The U.S. has been pressing Congo to preserve its carbon-absorbing forests, but government officials want to exploit oil and gas reserves they say lie below them.
In any case, the actual argument I was making […] as that you seem to think that ‘power’ is some monolithic they which is endlessly intelligent and completely shared between business and politics.
And there it is. There’s the actual thing you were apparently trying to address. You spent all that time and all those words addressing an imaginary thing that I had not said based purely on an impression that you had without ever actually explaining what you were thinking. That’s why none of it made any sense.
See, in future, you can just say this upfront. If you had in this case then I could have just told you flat out that you were wrong about what I thought and saved you all this effort. It is really weird that you were able to say this, and even that I “seem to think” it, and not understand that you were simply projecting some strawman bullshit onto me.
In future perhaps be a bit less patronizing and argumentative to everyone you meet? Maybe even try responding to a detailed point by point rebuttal by not ignoring all but one point and then derailing the conversation twice, or mayhaps even explaining why you think a point is mistaken instead of just ignoring it. It might waste less time.
If you want the advanced course, when reading, try asking yourself questions like what is what I am reading trying to say, what is the core thesis of the position this evidence is in support of, and how does this new information relate to my position? Doing so is called critical reading, and is important in online debate.
I’m going to end things here, as mirroring your tone is not pleasant at all.
And there it is. There’s the actual thing you were apparently trying to address. You spent all that time and all those words addressing an imaginary thing that I had not said based purely on an impression that you had without ever actually explaining what you were thinking. That’s why none of it made any sense.
See, in future, you can just say this upfront. If you had in this case then I could have just told you flat out that you were wrong about what I thought and saved you all this effort. It is really weird that you were able to say this, and even that I “seem to think” it, and not understand that you were simply projecting some strawman bullshit onto me.
What a fantastic waste of both of our times.
I agree completely.
In future perhaps be a bit less patronizing and argumentative to everyone you meet? Maybe even try responding to a detailed point by point rebuttal by not ignoring all but one point and then derailing the conversation twice, or mayhaps even explaining why you think a point is mistaken instead of just ignoring it. It might waste less time.
If you want the advanced course, when reading, try asking yourself questions like what is what I am reading trying to say, what is the core thesis of the position this evidence is in support of, and how does this new information relate to my position? Doing so is called critical reading, and is important in online debate.
I’m going to end things here, as mirroring your tone is not pleasant at all.