When you said the following:
And that's when the mother quickly snaps back
It was my illustration to show a point that people seemed to have missed.
No. It shows that you are missing the point of the thread
As an independent thinker, I expect to be criticized for my thoughts, and I even don't mind being criticized either, but I would prefer, and others should also, that I be criticized for what I actually say, and not for what others misunderstand and/or misrepresent.
I can't criticize your thoughts, because I don't know them.
Right, so you attacked a straw man instead. When you don't know, then ask, hence why I asked the OP, and not anybody else, for an explanation of his assertion.
What I did was criticize what you typed in your posts, what you actually said.
Again, no, you assumed, as I already said above, which you again haven't really read through and understood, or else you would not have made this redundant statement.
Your post chose not to engage my post on whether or not it met the challenge of showing empathy in a statement,
Yet I did, even though my question was clearly not addressed to you. Another redundancy.
but rather on the basis of whether or not a sufficiently motivated person could come up with a snappy retort to that statement.
Again, no, for that wasn't its purpose if you bothered to read between the words of the illustrated response and further explanations from me afterward. Redundant once more.
I don't know what you were thinking when you did that, but I can tell that it bore no relation to the question you initially asked.
Of course it did, since it would have shown why the OP was wrong, if it actually was the OP's answer, and not yours.
Thus, it seems to me to be a case of moving the goalposts.
As you once again assume.
KeepTalking said:
even though you seemed to get it when you asked the following:
Okay, how do you think a person described here would say the same thing, yet completely differently?
Yes, and that test has now been mostly ruined by it not being demonstrated by the OP, which of course the OP is under no obligation to answer anyway, even though it was his original assertion.
This is an open forum
Who said that it wasn't? Yet if you want consistency, it would help to understand and/or follow what happens before.
as such anyone can answer a question posted by another user.
See others above.
I don't see how your question can be ruined just because someone else other than the OP answered it.
I said mostly, not completely ruined. One reason, is because it obviously has been responded to by others, so it isn't quite the surprise and challenge it was meant to be, and its actual purpose is partly exposed and corrupted by others' answers.
If that is the way you approach all conversations on this forum, you are going to find that your "tests" will nearly always be ruined.
My tests have many ranges, and most of the time, I will not say ahead of time or afterward that there was even a test involved.
I provided an example of how that might be done.
Ah, with "bigly?"
Yes, that is how our current president speaks. I know it is a fucking terrible example of how the most powerful man in the world should speak in public, but that is what this imbecile does on a regular basis.
How he speaks in this aspect is just grammar, akin to what the Democrats did attack Bush with, and Bush still won reelection. Trump is far from even a hyperbolic imbecile.
The OP opined that a person with better speaking ability, and empathy would be able to say the same thing, only differently and have it be empathetic. You challenged him on this. I thought it would be a further challenge to use his naturally shitty speaking ability, add empathy, and still make the statement a much better one.
I pointed to it, but I didn't really care about the grammar, since I caught the disrespect in the first sentence.
Again, this is hardly displayed as taking the task seriously, especially when my question wasn't to you, but I played along anyway.
Not only did I take it seriously, I deliberately made it a harder challenge. You did not play along.
Obviously I did as I said, since I responded to your example, instead of dismissing it outright. What I left of it was exactly enough for an answer.
Playing along would have been to engage my post on the criteria you originally set forth. You chose, instead, to move the goalposts.
Again, no, and especially because I didn't show the whole goal in the first place, since I didn't reveal yet, and still haven't entirely, the exact purpose of my test.
Rather than commenting on whether or not that was a good example of a person saying the same thing with empathy, you took it as a challenge as to whether or not a snappy comeback could be made in response.
No, you didn't really ask why I wrote it out that way, or read/understood what I also wrote to others on this response of mine, you merely assumed, as others did. That is yet another straw man.
You are incorrect. Your post obviously did not engage mine on the criteria of the question asked, and instead engaged it based on an entirely different criteria. That is the definition of goalpost shifting.
See above.
I asked the OP the question.
If the future, if you would like to present a question to only one user, it would behoove you to send that user a DM, and not place that question in a public portion of this message board, where others will take it as in invitation to also answer that question.
Because it is meant to be seen and questioned by others, obviously. As I said above, the OP made the original assertion, not you, so naturally when I ask the OP a question about one's own assertion, it would seem quite clear that others can't normally answer for someone else if they don't really know.
If you wanted to answer more properly, then you should have asked the OP first what this honestly means to him, as I already did, then once you know, try to formulate a response out of that new found knowledge.
No I shouldn't have. I know what it means to make a statement with empathy, I don't need Jimmy Higgins to tell me that.
Well, I showed why it wasn't a statement of empathy, and you either ignored it or disagreed with it, but you can't force your version of empathy onto someone else, or it is obviously not empathy anymore.
I learned how to empathize with others long before I joined this message board and became acquainted with either you, or Jimmy Higgins, and I am perfectly capable of presenting my own thoughts in relation to questions of how empathy can be used when speaking, even by a moron like our current president.
See above.
You then proceeded to move the goalposts so that the answers no longer met your criteria.
Again, these
posts were already being moved by others' mere assumptions, and I was just trying to bring it back to its original position.
There was exactly one post between my response and yours, and that was another poster showing how Trump could have used empathy in his statement. Further, no one else posted between the time you asked your question, and the time I posted in response. There was no goal post movement until you responded to my post without regard to the criteria you set forth. This is plain for anyone to see by simply reading the first page of this thread. If you would like to now move the goalposts back to their original position, I suggest you start by engaging my original post using the original criteria contained in your original question.
See above.
