Not relevant, but... Sure?

Religious nationalists aren't generally playing with a full deck, but im not sure kink shaming is the play, you do you though.

The emojis are compelling though, so perhaps relevance isn't required?

Consistently insightful, no needless words, astounding.

Masterful

See, no relevance to the response required.

It doesn't even need to make sense.

Still devastating in it's efficacy.

I'll look into a way to archive Lemmy threads so that future generations might benefit from access to the raw brilliance.

Rather than some paraphrased anecdote.

Wordy, still stupid

See , this is why i had no chance from the beginning.

Simple, concise, cutting.

You don't even need to understand what i said because your retorts don't require it. Genius.

You’re not responding to me in good faith. Are you just incapable of doing so?

If you want to make a claim , provide examples, even a single example works.

All of my replies have been in direct response to your statements, with quotations to match, if you think one of those responses was in bad faith, point it out.

You can do this in real time, instead of waiting to vaguely accuse me of something without pointing to an example.

I have responded in good faith to you. Your questions aren’t really clear (many seem rhetorical) and you keep referencing things that you don’t really seem to have brought up in any real tangible, palpable meaningful way.

You have responded..sort of, yes, good faith is debatable

My questions are clear, there are a lot of statements because I’m providing context and/or my stance something to support my claims and/or follow up questions.

Again, citation on the "reference to something not previously brought up" ?

You just kind of glaze over them. And I’m really not sure what you’re getting at.

Again, citation? literally any example you wish to point at, i will address.

I've been responding almost line by line, pick any example of when that response was vague, it's not a test, i genuinely want an example.

And I’ve told you this so much over and over again and you really don’t explain yourself while I have explained myself to quite a lengthy extent which you don’t really seem to appreciate and instead insult.

There are copious examples of me explaining myself and my positions, if you want i can provide a list, or you could...just read the history.

You have explained some things and i have responded to them, again, line by line mostly.

Most of my responses have been to try and get clarification on the apparent contradictions in your explained positions.

The only vaguely insulting thing i can from my side was the last reply in the previous response and it was in response to a literal nonsense reply from your side.

And again… I can explain things to you but I can’t understand them for you. Real understanding takes a mutual dedication to try to alleviate ambiguities and not reinforce them and entrench inside of them.

If there was something you explained and i then replied with the same question again, please point it out.

Like, I’m pretty sure everyone reading this knows where my stance is but I have no fucking clue what yours is. Maybe just a clueless contrarian?

If by contrarian you mean i disagree with many of your stances, then yes, otherwise my positions have been consistent.

I've stated why i disagree, if you wish to discuss , reference an example.

For clarification my stance is:

• God's design (which you didn't mean?, so that's fine) and what is "natural" are a poor foundation for a shared framework of morals and ethics because they are subjective.
• Harm reduction includes psychological harm, to exclude that is poor reasoning.
• It's possible to use body modification as an expression of self without having an underlying mental illness or psychological issue.
• Counting Crows big yellow taxi is superior musically but Joni Mitchell’s original is better for the feels.
• Providing a whole-ass book, or series of ideologies instead of an actual position is poor conversational technique, especially if you don't even specify if it represents your position.

Your stance in general is clear, has been from the beginning, it's when I’m asking for clarification that things get contradictory or vague.

Here is a summary (of my understanding) :

• You seem to have close to fundamentalist ^0^ (in my opinion) beliefs about what people should and shouldn't be doing wrt body modifications. ^1^
• Your stance is that you don’t push this on others ^2^
• You stated "I don’t think you’re going to improve on God’s design." with no other context clues but later ( a few replies later ) said that isn't what you meant. ^3^
• You think a lot of body modifications are due to underlying mental illness or psychological issues.
• Your boundary is restoring medical function/harm reduction is fine, anything else is not.
  • When asked if psychological harm reduction counts, you have provided no actual position except for a reference to a book.
• You have your opinions on what constitutes "natural", when asked about a contradiction in clarification your response was:
  • Cite a definition with no explanation as to why it was needed
  • Ignore the contradiction entirely
  • Claim i was using a special definition without specifying what you thought it was.

