Ignoring arguments and classifying anything you disagree with as “bad faith” makes you no better than MAGAts. You are, in fact, the one arguing in bad faith when you do that. I know you might ignore this too, but trust me, your current path leads only to inaccurate beliefs.
No, the arguments WERE bad faith. They were reductio ad absurdum. Reductive bludgeoning of someone you don’t agree with is bad faith. He wasn’t discussing my point, he was arguing pedantically that I had contradicted myself which I had clearly not. You want to have a grown up discussion about the topic, fine? You want to play stupid word games I’m out.
Those weren’t stupid word games though. I understand that sometimes something is lost in translation when you’re posting online, but I read it the same way that Squid did: The meat of your argument was that France successfully did a revolution, and then you described how their revolution failed to enact long-term change. Maybe you were arguing a different point than that though? Am I misunderstanding?
Edit: Sorry mods, I see you removed the thread, I’ll stop responding
My original comment was about reeducation and wealth redistribution . The French perfected THAT process with the guillotine. I didn’t say anything about revolution until the fact that things got messy in France 15 years after the orgy of head removals. The French perfected the process of separating the wealthy and powerful from their heads. That has nothing to do with the fact that revolutions are often messy (other than all the corpses and blood they had to deal with.)
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Ignoring arguments and classifying anything you disagree with as “bad faith” makes you no better than MAGAts. You are, in fact, the one arguing in bad faith when you do that. I know you might ignore this too, but trust me, your current path leads only to inaccurate beliefs.
No, the arguments WERE bad faith. They were reductio ad absurdum. Reductive bludgeoning of someone you don’t agree with is bad faith. He wasn’t discussing my point, he was arguing pedantically that I had contradicted myself which I had clearly not. You want to have a grown up discussion about the topic, fine? You want to play stupid word games I’m out.
Those weren’t stupid word games though. I understand that sometimes something is lost in translation when you’re posting online, but I read it the same way that Squid did: The meat of your argument was that France successfully did a revolution, and then you described how their revolution failed to enact long-term change. Maybe you were arguing a different point than that though? Am I misunderstanding?
Edit: Sorry mods, I see you removed the thread, I’ll stop responding
My original comment was about reeducation and wealth redistribution . The French perfected THAT process with the guillotine. I didn’t say anything about revolution until the fact that things got messy in France 15 years after the orgy of head removals. The French perfected the process of separating the wealthy and powerful from their heads. That has nothing to do with the fact that revolutions are often messy (other than all the corpses and blood they had to deal with.)
You can absolutely respond. I just had to stop the bickering. So please, by all means- continue!
We love when things are discussed, but when it devolves into slapfighting, it needs to be broken up.
I am ending this here.
Sorry Wren, didn’t see this. I’ll stop responding now.
👍