Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Edit on 27.02.2024 19:10 local time: I’m sorry for calling you Sherlock, I was made aware how disparaging that is, and can’t get by without correcting it and apologising. You don’t have to accept it. I now know how that kind of behaviour makes me a pathetic worm. But I can do better. Eventually.
He’s right. There’s no clearcut answer to the questions. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. What kind of an answer does OP expect with an open question like that?
Probably longer and with ideas that they didn’t thought of. On account of an open question like that. Which it seems many other commenters came up with.
What is efficient in reiterating the same answer that applies to basically everything - “Yes and no”? Is there someone who doesn’t somehow know that?
And the practice of self-immolation have never stopped; in the rest of the world (outside of north-Tibetan region known as China) it’s very underreported - it happened at least 160 times since 2009. There’s complexity in everything and my argument is that saying “maybe or whatever” is absolutely meaningless.
You’re not questioning the efficiency of the answer here. You’re questioning the quality.
You don’t even know yourself what it is you want. And please. Stop with the strawman arguments. It’s pathetic.
No one claimed self immolation stoped. Why are you trying to bring it up as if I’ve said otherwise? Same goes with your disgusting paraphrasing. No one said “maybe or whatever” and tried to play it off like that.
It’s very simple.
Question: “Does protests work?”
Answer: “Sometimes (we won’t know if it will until we try)”
I’m sorry for bringing information that no one did during conversation. And please do not tell me what I meant like you are in my head. I find it pointless to tell people what they already know. I define it as “the least you can do (the effort that’s meaningless)”. And go to hell dick, let’s discuss nothing ever, and get angry over insults that you made up (is that straw man or not?), and don’t forget to be rude, particularly as it’s not your fault this conversation even started.
It’s so simple it didn’t even need to be said.
Edit: Actually I’m done here. I’m sick and don’t need to talk to someone who calls people pathetic because they disagree with them. It’s become detrimental long time ago. You won, I yield, I’m wrong and you successfully defended a commenter who didn’t even needed it. From what? I have no idea.
If you meant to question the efficiency then that word does not mean what you think it means.
I certainly did not invent the word strawman nor the use of its tactic in debate. The act of making up an argument from the other side and then respond to it. (You have the combined knowledge of the human race at your fingertips. But googling “what is strawmanning” is too complicated?)
My fault this conversation started? How did you come to that conclusion? You chose to respond. With the dumbest response possible. That’s not my fault. That’s entirely on you.
If you think the answer is so simple it should not be said, then it’s not the answer that’s the problem, it’s the question.
Which is another dying way of thinking. Just because the answer is simple and obvious to you doesn’t mean it’s the case for him
Some do, some don’t. What kind of answer did you expect?
Thanks Sherlock
Edit on 27.02.2024 19:10 local time: I’m sorry for calling you Sherlock, I was made aware how disparaging that is, and can’t get by without correcting it and apologising. You don’t have to accept it. I now know how that kind of behaviour makes me a pathetic worm. But I can do better. Eventually.
He’s right. There’s no clearcut answer to the questions. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. What kind of an answer does OP expect with an open question like that?
Probably longer and with ideas that they didn’t thought of. On account of an open question like that. Which it seems many other commenters came up with.
They’re all talking about successful protests. Because unsuccessful protests are rarely something we remember.
It’s a perfectly good, efficient answer. Do they work? Sometimes. It (often) depends on how many people are involved in the protest
I can think of one very successful protest that only involved one single monk
What is efficient in reiterating the same answer that applies to basically everything - “Yes and no”? Is there someone who doesn’t somehow know that?
And the practice of self-immolation have never stopped; in the rest of the world (outside of north-Tibetan region known as China) it’s very underreported - it happened at least 160 times since 2009. There’s complexity in everything and my argument is that saying “maybe or whatever” is absolutely meaningless.
You’re not questioning the efficiency of the answer here. You’re questioning the quality.
You don’t even know yourself what it is you want. And please. Stop with the strawman arguments. It’s pathetic.
No one claimed self immolation stoped. Why are you trying to bring it up as if I’ve said otherwise? Same goes with your disgusting paraphrasing. No one said “maybe or whatever” and tried to play it off like that.
It’s very simple. Question: “Does protests work?” Answer: “Sometimes (we won’t know if it will until we try)”
I’m sorry for bringing information that no one did during conversation. And please do not tell me what I meant like you are in my head. I find it pointless to tell people what they already know. I define it as “the least you can do (the effort that’s meaningless)”. And go to hell dick, let’s discuss nothing ever, and get angry over insults that you made up (is that straw man or not?), and don’t forget to be rude, particularly as it’s not your fault this conversation even started.
It’s so simple it didn’t even need to be said.
Edit: Actually I’m done here. I’m sick and don’t need to talk to someone who calls people pathetic because they disagree with them. It’s become detrimental long time ago. You won, I yield, I’m wrong and you successfully defended a commenter who didn’t even needed it. From what? I have no idea.
If you meant to question the efficiency then that word does not mean what you think it means.
I certainly did not invent the word strawman nor the use of its tactic in debate. The act of making up an argument from the other side and then respond to it. (You have the combined knowledge of the human race at your fingertips. But googling “what is strawmanning” is too complicated?)
My fault this conversation started? How did you come to that conclusion? You chose to respond. With the dumbest response possible. That’s not my fault. That’s entirely on you.
If you think the answer is so simple it should not be said, then it’s not the answer that’s the problem, it’s the question.
Which is another dying way of thinking. Just because the answer is simple and obvious to you doesn’t mean it’s the case for him