>No, the poster I'm replying to is obsessively making guesses about who I am as a person
The poster you're replying to has provided a synopsis of his argument; it has nothing to do with you. Part of the site's rules are that you should be charitable regarding how people phrase their arguments - just try to understand what he's trying to get at - it's very clear his argument isn't about you as a person. Focusing on this while ignoring the substance of his statements is obviously not going to generate a productive discussion.
Trying to use phrasing which allows people to relate to the discussion isn't 'objectively regrettable'.
Spinning this into a meta discussion about how the discussion should be framed is a waste of time, so I'll end my contribution here. I hope my notes help untangle the mess.
Your summary is simply not what took place above. I suggest you re-read the comment thread. Here are some specific links to help you improve your notes:
>Your summary is simply not what took place above.
You seem dead set on doing anything other than actually engaging with the substance of the post. I didn't say the term 'you' wasn't used. I said the argument has nothing to do with you, or perhaps more accurately, it doesn't rely on any lived experience you've had - you're irrelevant to the point being made.
Let's look at a sample argument: My eyes generally see things well, I see that the sky is blue, therefore, since I trust my eyes, the sky is blue.
In this argument, we have 1) A premise, 2) Evidence, 3) Rationale, and 4) A conclusion.
Let's modify the argument a bit. My eyes generally see things well, I see that the sky is blue - and so does everyone including you, therefore, since I trust my eyes, the sky is blue.
The element we've added here, that everyone sees that the sky is blue, is not evidence in support of my conclusion, because my rationale depends on my trust in my eyes, not my trust in everyone else's. Disagreeing by stating "Blind people don't see that the sky is blue, so your evidence is faulty and your conclusion doesn't stand - the sky isn't blue because of blind people" is a poor critique; there ARE weaknesses in the argument, to be sure, but that isn't one of them.
To return to this thread, you're attacking elements of the post which aren't the core of the argument; they're attempts to make the argument cogent to you (which obviously failed), but aren't elements upon which the argument relies upon.
Anyways, you're clearly not arguing in good faith - there's no attempt to interface with ANY of the content being posted. I'm done here.
The poster you're replying to has provided a synopsis of his argument; it has nothing to do with you. Part of the site's rules are that you should be charitable regarding how people phrase their arguments - just try to understand what he's trying to get at - it's very clear his argument isn't about you as a person. Focusing on this while ignoring the substance of his statements is obviously not going to generate a productive discussion.
Trying to use phrasing which allows people to relate to the discussion isn't 'objectively regrettable'.
Spinning this into a meta discussion about how the discussion should be framed is a waste of time, so I'll end my contribution here. I hope my notes help untangle the mess.