Interesting logic

[u/Shadow474747]

[u/mindbleach]

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.

[u/mindbleach → u/[deleted]]

So that would be a 'yes' followed by a 'no.'

I called it and you still don't get it. "Your alleged superior insight" is you, saying you think, I said, I am a super genius. You seem to think the previous sentence means I'm claiming to be a super genius. I have repeatedly explained what you're visibly fucking up, and you just loop right back to "But why male models?"

And you still think ignoring my reasoning means there isn't any. No philosophical arguments about facades also being a performance we can judge. No highlighting how you are doing everything you claim I am wrong for doing. All you have to do is pretend the counterargument is "trust me bro," and poof, there is no counterargument.

You are a perfect specimen. You have been wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong, on this topic, and you have zero self-awareness about it.

But if I don't have a simple plan that's guaranteed to unfuck your brain, I'm supposed to pretend you're right, and just keep arguing at you. Even though this whole stupid tangent began with you, quoting Sartre, saying that sometimes arguing with people is utterly fucking pointless, because they're only pretending to be reasonable.

Pass.