This is an example of sophistry, the female is obviously solipsistic, as we all are to some extent. Arguing facts with feelings does not produce fact, just feelings. If you are arguing values, facts are meaningless. If this frustrates you because you are intellectually superior to the average knuckle dragging fuck puppet that is self interested well. Ok.
Perhaps ask Teri directly what it would take for her to reason that perhaps the root cause of these problems isn't what she thinks it is, but something else. It's a shot in the dark, and they're probably not going to engage honestly with the question, but the answer they give you will be a good indicator of if they're worth wasting your time on in the future.
That's an honest and generous way to try and resolve the issue. My experience, unfortunately, is that it also has a near 0% success rate, which is why there's so much frustration with these sorts of folks. Not only do they commit this fallacy but their motivation for committing it is avoiding the possibility of being wrong.
It's funny you mention how people are avoidant in being proven wrong. I've done exactly as I mentioned prior with my father regarding the future of the U.S., and it was like pulling teeth to get a straight answer out of him. When I did get an answer, it boiled down to "I don't know". Goes to show how much seeking debate and discussion on the subject is worth in reality.
Indeed. Debate and discussion is only really valuable in a context where the participants have a good faith motivation to find the truth or actually solve the problem at hand. This is originally the reason behind creating universities and curating who gets in...but that's been swerved in recent times.
This is an example of sophistry, the female is obviously solipsistic, as we all are to some extent. Arguing facts with feelings does not produce fact, just feelings. If you are arguing values, facts are meaningless. If this frustrates you because you are intellectually superior to the average knuckle dragging fuck puppet that is self interested well. Ok.
I think it's just cool to put a name to this phenomenon.
Perhaps ask Teri directly what it would take for her to reason that perhaps the root cause of these problems isn't what she thinks it is, but something else. It's a shot in the dark, and they're probably not going to engage honestly with the question, but the answer they give you will be a good indicator of if they're worth wasting your time on in the future.
That's an honest and generous way to try and resolve the issue. My experience, unfortunately, is that it also has a near 0% success rate, which is why there's so much frustration with these sorts of folks. Not only do they commit this fallacy but their motivation for committing it is avoiding the possibility of being wrong.
It's funny you mention how people are avoidant in being proven wrong. I've done exactly as I mentioned prior with my father regarding the future of the U.S., and it was like pulling teeth to get a straight answer out of him. When I did get an answer, it boiled down to "I don't know". Goes to show how much seeking debate and discussion on the subject is worth in reality.
Indeed. Debate and discussion is only really valuable in a context where the participants have a good faith motivation to find the truth or actually solve the problem at hand. This is originally the reason behind creating universities and curating who gets in...but that's been swerved in recent times.