The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context. They challenged the definitions of violence. You basically responded “I was right” with very simple ideas. They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout. You saying otherwise is the bad faith part. It is okay if you don’t understand the complexities, but it is bad faith to misrepresent that other user.
The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context
Which was unnecessary and irrelevant because the context was already established. That’s called “derailing the conversation”.
They challenged the definitions of violence.
No they didn’t, they plainly agreed.
They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout.
It clearly did not. They said that violence did not include property damage, then later admitted that it did. I don’t know how you can claim they “challenged the definition of violence” without disagreeing that property damage is violence.
User A stated that property damage is not violence.
User B expanded on that topic (not a derailment because it is relevant. A derailment would be them talking about another topic, example: music) and challenged the scope of different definitions of violence. You ignored this.
When you asked User B if they agree that property damage is violence, they stated their position that yes, it can be.
There are TWO different people, with TWO different opinions, and you are mixing them up.
The other user elaborated to you on the importance of context. They challenged the definitions of violence. You basically responded “I was right” with very simple ideas. They didn’t admit anything later, because their position remained the same throughout. You saying otherwise is the bad faith part. It is okay if you don’t understand the complexities, but it is bad faith to misrepresent that other user.
Which was unnecessary and irrelevant because the context was already established. That’s called “derailing the conversation”.
No they didn’t, they plainly agreed.
It clearly did not. They said that violence did not include property damage, then later admitted that it did. I don’t know how you can claim they “challenged the definition of violence” without disagreeing that property damage is violence.
Lord have mercy.
User A stated that property damage is not violence.
User B expanded on that topic (not a derailment because it is relevant. A derailment would be them talking about another topic, example: music) and challenged the scope of different definitions of violence. You ignored this.
When you asked User B if they agree that property damage is violence, they stated their position that yes, it can be.
There are TWO different people, with TWO different opinions, and you are mixing them up.