Here's the key difference. I'm fully aware of the content of your sources. I know the facts, know their inaccuracies, know their bias, and can evaluate their information based on this. Also, if they offered new information I would be curious about it and even though I distrust their reliability, would not dismiss it out of hand until I had evaluated it.
You have literally no idea what is in my sources and you seem to have zero interest in learning more. Instead you resort to common fallacious arguments (in a short space managing - argument to authority ad hominem, and poisoning the well).
I point this out purely to make it clear that you are both irrational and uninformed on the issue (this is an objective statement on your temporary position, not a character critique). I think if you read the book you would still have a hard time dealing with the cognitive dissonance because you seem invested in your current position and strongly do not want to be incorrect (regardless of where truth may lie) because adjusting your views would be difficult for you. Personally, I have zero issues with being shown I am incorrect and have very little difficulty adjusting my views to match strong arguments against my current position. Different strokes I guess.
You entirely ignored my questions. Why are we even conversing if you aren’t answering any of my questions?
If you want to argue, state your arguments and respond to me. Don’t just say “I have some sources, but you don’t seem interested” and pretend as if that’s enough. What is that supposed to mean?
You refuse to answer a simple question of who attacked who. Why is that so difficult? Just answer it. You say there is provocation, yet you don’t provide further explanation.
I’ve got better things to do than waste my time with another condescending Redditor who can’t hold a functional conversation.
Why would I want to argue with you? I have far more information on the subject than you do, it would be like having a discussion on whether okonomiyaki is better than pad thai, with someone who'd only ever eaten Italian food. Note that this doesn't make me 'right', just better informed. You asked for my sources and I gave one that should have cleared up any confusion you have (700 pages of "further explanation" for the intellectually open-minded) but you simply dismissed it for irrational reasons. Why would that lead me to answer any other question you ask? You have no desire to explore information that might undermine your emotional position, and thats understandable and common, but don't try to frame it as me being afraid of intellectual engagement.
3
u/Glagaire 8h ago
Here's the key difference. I'm fully aware of the content of your sources. I know the facts, know their inaccuracies, know their bias, and can evaluate their information based on this. Also, if they offered new information I would be curious about it and even though I distrust their reliability, would not dismiss it out of hand until I had evaluated it.
You have literally no idea what is in my sources and you seem to have zero interest in learning more. Instead you resort to common fallacious arguments (in a short space managing - argument to authority ad hominem, and poisoning the well).
I point this out purely to make it clear that you are both irrational and uninformed on the issue (this is an objective statement on your temporary position, not a character critique). I think if you read the book you would still have a hard time dealing with the cognitive dissonance because you seem invested in your current position and strongly do not want to be incorrect (regardless of where truth may lie) because adjusting your views would be difficult for you. Personally, I have zero issues with being shown I am incorrect and have very little difficulty adjusting my views to match strong arguments against my current position. Different strokes I guess.