Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
While the absence of evidence is not guaranteed evidence of absence . . . it's a pretty good proxy in a conversational sense.
Here's what you're doing:
Them: "I think that people likely speak in generalities because they don't know the specifics."
You: "I know specifics, I just don't want to talk about them."
Them: "Do you really?"
You: "You have no reasonable basis for thinking otherwise."
Um, yes they do. You definitely don't have to share your research - you don't need to "do my job for me" or anything - but it shouldn't be surprising that speaking in a general sense (rather than specific) fuels assumptions that the argument is rooted in generalities rather than specifics. Most of the time, we use specifics to prop up our general arguments, and you've (apparently) made a conscious effort to not do this. That's fine, but it does play into the "them" assumption.
It's very similar to my (VERY BASIC AND POINTED) question about which Bush policies tanked the economy . . . in fact, it's likely identical.
|
If you recognize that people don't have to elaborate if they don't want to, you should also recognize that silence does not equate with ignorance on a subject matter. Also, as I pointed out earlier, sometimes, when I don't like the tone of a question, I won't respond. That doesn't just apply with politics and typically occurs when somenoe DEMANDS a response in an arrogant and/or entitled manner.
Threaded Mode
