Comments by "Sun Tzu" (@Sun-Tzu-) on "Donald Trump Is Half Scottish. This Is What Scots Think Of Him. (HBO)" video.
-
26
-
5
-
5
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OppaiAI I am aware of the irony in going here, but I would agree with the 3 reasons also affecting discussions with religious people, but not with most libertarians or communists.
How would I come off feeling more intellectual if they "guided the conversation", wouldn't I feel more intellectual by being smarter and more competent than the person I'm arguing with? No, I'd rather they brought up good points so I can learn something, if their argument is strong, I need to do my research in order to rebuttal their argument. If I'm arguing with some total idiot, all that happens is that they spurt out total obvious bullshit claims, and they don't listen to why their claims are wrong, so nobody learns anything. I like to talk to people who already agree with me, so I can have a conversation that we both enjoy and we can both learn.
I never expect anyone to change their minds, I know that I'll learn more from the argument than they will even when I'm right. I also do it because I enjoy coming up with comebacks based off the material they give me. I have been proven wrong a few times in internet arguments, I, like most people, usually never admit that to whoever I'm arguing with, but I know it. I like to think it's the same on their end, they may not change their minds, but they know themselves that they were wrong. I would love to convince people that their ideas are nonsensical and harmful to society, but the very fact that their beliefs are harmful to society are because the don't listen to reason, so all efforts would be futile.
I have watched 12 Angry Men, it's a good movie, but me with my "facts and evidence" can't seem to get over the fact that the jury provide their own evidence to the case, like the whole "you mean like this knife", which is not their job and their ruling shouldn't holdup because of it. :p
1