Viviane: And only get to speak for exactly one
person, yourself.
Agreed.
So do you.
Viviane: Anyway, you're hardly going to convince
people to re-define a broad concept
You
clearly miss the point of what is a “debate”. A debate is, by definition, “to discuss (something) with people whose opinions are
different from your own”. That’s what we’ve been doing here. Since no one
informed me that a voting will follow this debate, it seems that, of us two,
only you appear to think that the purpose here is to “convince people” of
something. That tells me that you have an agenda, a mission to accomplish. I,
personally, don’t.
Viviane: You're asking people to assume they
[know] what you mean
Not
at all. First, turns out that the person who asked did it as a personal insult.
Second, the sentence is in no way hard to understand. I was merely saying that
radicalism is different than conviction or passion because it goes beyond
ardent defense of one’s points of views versus the point of views of others; it
is intolerant in nature, and attempts to uproot from other people’s minds, and
from existence itself, competing or non-conforming ideas, often by violent
means, going to great lengths to do so. Radicalism aims to change more than
values at surface level, it demands change in the fundamental and deeper levels
of human thinking, personality and will, and goes to great lengths to achieve
that goal, from relentless propaganda to indoctrination to intimidation, to
outright violence. Now, the person who asked knows all this, but had no
interest in clarification, so his question wasn’t honest.
Viviane: until you decide to understand and
clearly tell us what you are saying, no
real debate or discussion can happen
No
true Scotsman fallacy. We are
debating and I have clearly told my
ideas. For example, Ruby understood what I was trying to say, agreeing or not
with it. But because I point out some things that you don’t find either
convincing or convenient, you claim that this can’t be a true debate, and dismiss it.
Viviane: It's really just a lack of
preparedness on your part to discuss your idea.
I
admit that I’m relatively new to this side of the fence. So what? Do I have to
take a Master’s degree before I can start debating any of my ideas? If I had
set myself up to teach others, you might rightfully accuse me of lack of
preparedness. But this is a public forum, not the academia, and you’re no
Bertrand Russell either. Like I said before, I’m here to learn, but not to be
lectured.
Viviane: the bad, very bad, ridiculous, silly and
comical arguments you've presented here
Your
resort to inflammatory, derogatory language and minimization gets tiring, but I
think you do it by design, so I won’t reply to you in the same fashion. All I
can say is that you’re an expert in Strawman, Red Herring, Declare Victory, Reductio
ad Absurdum, use of sarcasm and patronizing techniques in debate. I really
can’t compete. You win – because no other result is admissible in your way of
debating.
