Epicurus wrote:I sincerely disagree with you generally. I usually give detailed premises of the disagreement. You seem to believe that non agreement means absence. Now go back to your quasi-depression as now worded on two separate threads, of how the Blazers not following your prescriptions for change make them unwatchable.
BTW, thank you for the credit, but I fear I contribute nothing to the absurdity you mention.
However, you've never been one to approach anything I say with a modicum of sincerity.
This is what I said.
I sincerely disagree with you generally.
This is how you responded.
Now either you're trolling, or you legitimately have issues with reading comprehension. Is English a second language for you?
I'll enlighten you on exactly what I mean, and how you're seeming to twist my words in a way that obfuscates my point about you being a bad faith poster.
Let's have an example:
It's a nice southern California day out, and there's a blue sky with some clouds/overcast out making it a bit gray too.
I say: Look at that blue sky today.
A good faith attempt at a debate: I don't know if I'd call that sky blue, I think it might be gray. (We can then discuss the merits and at least attempt to learn something through the debate. We may disagree, but it's not a hostile discussion)
Your bad faith entrance into the debate: So all days have a blue sky huh? What about gray, sometimes it's gray too. (You enter with a strawman that is impossible to argue, because the general premise of how you characterize the opposing viewpoint is false. Many times you throw in a passive aggressive ad hominem on top)
You rarely engage in a conversation in good faith. Instead of debating the post and engaging in a discussion where we debate the color of the sky, you come in and extrapolate meaning beyond its scope and generally attack the integrity of the other side of the debate. You may sincerely disagree with the sky being blue, but you certainly didn't enter the debate sincerely with a goal of good faith discussion. You generally come in hot with strawmen tinged with ad hominem and proceed to pretend that you're position is one of good faith and reason. I disagree.
Now I understand if English is your second language, I can be more lenient on your reading comprehension if that is the case. For what it's worth, the only reason I call you out at this point when you directly respond to my posts (without quoting, please quote, Realgm gives a notification when you do and it comes off less passive aggressive) is because you have consistently strawmanned my posts for what feels like an eternity at this point, and it is tiresome.
Hopefully there's some explanation in there that helps you understand that you are not currently posting in good faith when responding to my points of view, and I am more than willing to turn the page on this chapter of discourse between us and have honest and sincere conversations about our disagreements with the general direction/philosophy of the team, the coaching, and management. I understand that I may be guilty of strawmen and ad hominem as well, but I'd like to engage more in discussion that doesn't revolve around me having to correct literally every statement or viewpoint I post because it is being mischaracterized and/or extrapolated to a much wider scope than it was obviously intended to cover.
If I am coming off as aggressive or playing with fallacies during these good faith debates, let me know, call me out. I am generally a reasonable person, and may have had a beer too many and may need a good reality check. I'm fine with that, and will welcome it. Let's please just get to a point where every time I post, I don't have to reiterate that my point is being strawmanned and mischaracterized.
