Message from @pratel
Discord ID: 468566568041709590
Yeah, one issue with ideological arguments though is that we tend to define them by the extremes.
And communities will lay claim to "ideas that work" even if they themselves didn't really come up with the idea in the first place or simply renamed something someone else said.
like i dated a pretty religious chick a couple years back and the whole agnostic shit never bothered them hahaha mainly because i could articulate good reasons for a higher power from theri perspective
The fuzzy middle ground is hard to stand on.
also i was never bothered by prayers before supper n shiet n id respect them
Since I hadn't had any good debates for a while since then, and even managed to get one person to shift there position and say I was right, I was just "screw Mr strawman" and left.
@Grenade123
Yeah, definitions matter. And some people just want to rework them. There's not too much you can really do IMO. I've redefined words myself (heck, I've had days long discussions on what definitions make sense), sometimes you just have to if you want to get a point across.
LIke, I can think of atleast 3 definitions of "conservative" that all make sense and can be hard to distinguish in context (and all mean radically different things)
LOL queue the first podcast between sam harris and jordan peterson where they spend an hour defining truth lol
as much as good points were made they were speaking past each other
Oh man. Truth. That's like, a whole branch of philosophy.
I argued that the server needed a dictionary, so we could start bedates by going like "government: using def 1a)" for opening statements
Probably one of my favorites too.
YAYA bud hahah love that shit
Lol. That would work.
But then you'd probably have to flood the dictionary with new entries after just 15 minutes of real conversation.
Pretty much what it was getting to
Just make a point of clarifying?
But better than spending an hour defining truth for the 5th time
Pull a Peterson. "But what do you mean when you say X?"
You sorta have to do that in real discussions.
I've had arguments with friends that lasted hours that came down to which part of a distribution we were thinking about.
Iron out the difference and we would be in complete agreement.
The challenge is knowing when you need to stop and clarify definitions.
you really do
which is why i generally end up asking like 20 questions of different far fetched scenarios to figure out peoples positions
That people don't do this more often in formal debate is one of those signs that people aren't really discussing as much as fighting.
Oh I do that anyway. Working with the abstract is fun
which can be hard when they treat those questions as attempted gotcha moments and go "but thats just too far fetched and breaks x y and z"
Abstract is the only real good way to go for some things.
Since the pragmatics can easily break on tribal boundaries.
its just like "ugh... just answer the question, its not supposed to be a gotcha damnit"
lol that feel when ppl are like "OH U JUS MAKIN SHIT UP TO MAKE U SOUND RIGHT" LIKE NO JUST PROPERLY ARTICULATE YOUR POSITIONS AND WE WOULDNT BE IN THIS MESS JANNET
I think examination of the situation is valid though
Sometimes the parameters of a question make assumptions they shouldnt
poor Janet, always causing problems
Am i the only one that thinks McCain is senile?
But that's the reality of most debate in this world. No one's actually looking to discuss. They're looking to win.
McCain is an old man
and has old man problems
Apparenty, Uganda has a social media tax.
https://torrentfreak.com/uganda-to-block-vpns-after-people-begin-avoiding-new-social-media-tax-180702/
lol i mean he had a brain tumor not long ago lol not to mention haveing been a POW