`

• ^0^ See the previous reply about the definition of fundamentalism I’m using here
• ^1^ Note the words in bold, they are important.
• ^2^ I don't necessarily believe that but I’d have no way to prove anything either way, so my beliefs are irrelevant.
• ^3^ Same as ^2^

It’s highlighting hypocrisy. It’s asking: do you take this problem seriously, or are you just complaining?

That's a very black and white way of looking at things.

I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of what you said, but presenting it as a false dichotomy like that undermines your argument about other peoples bad faith approaches to rhetoric.

edit: as do downvotes with no response when called out.

You did not, points for effort though.

I'll try to make it simpler.

Ask for proof of claim they have made - YES 👍

Ask for proof to dispute/disprove claim you have made - NO 👎

if you suggest something is a fallacy , that's a claim you have made.

edit : emojis for visual cues

edit : changed no description to be more accurate

TL;DR;

You responses are weak and full of unjustifiable black and white objective statements.

I was never arguing for assassinations, only for you to try and phrase your arguments in a better way.

If you want to interpret me questioning your word choice as a personal attack on you, you might want to look in to why you are having that reaction, your call though.

So I'm going to break this in to two sections.

The first one is a clarification on my actual point because your reply implies you didn't really understand what was being said, that could be on me and my poor communication skills.

The second is a reply to you assuming you did understand and were intentionally raising strawmen to dodge actually addressing the points. This only applies if you were intentionally ignoring the content of my reply, feel free to skip it

FIRST SECTION

Just in case its my fault for not being clear, here's a more comprehensive version of my original arguments.

A false dichotomy is where you present two options in such a fashion as to imply they are the only two options.

I think we can agree there are more than just the options you posited.

Speaking of the options:

You are a U.S. citizen and therefor a hypocrite for not having died on your sword already.

You are a foreigner with no skin in the game who should be focusing on problems at home (because there are).

Neither of these make sense.

1. Nobody was arguing that all US citizens had to fall on their sword.

Perhaps i missed it, fell free to point to an example of this and i will rescind my claim.

2. For this to be true you'd have to argue that no-one outside of the US is affected by anything happening inside the US.

I think we can both agree that you can't possibly justify that claim.

SECOND SECTION

To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.

Ok, so firstly that's a terribly worded sentence but i think i get the gist.

Secondly the killings weren't exclusively aimed at the bourgeois though the movement was ostensibly about that, a lot of the people were purportedly killed for not being fully onboard with the revolution.

Regardless of any of that, unless you're about to argue they were just pulling up randoms on the street and killing them just because they could then it still doesn't satisfy the word indiscriminate.

Just because it doesn't fit your criteria of what was appropriate doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination.

If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably.

If you want to live your life by pretty sounding black and white aphorisms, that's your call, but i think we both know that sentence isn't true.

Increased likelihood, probably, inevitable that's some black and white hyperbolous nonsense.

Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.

i wasn't arguing any solution, assassination-based or otherwise but if you wish to pretend i was so you don't have to address the actual point made i suppose that that is an answer in and of itself.

Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.

I wasn't implying you were, i was wondering what kind of acceleration you were envisioning but nothing you've said so far leads me to believe you are going to engage on any of the actual points i raised, so i won't hold my breath.

TL;DR;

My only point has consistently been that your statements lacked important supporting context and are written like they are the only correct option, that weakens them.

Questioning your weak statements seems to have upset you and rather than actually responding to my only actual point you've constructed multiple other positions i've not taken.

When asked for examples you moved to "you are discussing in bad faith" (still no examples , i might add).

A discussion is impossible with someone unwilling to engage (or unable to understand) the actual position of the other party.

The rest is just a long winded version of this, feel free to skip it.

Literally nothing is required. What’s your point? Are you just trying to argue about nothing? ....

My whole point, which i have stated multiple times, is that your statements are weak.

things like "and it does need to be done." implies that it is the only answer, when it isn't.

There is a problem with lead bullets. There’s also a problem with a lack of natural predation. We should try to solve these problems. We don’t have to solve any problem, but what’s the point in starting arguments with people online saying we don’t need to solve anything?

