• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s make it simple.

    No, let’s not. Oversimplification was your mistake from the start.

    A system may take one of three forms

    Ridiculous.

    Would you please justify one or both assertions?

    Nope, because I never claimed either thing. I’m not going to validate your strawman argument by acting as if it’s logically sound.

    • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re a more patient man than me. I would have stopped acknowledging that guy like two replies ago.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You say patient, I say impulse control issues making me bad at not replying when it’s clearly not worth the time and effort any more 😄

    • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A system may take one of three forms

      Ridiculous.

      If so, then it should be trivial for you to show an alternative.

      Please do so.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. You’re either not arguing in good faith or showing yourself incapable of appreciating vital complexities. Either way, it’s not worth my time and effort to continue down this road. Have the day you deserve.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Is a good faith argument dismissing any idea with which you disagree, by invoking a single word, and then declining to provide the counterargument you have implied is trivial?

          Which vital complexity am I incapable of appreciating?

          Is a good faith argument a response based on an ad hominem?

          You are being immensely hypocritical.

            • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sure. Enjoy making yourself seem extremely clever simply by asserting yourself as the only one capable of “appreciating vital complexities”.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Expecting me to keep engaging after saying I don’t want to just because you’re demanding it? Yes, that IS ridiculous.

                The only reason I’m still answering at all is because I have poor impulse control. Please stop.

                • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  The only reason I’m still answering at all is because I have poor impulse control.

                  Well, it would seem best to think about others’ ideas more deeply, before simply returning summary dismissals.

                  It is bad faith for you to assert pejorative dismissals of someone else’s behavior or position that you are unwilling to engage or to defend meaningfully.

                  • 9bananas@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    i think, i found the issue in your exchange:

                    it’s the way the two of you define “groups”.

                    the person you replied to defines a “group” as members of a social grouping; they were talking about rich people as a “group”.

                    you were talking about power being held by an unspecified, arbitrary “group” of no particular social membership; i.e.

                    to you, a democracy is a power structure that is “controlled” by a “group”.

                    to the person you replied to, the U.S. government is a power structure controlled by a specific “group”.

                    when they say “a minority group”, they are talking about rich people being a small percentage of the population, and thus a minority, which is making laws benefiting mostly themselves.

                    when you talk about “a group holding power over others” you are talking about an abstract, arbitrary, and undefined collection of people.

                    to you, a coalition of far-right fascists and far-left anarchists forming a joint government would be a single “group”.

                    to the person you replied to, that would be 2 distinct groups holding a portion of power.

                    you were talking past each other on different levels of abstraction.

                    which is why it’s no wonder you accuse each other of being disingenuous… because neither of you engaged in the same conversation…

                    at least that’s the impression i got, maybe i interpreted something wrong too… short text, like a forum comment, really isn’t well suited to philosophical discussions: way too much room for interpretation…