• @barsquid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    07 months ago

    You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.

    You have been stating your perspective all along that it is bad faith, asserting that there are no other motivations. You didn’t actually listen to what I had to say, you just asserted a position.

    I don’t think you are taking this seriously. You are certainly picking and choosing which rules apply to whom. Why are we engaging at all?

      • @barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        17 months ago

        Please consider being honest about your bad faith characterization of my position, with respect to your own AI definition.

        • @PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          surely you can understand that the ai was not giving a complete definition, and you don’t need to know that you are being dishonest in order to be engaging in bad faith. simply accusing others of lying about their own position is, itself, bad faith.

          edit:

          you seem to be alright with going along with copilot. when i asked

          if someone tells me they’re voting for jill stein, can i say it’s because they either don’t understand that she can’t win or they don’t care who the real winner is? is it bad faith to assume a motivation like that?

          it said

          Characterizing someone’s vote as either a lack of understanding or indifference to the outcome without knowing their personal reasons could be considered an assumption made in bad faith. It suggests a negative judgment about their decision-making process without evidence.

          In discussions, especially political ones, it’s important to approach others’ choices with an open mind and avoid making assumptions about their motivations. It’s more constructive and in good faith to ask questions and listen to their reasons for voting a certain way. This fosters a respectful exchange and understanding, rather than attributing motives that may not be accurate or fair.

    • @PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      17 months ago

      You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.

      i made your position more succinct. you provided two options and said they were the only possible explanations, then said “that’s reality”. you constructed a false dichotomy. there was no nuance to your comment that would have undermined this construction of your argument. your assumption of other peoples beliefs and motivations is a bad faith approach altogether.

      • @barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        17 months ago

        No, you didn’t. It’s frustrating that you claim to be interested in intellectual integrity. You deliberately omitted or failed to read parts that you now claim have fulfilled your mission of honest discussion. You accused me of bad faith when the Copilot definition you wish to use explicitly says there must be intent. You claim to be in favor of honest and good faith discussion, but have only been interested in applying your rules to the parts of the discussion you don’t like.

        Anyway. We’ve probably wasted enough time talking past each other today. Good luck out there.