If you’re playing devils advocate then you already agree with me and know what my response will be. You’re also being too literal/reductionist with what I’m saying.
No, kindly don’t tell me what I’m saying. I’m playing devil’s advocate to your comment which said “it actually doesn’t explain anything”, I’m saying why that statement has no weight behind it.
And who’s deciding what’s too literal here? You? From where I’m standing it seems like you just didn’t like me disagreeing with you. If I’m being too literal may I suggest you’re possibly being too emotional and holistic?
Perhaps separate your feelings on the woman and what she’s done and look at evidence for possibilities rather than lashing out with a simple absolute like “Sad reality is she is just a nasty, hateful person.”
No, kindly don’t tell me what I’m saying. I’m playing devil’s advocate to your comment which said “it actually doesn’t explain anything”, I’m saying why that statement has no weight behind it.
I didn’t. The entire reason for playing DA (unless you’re being an edgy teenager who doesn’t want to be held accountable for what they say) is to provide a counter argument while expressly saying “I don’t disagree, I am playing the part of someone who does for the sake of discussion.” It is implied you somewhat or mostly agree but are essentially playing a part. So if you actually disagree with me and are trying to have a discussion over that disagreement/opinion you hold, you aren’t playing DA.
It seems to me you’re just disagreeing while trying to hide behind “well this isn’t my opinion” to avoid accountability for what you say next/expressly disagreeing. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.
I will never apologize for calling Rowling a nasty, hateful person while she continues to be a nasty, hateful person. Don’t patronize me.
If you’re playing devils advocate then you already agree with me and know what my response will be. You’re also being too literal/reductionist with what I’m saying.
No, kindly don’t tell me what I’m saying. I’m playing devil’s advocate to your comment which said “it actually doesn’t explain anything”, I’m saying why that statement has no weight behind it.
And who’s deciding what’s too literal here? You? From where I’m standing it seems like you just didn’t like me disagreeing with you. If I’m being too literal may I suggest you’re possibly being too emotional and holistic?
Perhaps separate your feelings on the woman and what she’s done and look at evidence for possibilities rather than lashing out with a simple absolute like “Sad reality is she is just a nasty, hateful person.”
I didn’t. The entire reason for playing DA (unless you’re being an edgy teenager who doesn’t want to be held accountable for what they say) is to provide a counter argument while expressly saying “I don’t disagree, I am playing the part of someone who does for the sake of discussion.” It is implied you somewhat or mostly agree but are essentially playing a part. So if you actually disagree with me and are trying to have a discussion over that disagreement/opinion you hold, you aren’t playing DA.
It seems to me you’re just disagreeing while trying to hide behind “well this isn’t my opinion” to avoid accountability for what you say next/expressly disagreeing. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of having your cake and eating it too.
I will never apologize for calling Rowling a nasty, hateful person while she continues to be a nasty, hateful person. Don’t patronize me.
Okay man you’re right, have a nice day
You too