Interestingly uncommonsense seems to actually try to get a decent conversation going again. He states that he doesn't understand how you can compare the military recruiters to the play, giving scottmil an oportunity to explain the link. he also asks a question about recruiter censorship. If he'd ended the paragraph there, maybe there would have been some constructive dialogue, but then uncommonsense goes on to explain that he's been protecting scottmils rights, in a condescending tone.
scottmill then responds to cubilist, and instead of respecting cubilist's confusion, he insults cubilists ability to read (when in any dialogue your just as likely to have sent a message poorly as the receiver is to understand it. In fact both these things are quite common and constant throughout the dialogue).
Then scottmill takes uncommonsense's bait, and attacks him because of the earlier condesending tone. But scottmil also further explains his position.
Cubilist, rather than responding to scottmil's explaination of his position, attacks his writing ability, and doesn't ask any questions that would help him understand scottmills point.
and it goes on and on- when someone says something you don't agree with, why don't you try to understand where the difference arises from? Why is it when there is a difference in thought, people attack each other?
It's as if i said "I like donuts", and then some responded, "that's absurd, donuts are terrible. what an idiot. I like donut holes!" Then I could respond, "comparing donuts to donut holes is rediculus, you're and idiot!"
Know one will ever learn anything and they will all be idiots if they don't try to understand each other.
posted 4 years, 2 months ago
view in context