my problem is that when we don't agree you seem to think that makes you right.
Yet another misrepresentation. Before you commented, I pointed to the difference between statements that an addict
doesn't quit and that she
cannot quit. Before you
actually checked DSM-5, you thought that it had the latter; after I pointed you to the actual DSM-5, you tried to just
power-through the distinction.
Your style of arguing is incredibly condescending
No, it's just intolerant of sloppiness and bullshit when someone attempts to correct
anyone else.
it's hard to find any point in which we can start a discussion from a common place
That's
exactly because when we get to what would otherwise be a common place (eg, the actual wording of DSM-5), you reject it when you find yourself perfectly wrong.
You seem to take everything said in the absolute most literal way possible
You want the freedom to make an insulting claim without its dishonesty being noted.
None of what you are doing is conducive to having a good discussion
Your idea of a good discussion is perverse.
It's just about arguing and proving you're right.
For me, it's about proving
what's right; for you, it's about not being shown to have made a hash of things.
we couldn't even get into the discussion I wanted to have, which was a moral one about how we treat and interpret addiction in the character in this story
Exactly because of your ego-fragility. By chance, you happened to be in conversation with someone academically published in the empirics and philosophy of
choice. Had you not been here to try to teach some of us a lesson from poor foundations, then you might have gone on to learn something applicable to the moral questions.
And I'll only respond to this because it annoys me. If I think you do something wrong twice, then I've used the word "still" correctly.
I was referring to the second instance of “still” in the passage quoted, not to the first.
You do realize that there are scenarios in which we can disagree and neither one of us is correct or incorrect right? Discussions can diverge without there being a "winner" as it were.
Indeed. But here you happen to have been very wrong, and when placed in a position to see that you were wrong, you didn't just swiftly admit that you'd been wrong and try none-the-less to get to the discussion that you now say that you wanted. Instead, you flailed.
Because your attitude in these comments doesn't show that.
The point hasn't been applicable; you've just been clearly wrong, rather than making plausible assertions.
There was no willfulness, I interpreted your views as they read to me.
No, my words didn't
read that way to you. You have
repeatedly claimed that I believe or have argued things not expressed anywhere in what can be
read.
