• 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…

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

                The problem was not that we understood terms differently.

                We may have done, and it may have produced obstacles to communication.

                However, the problem with the conversation was that the other participant made hasty assumptions, and was predisposed to attack, rather than being reserved in judgment and willing to discuss. Ironically, such eagerness led to attacking me on the inferred basis of my discussing in bad faith.

                Such kinds of smug dismissals contribute to toxicity in communities. They obstruct both explaining and learning.