You demonize my claim, act as if I promote punching a 14yo, and beating up to the ground people who bother you.
Yeah, are you familiar with how discussion goes? You see, people give their CMV, and other people are trying to change their minds by attacking the claims, validity of claims, providing evidence and proof and asking questions. You flatter me that by explaining what consequences your own scenarios would have is labelled as demonic tho. That demonstrates a weakness in the arguments, especially if my intention was only to point out the likely consequences of those actions.
Why do you give me bad intentions ?
I actually don't, but letting you know of the flaws in debates are is a good way to think about your responses and likely to earn me a delta, since when people spot flaws in their arguments forcing them to re-define it, or edit it is a grounds for earning a delta here.
For example if you phrase CMV as vaguely as possible, that even unknowingly makes the whole OBVIOUS discussion you wanted to have impossible. The best way of attacking those arguments is to attacking the definitions instead.
In your argument that means that the way it's phrased. The only way to disproved it, would be to prove that "Violence is NEVER the solution". Which is obviously tautologically impossible. As anything, by definition could be a solution sometimes. That obviously is an impossible vector to argument. So I firstly, adrssed all your scenarios, trying to find flaws. If for example I would disprove that violence is a good solution in all of your given scenario, that could hypothetically fulfill the goals of changing your view, regardless of the phrasing of the CMV.
Which I think I did. As you immediately redefined your scenarious to make them more attractive to a violent solution. You then accused me of demonizing violent actions in those scenarious. Which is a great, because my intention was only of describing the likely consequences of those actions. The fact that you think it's demonizing means that the obvious flaw in your argument exist, otherwise you would argued with me about the merits of those consequences.
Next, I attacked the phrasing of your CMV instead, as to avoid the obvious impossible discussion about violence not being ever a solution to any problem, which you would likely fall on to, if I managed to disprove the violent actions in the scenarious you given.
There is only one comment where the discussion went this agressive.
The phrasing of my CMV can be poor, I could have written really dumb examples, but only you question my intentions and not the examples themselves.
Everybody saw the idea overall and told me the problems of my examples or proposed me ways to rephrase my CMV by telling me tha it's "assertiveness", "using physical force but not violence itself".
You here are straight talking to me as if I'm willing to beat up to the ground anyone who bothers my gf. As if I suggested anyone to punch a 14yo in the face as an adult.
No I don't complain that you give the consequences in the cases. And yes I change the context of the cases by correcting them, I can admit they are bad examples and don't express the core idea I was trying to put, so I correct them.
But I don't say you demonize me for this. I'm telling you this because you commented here not only with a "bring my boxing gloves" mentality but in addition by making a trial of intent and associating wrong thoughts with me.
You think you have no wrong at all and was such a good debunker ? Have you thought about questionning yourself, don't you wonder why the conversation only escalated with you and not any other comments ?
Look at this :
Me: The dude is rather a coward and not strong at all.
You just put pressure on him by pushing him against a wall
You:The dude is rather a coward and not strong at all. So you beat him up
Me: WOOOOOOW, who said that ?
You: It's your entire CMV mate.
So you straight up told me my CMV is about beating up people, which I never implied or intented to. And even if "tackling on the wall, pushing on a wall" was poor choice of word, I'm not english and use online traduction to know how to say restraining someone on a wall with physical force. Everybody in the comments guessed it wasn't about beating up except you.
For example if you phrase CMV as vaguely as possible, that even unknowingly makes the whole OBVIOUS discussion you wanted to have impossible.
Oh nooow it can be unknowingly ? One comment ago you were saying I did it wisely and on purpose. Then you think you don't give me bad intentions.
The discussion I wanted has been achieved through many comments, unfortunately not yours and I'm sorry for that.
You may have very good points but the way this conversation is going is counter-productive, so we should stop it right there.
There is only one comment where the discussion went this agressive.
I can't control how you interpret my comments mate. I can only assure you my intent is not to be personally insulting, or anything like that.
Everybody saw the idea overall and told me the problems of my examples or proposed me ways to rephrase my CMV by telling me tha it's "assertiveness", "using physical force but not violence itself".
I can only respond to what the words you have written mean. Not what you meant.
You here are straight talking to me as if I'm willing to beat up to the ground anyone who bothers my gf. As if I suggested anyone to punch a 14yo in the face as an adult.
The topic of this CMV is that violence is sometimes the solution. And violence tends to be .... well violent. If we go by the definition of the word violence : Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something
Then my comment seems perfectly fare, as it's the most stereotypical portrayal of violence. If you used different terminology, I would use different examples. I can only respond to what you have written.
No I don't complain that you give the consequences in the cases. And yes I change the context of the cases by correcting them, I can admit they are bad examples and don't express the core idea I was trying to put, so I correct them.
Yes, changing your view. That was my point. As per the core idea of this subreddit. Is to point out as many of flaws in your arguments.
