Semantically weighted by not establishing who “we” supposedly are. That can make it self-fulfilling prophecy. I can state with utter conviction that “we” are never leaving the house again, but that is easily dispelled by disassociating yourself and doing it anyway. Much human rhetoric is primarily concerned with hinting at shifting social boundaries, rather than what may or not be objectively possible.
At first I thought this was a sarcastic question. But then I realized I’m just related to way too many lawyers.
3 Likes
Not only that, but you are not your arguments. YOU are not wrong or right, a statement is. The mistake is that of identifying with one’s arguments or opinions as part of some social game. Some statements turn out to be more or less accurate than others, but that is ultimately not a personal matter.
What I like to do is form ideas/arguments/opinions/views as lists. This plurality makes it really easy to avoid identifying with a pet theory, or being polarized between two options (which humans seem very susceptible to). So, for instance, getting myself to pick a number of explanations or models, six, or ten, or whatever. It seems completely unnatural, but with some discipline, most anyone can do it. Unfortunately, it works better solo than in everyday conversation with others who are already attached to a position, or lack the patience to consider varied options.
Eh, seems like too much work.
much less arrogant than assuming or telling the other person what they believe or why they think something - which is about 90% of people in online ‘discussions’.
Arrogance is not ‘being forward’ or ‘vocal’ or ‘daring to ask’. Arrogance is taking and or assuming without right, the voice or choice from another. It is from the verb ‘to arrogate’.
That knowledge and 3 bucks will get me a fancy coffee drink, and called arrogant, probably! 
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
