[Kamq]

> You seem to spend a lot of time presuming that someone needs a counterargument.

Nope. I even said explicitly that just finding an argument unconvincing was enough.

> When someone explains to you why they aren't very interested in what you said, and your response is "that isn't a valid counter-argument," the net result is that they still won't be very interested in what you said, and the illegal thing remains illegal.

Ahh, I see the misunderstanding here. You think I want betting on political events to be legal. I don't particularly care that much about that issue. Though I do tend to lean towards legal by default (pretty sure this is standard liberal policy), you can have this one if you feel particularly strong about it. I want weird internet nerds (decent percentage on this site) to have higher quality arguments.

> why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight

I don't. Arguing with people on the internet is an entertaining pass-time.

> I'm not sure why you believe your statements on your opinions of what "ought" to be should bear weight on what is nationally legal.

I haven't made any arguments about what should or should not be legal yet. Also the is/ought divide isn't a thing I'm inventing here, it's an old problem defined by Hume (convenience link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem )

[JohnHaugeland]

> Ahh, I see the misunderstanding here. You think

No.

.

> Arguing with people on the internet is an entertaining pass-time.

Not for me.

[Kamq]

> Not for me.

Then why do it? Do you feel that commentary on social media has some sort of weight?

[JohnHaugeland]

> Then why do it?

As you should have realized from the previous reply, that was me declining to interact with you further (politely) once I realized you were just having fun arguing, rather than having a good faith discussion.

[Kamq]

> I realized you were just having fun arguing, rather than having a good faith discussion.

I object to this characterization. The discussion was entirely in good faith on my end, and it was about exactly what I discussed in my first post (the nature of the state of illegality of something as a counter argument against an argument for it becoming legal).

I also object to the idea that you can't have fun and be acting in good faith at the same time.

I think I must have said something that gave you the impression that the discussion I wanted to have was about something else (or possibly not said something that I should have). Would it be possible for you to tell me exactly what was/was not said on my end that would have helped in this matter? I would like to make sure misunderstandings don't happen again in the future.

[JoshCole]

Since he mentioned that he is done talking to you and you ask:

> Would it be possible for you to tell me exactly what was/was not said on my end that would have helped in this matter?

The issue is the word argument. You have the technical idea of it in mind or at least something colored by it; he chooses to misinterpret it more akin to anger and fighting. This is an active choice. He isn't doing this because you were being bad faith. He wants to close out the argument with the implication you are morally in error and so he can dismiss you with prejudice, but he wants to do with allowing himself to think himself polite regardless of whether or not that approach is polite. He is practicing self-deception.

You can see him make this choice elsewhere and often. As just one example, in another post he misinterprets the word philanthropy away from the intended understanding. Ironically, I posted something akin to this response explaining that he would do things like this and also claiming he would laugh at his conversational partner; he chose to be amused at me for finding him to be such a person, but explained in his reply that he would have found the person he was talking to amusing if not for me; then he proceeded to misunderstand the word.

The extent to which I anticipate him is largely lost on him or he would not be amused. I find him very predictable. I can see the inductive nature of his approach: if a person appears stupid or morally wrong, then it follows that they have lost the argument. Therefore argue in such a way as to show them stupid or morally wrong rather than to show the structure of his own arguments right. The strategy of picking the wrong meaning for someone's words falls out of this inductive approach.

To me it seems like he wields a sword whose hilt is a blade; he thinks the reason his posts go to dead is because others are attacking him, not understanding who delivers the cuts. If you don't want a misunderstanding the trick would be to have a point that doesn't make sense. That way he can stab it cleanly. Otherwise he'll cut himself on his hilt and then imply the blood on the ground is yours.

Being a hypocrite, he may reply to this saying I'm canvassing him or some similar nonsense; if he does, please note that you were discussing his argument with me and now I discuss his argument with you. If it is true, as he would like to imply, that to discuss the argument of someone else with another is not right, then he is not getting something onerous with my reply: merely what he does to others.

[Kamq]

> The issue is the word argument. You have the technical idea of it in mind or at least something colored by it; he chooses to misinterpret it more akin to anger and fighting.

Hmm, I suppose that is possible, or at least I can see how that might cause a misunderstanding. I shall have to give my word choice a second though.

Thank you for the suggestion.