I started to observe a pattern recently, when people on this platform refuse to read the text of the comment they’re replying to. It leads to all kinds of bad faith arguments.
Don’t be like that. Read the text, and engage with the text, not with what you imagined someone might say to you.
It’s not bad faith I’m just not taking you very seriously because you aren’t saying anything. “I’ll take ruined fun over ruined lives” is a noncommittal platitude that avoids having an actual stance or argument, it’s vague enough to let you fill in post-facto whatever context helps you while being morally untouchable because obviously nobody is on the side of ruined lives. It’s intellectually lazy at best.
So I pushed, and you stayed noncommittal and only addressed the first part of my response instead of the part about the role of government in this thread about the role of government in regulation.
So I pushed again, and instead of having a thought when pushed you went right into accusing me of engaging in bad-faith. I am reading the text and there’s nothing there so I’m trying to provide you with anything to grab onto. “How much of that danger should be blocked by the state and how much left to the individual to manage?” was not a rhetorical question, it was a natural continuation of the dialogue within context.
I started to observe a pattern recently, when people on this platform refuse to read the text of the comment they’re replying to. It leads to all kinds of bad faith arguments.
Don’t be like that. Read the text, and engage with the text, not with what you imagined someone might say to you.
It’s not bad faith I’m just not taking you very seriously because you aren’t saying anything. “I’ll take ruined fun over ruined lives” is a noncommittal platitude that avoids having an actual stance or argument, it’s vague enough to let you fill in post-facto whatever context helps you while being morally untouchable because obviously nobody is on the side of ruined lives. It’s intellectually lazy at best.
So I pushed, and you stayed noncommittal and only addressed the first part of my response instead of the part about the role of government in this thread about the role of government in regulation.
So I pushed again, and instead of having a thought when pushed you went right into accusing me of engaging in bad-faith. I am reading the text and there’s nothing there so I’m trying to provide you with anything to grab onto. “How much of that danger should be blocked by the state and how much left to the individual to manage?” was not a rhetorical question, it was a natural continuation of the dialogue within context.