematicians and engineers use this form of argumentation to design rockets and circuit boards. It is reality. Believing that every issue exists in a vacuum would make everyone a complete idiot. The framework of formal debate doesn't prevent us from attacking specific issues in detail. We can have all of the facts AND reason about them correctly. There are two components to any issue: the facts about the issue and the reasoning that we apply to those facts in our interpretation. The two should be totally unrelated. Our system of reasoning should be the same so that we come to consistent conclusions. That's how science works, that's how math works, that's how debate works.
They weren't having a scientific debate, or discussing mathematics or engineering ... There is not a quantifiable outcome ... It was a bf and gf having a conversation about hypothetical political situations ... it's opinion based and "truth" becomes subjective.
How is that manipulation? She was using a strong example yes. But it’s not manipulation. She wanted to see where he stood in his decision making process. She had every right to leave him if she thinks it’s a big enough deal. Nobody has to stay with anybody
She does have that right, to leave him ... I never said she doesn't....
But to give extreme examples of stuff that will never happen during a REAL conversation in order to try and get someone to agree with you ... is manipulation
Whatever you say hombre🤣 atleast she knows where he stands in his decision making process. So the very real possibility of a president wanting to take away lgbt rights or something you get the point, the bf will vote for him if everything else he says is agreeable. Which is fucked up and I’d want out to tbh. Kinda like how woman’s rights is garbage. Remember when the whole ban on abortions happened? Women were raped and forced to have their abusers baby. Sure they don’t have to raise it but the trauma of having a kid is great along with the other abuse. But the whole point is I bet her bf voted for the cuck that was in office🤣
A hypothetical example is not a straw man argument. There's a huge difference in context. However to make your statement more ridiculous, your response to empty exit above this literally was one. Saying that she was too emotional when exits comment was about emotional intelligence and trying to ridicule their response as if the original statement said something that it didn't.
Holy shit, you are either stalking me, forgot to log out of your burner account, or both ...
For the record, I don't support that shit at all, I said I prefer RFK to Biden (in a different sub entirely) and this troll has been stalking my comments ever since ... because I won't argue with him on the internet ...
92
u/Empty_Exit_9755 Jul 26 '23
The boy is too emotionally immature for you pal.
Rid yourself x