No seriously, are you okay? It does not, in fact, take two, lest you seek one person to run their mouths and the other to just take it. So unless you’re suggesting we enable bullying without pushing the bully back or fallacies without objection, I’m not really sure what the point is that you’re making.
So kindly explain your thought-process when you respond with simply re-quoting what I said and nothing more; for overall I think my comments remained largely neutral, barring the low-hanging fruit you identified and which I even acknowledged.
you admitted that you were using fallacious rhetoric already (thouh your admission is not necessary: it was prima facie). but you also (correctly) pointed out a strawman, which is also fallacious rhetoric.
What’s hypocritical about noting, “these, ‘Got it. You just don’t x.’ responses are tiresome”? Do you not recognize the obvious snarkiness and straw-man fallacy? Are you saying I’m not allowed to call this out?
And why are you replying multiple times to the same comment instead of just consolidating your response into one?
What’s hypocritical about noting, “these, ‘Got it. You just don’t x.’ responses are tiresome”? Do you not recognize the obvious snarkiness and straw-man fallacy? Are you saying I’m not allowed to call this out?
i’m saying you are doing teh same thing, and you’re right that they are exhausting, so you should also knock it off.
another appeal to ridicule? can’t you just accept that it takes two to tango, and you are actively making this place worse?
No seriously, are you okay? It does not, in fact, take two, lest you seek one person to run their mouths and the other to just take it. So unless you’re suggesting we enable bullying without pushing the bully back or fallacies without objection, I’m not really sure what the point is that you’re making.
So kindly explain your thought-process when you respond with simply re-quoting what I said and nothing more; for overall I think my comments remained largely neutral, barring the low-hanging fruit you identified and which I even acknowledged.
i’m saying don’t use dishonest rhetoric
I’m fine with that; just make sure you go to the other user in the thread and say the same thing.
Did you do that?
Did you tell them as well that, “it takes two to tango”?
Curiously you did not.
do you think they would be more willing than you to stop engaging dishonestly?
Who’s engaging dishonestly? Citation needed. That has yet to be substantively evinced.
you admitted that you were using fallacious rhetoric already (thouh your admission is not necessary: it was prima facie). but you also (correctly) pointed out a strawman, which is also fallacious rhetoric.
i asked you to be the bigger person.
Double-standard.
Ask both. Go on… It “takes two to tango,” after all.
you’ll forgive me if this reads as though you are not only acting in bad faith, but know you are, and plan to continue.
i was pointing out the hypocrisy
What’s hypocritical about noting, “these, ‘Got it. You just don’t x.’ responses are tiresome”? Do you not recognize the obvious snarkiness and straw-man fallacy? Are you saying I’m not allowed to call this out?
And why are you replying multiple times to the same comment instead of just consolidating your response into one?
i’m saying you are doing teh same thing, and you’re right that they are exhausting, so you should also knock it off.
i don’t like to have multiple ideas in one comment, and i have found it’s an excellent tactic for breaking up a gish gallop. you can read more here:
https://lemmy.world/post/10922324
Hmm, that’s really strange. I’ll just report you for spam then. Thanks.
in the months that have followed, this has neverbeen an issue for me.