Comment by hackyhacky
18 hours ago
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.
18 hours ago
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.
> Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.
OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies.
If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.
Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
You said the other side has reasons that I hadn't considered. So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
> So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not a proponent of this change.
I am saying that calling your opponent a liar is not a convincing debate tactic, nor does it add anything new or useful.
So you can start by explaining, in good faith, what is wrong with the argument that you’re dismissing without explanation.
26 replies →
Well yeah, they are lies. It's quite obvious to everyone who's not caught up in the lies. Those people can't be convinced anyway, so they're not the target audience.
For anyone curious this is a great example of sealioning:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Well that’s cute.
We’re so far around the bend now that making a plea to do something other than scream “liar” at your opponent has been characterized as a malevolent political ploy.
For the record, you didn’t even read the first paragraph of the thing you linked to:
> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity
I’m not asking you for evidence. I’m asking you to stop calling people names. If you think the argument is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If you can’t do that, you lose.
3 replies →
> OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies.
Because they are lies. Assuming they are lying has served me well. When I did spend time assuming the best, I was disappointed time and time again to find out I'd been lied to. Now, assuming they are lying has proven to be the correct choice far more often than reasonable.
> If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.
Why do you think we care at all about convincing people? Why do you think we haven't already tried to do an actual debate?
You can't have reasonable discussions with people who dismiss reality and facts. I'm not talking about opinions, but facts.
For example, who won the 2020 election? Who was the president when 9/11 occurred? Who was the President in 2020? Is Trump a felon? Who pays for a tariff?
None of these are opinion based. And yet, you see government leaders who are unable to answer these BASIC questions. And it filters down.
Sorry, but you can't debate with people who don't believe in basic facts.
Let me show you how that works:
> Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
Yes, you are. Yes, you do agree with this change. Why do you agree with this change? Why do you support it? Why do you hate America?