Sofia (40C3) on Nostr: i thought i replied to this a long time ago, odd > Many speakers will fail to ...

i thought i replied to this a long time ago, odd

> Many speakers will fail to recognize or understand the mistakes of the person they are talking with. They might even falsely identify valid reasoning as being fallacious.

yes, much like someone may also falsely identify a valid criticism as being falsely identified, the only way to resolve that is through dialectics, that is precisely why engaging is essential

> And yet, such a speaker will often continue to prompt the person they are talking with, over and over again.

if they add new information every time, that is great! it just means a discussion has a lot of depth

if they do not add new information every time, they are acting in bad faith (which repeating addressed arguments is a kind of), which may warrant refusing to continue (ideally after providing a warning)

> The post you boosted uses the language "leaving a discussion", not "refusing to argue." We can argue the semantics of whether these are the same or not

leaving a discussion is a subset of refusing to have it, every time you have the opportunity to reply you are making the choice of whether to accept it or refuse it

> Leaving the discussion and starting it again fresh later. Then both sides can rephrase their arguments in a way that is much less likely to be misunderstood based on their prior arguing experiences. It's not possible to do that without sometimes refusing to engage with an argument one knows will be unproductive.

whether an argument will be unproductive is itself arguable, which means it fundamentally cannot be a valid reason to refuse an argument (it utilizes dogma by proxy)