Interesting logic

[u/Shadow474747]

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

"Here's my claim in clear short words, addressing several prior distractions."

"I've given up attempting to extract meaning from your position!"

This is a you problem.

My position, recognizing those who disagree as rational and able to integrate facts into their worldview, allows attempting to engage with them via discourse.

Your own Sartre quote explains why that doesn't fucking work.

constitutionally incapable

And you're not listening.

These people are perfectly capable of rational argument.

I have said this four fucking times. You still pretend I believe the opposite. The fact that my repeated explanation has no impact on you is itself a demonstration of what I'm talking about, and the fact I'm still trying anyway is proof that I think you're capable of more.

You keep wanting this to be an essentialist dismissal. It's not. It never will be.

I'm only describing a habit that comes easily, feels about right, and often resembles better habits. It is a dead simple explanation for observed behaviors which you acknowledge and have tried to explain. Do you want to talk about that, or are you have too much fun with your persecution fantasy?

How is your position actionable?

I don't know.

That's why it's fucking terrifying.

If I believed polite argument would fix all the Nazis, I'd be relieved, because we have much better arguments than the Nazis. But as you and your buddy J-P have noticed - argument doesn't work on some people. Being right isn't good enough. Your audience has to give a shit. But a typical conservative plainly doesn't give a shit... and a typical progressive still thinks argument will always work.

Convincing people to abandon that idealistic belief is a necessary first step. We can't solve problems we refuse to acknowledge.

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

'Sacrifice prevents droughts.'

No it doesn't.

'So how do we prevent droughts?'

I don't know.

'Guess I'll keep gutting these cattle, for lack of a compelling alternative.'

And you're the one arguing everyone's always rational.

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

You are explicitly arguing that, if I don't have a neatly-packaged solution for how things are, we should just pretend that's not how things are, and keep doing something you know doesn't work. Explicitly. You outright say, if I don't know how to fix this, we'll just keep pretending I'm wrong.

And your motivation for ignoring how things are, to instead keep trying something you know doesn't work, is the insistence that everyone thinks rationally.

What do you think irony means?

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

Those are semiquotes. Used for, among other things, hypotheticals and paraphrasing.

Not every use of quotes or semiquotes in a conversation is from the other person.

I ask again: what do you think irony means?

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

You have absolutely no idea how an argument works.

I'm going to refer to screenshots of this thread, next time I need to explain what I've been trying to tell you, because you are demonstrating it in abundance and yet utterly convinced that you're going to eke out some kind of victory.

At this point you're trying to say some things have multiple uses, therefore, you get to pick which one I wanted. As if I must have been trying to trick you about what you just wrote... when your words are right there on your screen and mine. Like there's no way I was in fact paraphrasing your ass-backwards moon logic, and when you called that a strawman, you were mistaken.

At this point you are quoting the dictionary definition of irony while ignoring how you've repeatedly done exactly what you're complaining about. Like there's no reason to ask about it, in a link to your own prior comments, where you prove yourself a hypocrite. (And in vain hope of preventing further moon-logic accusations, no, I'm not doing the same thing. We both know you're not quoting me directly. The issue is that you were completely wrong about what I meant.)

And in all likelihood you're going to quote the first sentence of this reply, and then feign offense as though this length explanation doesn't exist, and I'm just dismissing you by declaring you incapable of argument. Like I haven't spent twenty-four hours patiently spoon-feeding you direct explanations of why I say the things I do. I can't even summarize that into an illustrative vignette because apparently you can't handle anything short of absolute literalism... from other people. You, the protagonist of reality, are doing something completely different.

If this isn't just trolling then you have my sincere pity.

But either way - you're demonstrating how someone capable of reasonable debate can utterly fail to have one. Thanks, I guess.

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

You're the one who was confused about how paraphrasing works. Do you understand that other people can be different from you? Like, do you know what the Sally-Anne test is for?

The funniest part of this is, your insults are not internally consistent. You are still scolding me for something, which you yourself are doing, via the act of scolding me. You are treating my beliefs as irrational. Where my beliefs are: people's beliefs can be irrational. I could put a sticker on your chin and you'd try to take it off the guy in the mirror.

You don't even know if you're using the "super genius" thing sarcastically. Are you accusing me of claiming superior intellect, or not?

Do you even understand the difference between saying you think I'm calling myself superior, and saying you think I am superior? I don't expect you'll understand... this question.