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.