AWKWARD ZOMBIE

No. Syobon isn't yelling at you. Syobon is asking you to make your points clearer, and you answered by saying he wanted you to shut up. There is a huge difference. Don't act like a victim. You are also making assumptions, which is completely counter-productive when discussing something.

If, however, you are at a point where the only thing you can say is "stop insulting me!" when you're not being insulted, I do think you should stop discussing things with Syobon, yes.

Did you read anything with the discussion, or did you just swoop in and decide to pass judgment without doing so? There was a point where I was still discussing the main point, and making it very clear yet all I got in response was "You're talking too much." which makes absolutely no sense in a discussion thread.

Seriously, I have no idea how I can make my points any clearer than this.




They're 3, concise paraghraphs with their own subject matter where the ending of each paragraph leads ninto the beginning of the next one. Tell me, how much more clear should I get?

I did not say I thought you points weren't clear or correct (I think they are), simply that Syobon didn't ask you to stop talking. Whether or not you think his request is relevant or not is your problem, and if you think you do not need to make it clearer, then you do not have to. That however doesn't mean you should antagonize Syobon because he cannot understand you: he's trying to.

I would like it if you stopped assuming stuff, too. I am not the kind of bumbling fool that talks about something without reading what is happening first. That's insulting.

@Reyo, That post is after we asked though, so not the best example. Still a rather pointless, cumbersome post since it 'summarizes' the previous discussion (which was unnecessary) while generalising and straw-manning our arguments, with a hypothetical over-illustrative example thrown in for good measure.

Also, the tangent on the similarities between revolution and terrorism was indeed unnecessary because it added nothing to the discussion. Any one who knows the term propaganda is well-aware of the heavily loaded word 'terrorism' and it's use to spur fear into populace. It was beside the point that this technology is not only detrimental to 'terrorism' but to any form of democratic revolution and protest.

Perhaps you are still not convinced though, so allow me to grab another, more blatant example from a previous post of yours.

What is the point of this paragraph? Are you trying to appeal to your own authority by mentioning your classes? What does philosophy have to do with this discussion? How is the History Channel relevant? Why do you bring up the Nazis being xenophobes?

I'm going to assume in good faith there are good reasons why you brought these things up, but I'm saying that I as a reader have difficulty discerning what point you're trying to make. Now perhaps you don't care whether I understand you or not, and that's fine too, I'm just saying I can't respond to you if I don't know what you're talking about.

Here's the thing, though. No attitude, no intentional antagonization.

I understand it when someone is long winded for the point of distracting you from the main point. That's not what I tried to do, and it gets a little frustrating when I try to prove that, yet apparently it's not convincing enough. Look at it from my perspective. I'm having a pleasant conversation on a topic I find interesting when all of a sudden the opposition starts using the length of my arguments as a reason why I'm wrong rather than the content of said argument. I'm not yelling at...her because she's yelling at me, I'm yelling at her because it feels like she's stopped with the discussion to instead give me shit on how I discuss rather than what I'm discussing. The first time I was told to make my point clear and cut down my response, I was a little annoyed, but I did it (in the quote I gave you before) thinking "OK, maybe I am being long winded." But then it kept happening, eventually with a stab atmy reading comprehension.

As for the insults, I do have a bit of a confusion there. Usually when someone feels insulted, it's the one who did the insulting who's at fault, and not the one who feels insulted for "playing the victim." It confuses me because I can only assume you told me you feel insulted because I'm supposed to feel remorseful for unintentionally hurting your feelings when I'm supposed to schuff off something that's a stereotypical problem in text based discussions.



I wrote out that paragraph because you asked me why I would go on a tangent on terrorism despite fearing it, and I explained that fearing something doesn't mean you can't understand it, and then I showed that I did, in fact, understand it. I did that because it's better to show you know something rather than just just say you know it. That was me trying not to be someone who was just mindlessly discussing something without knowing what I was saying. If you were in a discussion with someone on the state of the economy, you wouldn't say that mentioning his experience with economic processes was an appeal to his authority would you?

So in order:

1. Given above.
2. No.
3. Philosophy is the entire point of discussion.
4. The History Channel was a part of the metaphor to explain how you can hate what someone does/did, yet still understand and know everything about them. It was also a comedic stab at the fact that, 10 years ago, all you'd see on the History channel was everything on World War II.
5. Because the Nazis were the critical part of the metaphor being compared to terrorists...and because they were xenophobes.

I never did that though, I merely said that I couldn't figure out what your point was. Also I'm a dude, don't let the avatar mislead you.

I kept stating the point. The problem was that my point included more than just "I don't mind the invasion of privacy." It includes things like the implications on both terrorism and revolution.

Also, if you're going to say that my discussions are too long and full of fluff, I have no problem in shortening them, but then we end up with issues of "generalizing" and "straw-manning" since more content allows for more complicated ideas to be expressed.

Also, I am a bit confused on just how I was straw-manning your argument in the first place.

EDIT: Also get a manlier avatar this confusion happens too much with people...

But...
I never said you didn't understand terrorism, I just said that it seemed like the fear for terrorism is what seems to motivate you (and the government) to use such drastic measures to protect against it. You do read my posts do you?

It's the understanding I have of terrorism that motivates me. It's also the fact that I'm in the military where I'd have direct contact with terrorism that motivates me. It's also the fact that I'm in the military that is the reason I have such understanding of terrorism.

Also, if we're going to talk about fluffing our words, if that was your main concern, then why didn't you simply say "It sounds like your fear is what motivates you" instead of bringing the correlation between fear and understanding into the discussion?

?
?
It was you that brought up understanding? You're really starting to confuse me.

Edit: Ok I think you just misinterpreted my original remark. I meant that it was funny that you seem to understand that the concept of terrorism is a propaganda invention to motivate through fear, while still seeming to be under the effect of it yourself. Not that you wrote a tangent on terrorism without understanding it.

That's what I figured happened. The truth is I am a bit afraid, but I made a habit of trying to understand the things that scare me a long while ago.

Is someone's race the same as their nationality?

No, nationality is what country youre from

race: their biological ancestry
ethnicity: I like to think it's synonymous with race, just more specific
nationality: geologically where they're from

Like ethnically, I'm Irish/German, but I was raised in the United States. I barely know a thing about German culture, and just from what I've learned in a classroom. I don't know a thing abut Irish culture besides the fact that I apparently should already be an alcoholic (and something about black people holding watermelons...)