Me: But it seems very decent.
Person: Yeah but it's in a random place.
-Question: values/choice.
-Answer: values.
-Comeback: I don't event know what that is.
I blamed him of thinking badly of the quality of the hotel and refuted by saying that I thought it was decent. He then changed the subject to the location, when we were talking of the quality. This is precisely what John Heinrichs says not to do when arguing about something: never to confuse values, choice and blame in an argument. Call me a rule breaker but I will learn how to debate properly.
It is extremely irritating for people to say non-related things as comebacks when debating. It is also easier for that inoffensive conversation to become a fight. Take note because you don't want your marriage to become a blend of choices, values and blames err'day.
In the example you used I was trying to find one of the seven deadly fouls that Heinrichs talks about. I came up with 7) Utter Stupidity. Sorry. Anyways its hypothetical. But the switching-up of choices and values doesn't seem to fall under one specific out-of-bounds category. Also it's not really the 'you' in your example that messes it up, it's mainly the 'person'. Their original comment is very broad and is not necessarily narrowed down to one specific aspect. In the response, 'you' narrows it down to the appearance of the quality. And in the comeback the 'person' changes their complaint to one of location. So really the utter stupidity applies to the person, not you :)
ReplyDeleteI was quite confused by this part:
ReplyDelete-Question: values/choice.
-Answer: values.
-Comeback: I don't event know what that is.
If I didn't know any context, I would have no idea what you're talking about. I knew the context and yet I still got confused, so I'll just go punch myself.
On the other hand, I really liked how you summarized the chapter through this one example. It seemed pretty minimalistic and informal. I like that.