Again, point to where anyone said we don't need to solve anything ?

If your answer to someone questioning the validity of your statements is to say "fuck it, obviously you just mean we shouldn't solve anything" then i expect there's nothing further to gain from a conversation.

I had to go back to see what was said. I didn’t say anything was special about it being natural, like what you implied by saying it was magical. I said it’s kept naturally healthy by predators, as in nature had a mechanism to keep it healthy. This isn’t an appeal to nature, as you implied. It’s a statement of fact. It isn’t saying natural is better. It’s saying there is a natural thing. Doing it without nature accomplishes the same goal. So you did “quote me” in that you used two words I also used, you didn’t include anything else surrounding it, and made it say something it didn’t.

I literally quoted the surrounding sentence in that reply, not just the two words, if you didn't read it , that's on you.

As i've said, multiple times, there are mechanisms in place for balance and/or collapse, healthy is subjective.

As I said. We could wait for evolution to take its course. I don’t think waiting centuries with booming and crashing populations of animals is a particularly smart idea. Maybe you do, but you haven’t said anything other than “we don’t have to do anything.” Again, no shit! Stop writing these long comments saying literally nothing.

In your reply to me, yes, in the original response, not so much, which again i will remind you is the actual issue i've been mentioning this whole time.

My original reply was basically , "i don't agree or disagree with your points but perhaps add context so your arguments aren't so brittle" everything after that is responding to your questions. Its seems my responses aren't to your liking but i'm not sure there's anything i can do about that.

I'll add a TL;DR; for you so you can skim.

No, we don’t. We don’t need to discuss magical fairies taking care of the problem. We don’t need to discuss finding a magic lamp to solve the problem. Some things can safely be ignored because they’re so unlikely to happen.

I never said discussion was needed, i said that ruling out options is a part of how decisions and policies are made, if you think magical fairies being ruled out requires discussion, that's on you.

In the actual context on this thread of discussion i think that artificially increased predation could be (and historically has been) a viable solution to overpopulation.

Ceding areas to wildlife has also been used.

I said specifically that a shitstorm would probably be the result of dropping our current measures without a replacement that doesn't mean other options can't be discussed.

And that whole reply was again to point out the statement you made was an implied objective fact.

You aren’t making any argument besides that we should do everything but discuss how to solve these issues.

I mean...no , i'll quote my repeated statements of my only arguments :

I don’t know if it’s on purpose but your answer seems to be ignoring a lot of the realities of how the things you are proposing would work (or not work, as the case may be).

I don’t necessarily disagree(or agree) with you, but i absolutely think your arguments need work.

My only argument has been that your statements were omitting what i would consider important context.

and then in this response

"i don't agree or disagree with your points but perhaps add context so your arguments aren't so brittle"

If you want to attribute some other argument to me (that isn't a direct response to your questions) I’d appreciate if you could point out where it was made.

This is my last reply unless you actually want to have a discussion. If you do, discuss in good faith. We do not have to rule out things that can’t reasonably happen.

All of my responses were in good faith, if you don't understand that dismissing something because it is unlikely is literally ruling out an option i can't help you with that.

We should assume that suffering is at least somewhat negative.

I don't know what you mean by this but I’m fairly sure i haven't argued to the contrary.

We should assume that environmental experts saying prey populations need to be culled are correct.

Again, i haven’t argued against this, only that it's not the only option, as was implied by your statements.

If you don’t agree to these, there isn’t a discussion to be had.

I agree, "If you don’t agree to these things I’ve unilaterally stated to be true with no contextual support or citations then your responses are in bad faith" isn't a discussion, it's a personal echo chamber.

and I’m saying it's not a common occurrence, intentional or not.

Guns aren't common enough in the UK for "they've got a gun" to be a go-to for the police.

"They've got a knife" or "They’ve got a sign the ruling class don't want people to see" are more likely.

As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it's by no means the norm.

So, not a good faith take then, oh well.

"Logical" is not a binary position. It's a spectrum.

Agreed, not sure how it's relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.