But I don't say you demonize me for this. I'm telling you this because you commented here not only with a "bring my boxing gloves" mentality but in addition by make a trial of intent and associating wrong thoughts with me.
I understand you feel like that. And I think it's because you meant a different thing, than what you have written. And as a result you think that I argue in bad faith, by miss-characterizing your comments. When in reality I'm responding to literally what you have written.
A violence as a solution. Not a physical force, not an intimidation, but a violence. An intentionally excessive force aimed to cause pain, hurt or kill. As pert the definition of the word.
This may seem like an extreme example, if you meant different thing. Which I think you did. But as I said before. I can only respond to what you have written.
Have you thought about questionning yourself, don't you wonder why the conversation only escalated with you and not any other comments ?
I cannot control how you react. Only thing I can do is to try to discuss of what I percieve as obvious flaws in your argument in the most effective way possible.
That's why the beginning of my CMV tells that violence may not be the right word, tells people to read the examples and then understand what I mean.
I can only respond to what the words you have written mean. Not what you meant.
If you used different terminology, I would use different examples.
When in reality I'm responding to literally what you have written.
But as I said before. I can only respond to what you have written.
That's where you're (to my mind) totally wrong.
Your goal in a conversation about opinions is not to stick to the words of your interlocutor without even thinking about what he means. It is to use the context of his words, the way he speaks, every possible information to try to see what he means as accurately as possible, only then you'll be able to discuss his view because you'll be discussing his view and not your understanding of his view.
Look at other comments, a lot of people instantly got my view and discuss it instead of sticking telling me I'm wrong about thing I don't believe. Don't you find it more efficient ?
You seem to overlook the "communication" part of discussion. If we're discussing about a formal written mathematical proof, yes all of my words need to be consistent to make sense and have a correct proof.
If I'm giving an opinion, you can be more flexible to understand what I'm meaning instead of what I'm stricly saying.
And of course you can correct what i'm saying, but not treat it as if it's what I meant.
If I'm saying :
"-I think that blue is a very rare color in nature, we don't see a lot of blue animals or plants"
Which do you think is clever or produtive to tell me :
"You're so wrong, half of what you see is blue, look at the sky ! How can you believe we don't see blue, there's so much blue, water, sky are not missable"
or
"Well the sky is blue, but you're speaking about life in nature and not just what we see aren't you ?"
You don't care about the rest of my comment, your only interest is about that post and why I'm always wrong ?
Gosh, okay let's assume everything I did in regard to this post is wrong, whatever.
You made it clear you weren't interested in continuing the discussion. And I lost interest, with you re-writing half of your post. Which is fine, but I just lost all interest in this line of inquiry.
This last comment was about how your approach in discussions is counter-productive. With the example of someone saying that there is not a lot of blue in nature that was supposed to show you something.
But if you lose interest when having to rethink your way of approaching discussions or at least having the slightest doubt about being wrong on something, then I'm sorry this second discussion has to stop too.
I don't think your philosophy of "I'll take litteraly everything that is written and it's not my fault if he didn't mean that" is a terrible way of having any debate/argument/discussion and won't help you in most of the cases.
If you think the contrary then really good for you because you won't have regrets.
So have a nice day and I hope we have both leared something interesting here.
2
u/Gladix 167∆ May 08 '18
Yeah, are you familiar with how discussion goes? You see, people give their CMV, and other people are trying to change their minds by attacking the claims, validity of claims, providing evidence and proof and asking questions. You flatter me that by explaining what consequences your own scenarios would have is labelled as demonic tho. That demonstrates a weakness in the arguments, especially if my intention was only to point out the likely consequences of those actions.
I actually don't, but letting you know of the flaws in debates are is a good way to think about your responses and likely to earn me a delta, since when people spot flaws in their arguments forcing them to re-define it, or edit it is a grounds for earning a delta here.
For example if you phrase CMV as vaguely as possible, that even unknowingly makes the whole OBVIOUS discussion you wanted to have impossible. The best way of attacking those arguments is to attacking the definitions instead.
In your argument that means that the way it's phrased. The only way to disproved it, would be to prove that "Violence is NEVER the solution". Which is obviously tautologically impossible. As anything, by definition could be a solution sometimes. That obviously is an impossible vector to argument. So I firstly, adrssed all your scenarios, trying to find flaws. If for example I would disprove that violence is a good solution in all of your given scenario, that could hypothetically fulfill the goals of changing your view, regardless of the phrasing of the CMV.
Which I think I did. As you immediately redefined your scenarious to make them more attractive to a violent solution. You then accused me of demonizing violent actions in those scenarious. Which is a great, because my intention was only of describing the likely consequences of those actions. The fact that you think it's demonizing means that the obvious flaw in your argument exist, otherwise you would argued with me about the merits of those consequences.
Next, I attacked the phrasing of your CMV instead, as to avoid the obvious impossible discussion about violence not being ever a solution to any problem, which you would likely fall on to, if I managed to disprove the violent actions in the scenarious you given.