I get the sense that you are implying that your approach here is necessarily more optimal than mine in an absolute sense (as opposed to superior in a normative, "Overton Window" sense...I can easily acknowledge you are the victor there) - regardless: do you believe that it is? Because optimality in an absolute sense is my core concern.
I have a serious issue with this norm of strongly implied "facts", and then (usually after a multi-comment challenge) a casual "I could be wrong" or "It's just my opinion" as a sort of rhetorical get out of jail free card. I consider this behavior dangerous and irresponsible, especially as an aspect of the default metaphysical framework (aka: story) of a culture: science/scientism, that claims superiority to all others (but refuses to defend that claim, contrary to its scriptures).
Though, I do not think you do it with (substantial) conscious intent or maliciousness, fwiw - tautologically, everyone is doing their current best. But being a non-determinist, (some) free will believer, I think people can improve - and, I believe people can be made to improve, even against their will. Breaking the will of one Human is hard, breaking the will of millions/billions of huma s at massive scale, that's a whole other story. I believe it can be done though!
Yes, I believe it is usually better not to treat conversations as competitive games. (Not always. For instance, formal debates have some value, even if only for entertainment.) I'm not sure what "in an absolute sense" really means, though, so I'm not sure whether I've answered your question; I think it's better in the sense that it's more likely for the conversations in question to improve the world overall. (E.g., by making one or both participants' beliefs or thinking more accurate.)
When I say "I could be wrong" it isn't a rhetorical get-out-of-jail-free card, it's a simple statement of fact. You claimed I was "speaking untruthfully" and (by implication) asked whether I was aware of it; I said: so far as I know, what I said was true, but it could be wrong. I'm not sure what nefarious rhetorical goal you imagine I was achieving by saying that, but my intention was simply to summarize my actual epistemic state since you were evidently curious (or, I guess, pretending to be curious) about it.
Anyway. When I said I didn't want to continue this conversation, I meant it. I don't think you're arguing in good faith; you continue to be (apparently deliberately) super-vague about your actual position; you make repeated assertions of bad faith on my part; you've made it clear that you see this as a zero-sum interaction where your goal is to "win"; in view of all that, I think there is negligible chance of anything actually useful coming of the discussion. I shall not be responding further.
This is powerful, and popular. I wonder what it means. I wonder how many people on this planet wonder this, or similar things.
I wonder why things on this planet are so screwed up, in fact (as opposed to how it seems, which is the maximum of what can be discussed if operating under good faith guidelines[1]). I wonder if there is anyone else on this planet wonders this.
I wonder if the above "is" "in good faith".
[1] Could pleasure on behalf of the accuser be a principal component of good faith?
I have a serious issue with this norm of strongly implied "facts", and then (usually after a multi-comment challenge) a casual "I could be wrong" or "It's just my opinion" as a sort of rhetorical get out of jail free card. I consider this behavior dangerous and irresponsible, especially as an aspect of the default metaphysical framework (aka: story) of a culture: science/scientism, that claims superiority to all others (but refuses to defend that claim, contrary to its scriptures).
Though, I do not think you do it with (substantial) conscious intent or maliciousness, fwiw - tautologically, everyone is doing their current best. But being a non-determinist, (some) free will believer, I think people can improve - and, I believe people can be made to improve, even against their will. Breaking the will of one Human is hard, breaking the will of millions/billions of huma s at massive scale, that's a whole other story. I believe it can be done though!