| ConservagameR said: Ah I see, I think. I didn't look at it from the other side when it comes to integrity. Didn't dawn on me at all. Has nothing to do with integrity, but if that is how you feel fine. You can continue along the line I mentioned and it will go another way. To me it would have been beyond hypocritical, and flat out idiotic, if my stance, or anyone taking me stance, was to be a super wealthy snob who wouldn't bend over to pick up a $100 dollar bill, let alone offer some average person a helping hand, while also thinking slave labor was ok. That would be pretty embarrassing. What does this have anything to do with anything. Apparently I should've, and should in the future, assume everyone takes a hypocritical stance. That will help me to better explain myself knowing that's also the assumption about me. It doesn't exactly seem very ethical and respectful, but who are we to judge? Though that assumption would also lead me to want to ask many questions of them, to verify their integrity, which would seem to be a concern here. What a pickle. Are you really going to try the whole persecution tactic. I do not know you so I have no assumption on who you are, I am talking about your statement and particular the 20 question one. Your perception of how others see you has nothing to do with what I pointed out. If you want to ask questions, without any context to your position then state your position on those questions, then ask them. The questions I asked most recently, no different than in the past, weren't asked to overwhelm, weren't asked to misdirect or change the conversation, and weren't asked for nothing as if I didn't care about the answers. They are clearly based on the conversation and were asked because the likely answers would've furthered my point. To call them sealioning would've been to call a penalty before the infraction even occurred, like Minority Report. I see it different. The only way it further your point is if you provided your point first. As I stated, provide your point first and context to those questions and your position instead of throwing them out there. Also I did not call them sealioning I said it was close and the continued use of that tactic make the case stronger against you. What I believe, hasn't always been found to be good enough though, which at times leads to me ask more questions. Questions where the likely answer will further explain and prove the point I'm making, if answered, and honestly. I can't exactly make a strong statement if I don't have enough information from them for a point I'd like to make, so the only way to do that is to ask more questions. I am going to call that BS. You absolutely can make a declaration statement on your stance to your own questions. Why ask them if you already do not have a stance and position. You are giving me this feeling that you are trying to play the victim role because your stance may not be shared by the majority. I on the other hand do not care if your opinion is shared by the majority, as long as you debate in good faith. I am telling you a particular tactic you use is probably going to get you moderated, so adjust that tactic so it does not have to come to that. If your opinion never meets how the majority feel, I care not. Not looking for an echo chamber here. What was said between us prior is an example. You asked questions about my stance. I found them to be useless because to me the answer was, and is there within the prior conversation, if you assumed I was being genuine. I am telling you that it was not. Especially to the rapid questions you threw out. Instead, its more like you trying to play devil advocate then anything else. Yet you asked anyway. Why? Likely because regardless, you felt you needed more information to make a solid statement that you couldn't have otherwise, and there's certainly no point in making a weak useless statement, so why not ask? Why not be direct with your statements instead of this middling way you like to go about things. You will never not know my position on any subject because I will tell you. Now should I have assumed the worst about you and called that sealioning prior, or been ethical showing respect by assuming you weren't just wasting time, and answering your questions? Hopefully it's more clear now to you why I reply the way I do at times. You can assume whatever you want as I do not care about assumptions, what I do care about is people following the rules of the site and debate in good faith tactics. I am telling you that tactic needs change, its up to you going forward in understanding where this goes next. Its a simple modification on your part, I suggest you take my advice. |
