| >I'm attacking their argument, not them. Why? What are you fundamentally working towards? Is it to argue for your own benefit? If so then this makes sense. If it is to convince the other person, then what matters is understanding them and how to get to them. >It seems to be decreasing as of late. You seem like a person who aims to be thoughtful. I will speak from my own actions - I anticipated and called this escalation out, probably a decade ago by now. I am not very smart. If this is obvious to me, it should be obvious to any other thinking person, perhaps after moving some assumptions around. This is how I work to continue to communicate and uphold my principles, in an environment that is changing. If something ceases to work, and to repeat the behavior, is .. well its many things, but lets call it frustrating. So I ask again - what is the point? You end with the goal of convincing someone. I won't urge you to use my techniques, or my crack brained approach. But is it fair to point out to you - that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, that people are increasingly immunized to our typical attempts at reason? If you agree so, and if you also believe in the spirit of inquiry, the search for truth and the pursuit of progress (lots of "ifs"), then would it be a stretch to say new tools, approaches are needed? (Side note - I read tons of stuff on misinformation, indoctrination, and communities. So I am not exactly completely flying high without a tether) |