Scoundrel on Nostr: Yeah, Nostr is great because there's moderators can't prevent two people from talking ...

Yeah, Nostr is great because there's moderators can't prevent two people from talking with each other if they want to. But Nostr sucks because all of the software jankery that we constantly have to deal with can sometimes have the same result.

So anyway, as I understand your first response, you advocate for using dialectics to achieve some kind of objectivity in an argument. Man, I tried REALLY, REALLY HARD to read through one of Georg Hegel's books on dialectics, but I struggled. I took through notes and I read through every paragraph repeatedly until I could get it. At one point it just wasn't making any sense until I realized they were using one of their words differently than normal English speakers do. Maybe the translator screwed up? In any case, I spent hours on it and I couldn't even make it to the end of the first chapter. Could you rephrase what you were saying and/or explain what you meant by "dialectics" in that context?

The text you quoted (from me) contains a mistake. I said that speakers "might even falsely identify valid reasoning as being fallacious." This is true, but it's also completely irrelevant. What I should have said is this: "Many speakers will fail to recognize or understand the mistakes of the person they are talking with. They might even falsely identify the fallacious reasoning of the other speaker as being valid." Note the reversed order of the second sentence.

The point isn't that only one of them might have proper perspective, (that can be solved through the bare minimum amount of openness and reading comprehension) the problem is that neither of them might have the perspective they need to resolve their disagreement.

You say that it is always arguable whether an argument will be unproductive if continued. However, I believe that there is an asymmetry between productivity and unproductivity. In order for a discussion to be productive, the most important questions MUST be answered. And yet, all it takes is one piece of reasoning that can't be explained, whether due to a lack of self awareness or a lack of the necessary rhetoric, and the discussion is guaranteed to be unproductive.

If someone realizes they said the wrong thing, but they don't know how they would rephrase it, it's hard to justify that they should continue the conversation anyway. There is no general algorithm for ensuring one has the perspective one needs, but "take a break; do something else" is a far better strategy than "force yourself to keep talking with the same person about the same topic just in case inspiration eventually strikes one of you."