was quite transparent that I was speaking of the ANGRY kind of arguments
funny, this is coming up repeatedly for me alla sudden, this term we call Angry that actually serves multiple concepts in our thought structure. Is "angry" necessarily bad? Was Jesus "angry" when He whipped them guys in the temple? I guess them guys sure prolly thought so, huh. So i dunno if "angry" and "mad" should be so um completely conflated, like we do?
but fwiw you are debating with someone who is maybe
mad, see, and not so much angry. I dunno if i would be able to illustrate the diff easily here, but i guess kinda obv that if you are debating with someone who claims to have Beliefs, but actually has no beliefs, all Absolute Truths, then you are only going to get frustrated if you think they can even hear you, esp after they have amply demonstrated that they cannot?
After like one round of the "nevermind that, what about this" thing, i think that should be taken as more like a capitulation by them, whether it is widely perceived that way or not? Bc just as obv they are avoiding your point for a reason, some reason, right? Iow if your rebuttal is not addressed, but deflected away from, you basically already won, see, and maybe hard to see in the moment but the cloud, most readers, are likely going to see that too imo
what is really being illuminated here is the diff in an "argument" from the hegelian perspective--wherein war to decide the winner is the only option--and "debate" that two might engage in from the Naive perspective, which we are unaware of entirely in the west, but does exist and is actually thriving elsewhere.
Rabbis and lapsed Catholic "priests" seem to be good sources for the second, dunno if they would grasp "hegelian" or not, but really that is just another way to say "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge" imo, characterized by making statements of fact as if we actually knew something
and maybe a "reader" of these back and forth mud slinging "arguments" might be swayed...
to me that would be a shame, as both of the hegelian arguers are usually wrong in some detail, and if you note they are usually arguing over some irrelevant perspective of the future or the past that has not been realized in Today anyway imo? Or another way to put that is that they are both a little right prolly, but as neither one has any discernable "beliefs" anyway, neither will see?
imo if you wish to have a naive debate, you must first find someone with beliefs to debate with, and leave those with Absolute Truths um Standing There where you found them :)
