I just spent the past two hours debating the fact that the experience of pain is more complicated than the simple biomedical stance on pain. I thought I provided an accurate explanation as to how it is difficult for someone to just look or touch someone and explain why they are pain.
The response.
“Man you are really closed minded, you’re saying that someone who has years of experience can’t touch or look at someone and tell something is wrong with them?”
No not really.
“You are dumb”
anybody else have issues with this sort of conversation?
That type of response as you described is a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ or a ‘false dichotomy’ logical fallacy depending on how it was said.
It helps to categorize logical fallacies in counter arguments so you can continue making your point without getting trapped defending a position you didn’t intend to take.
At a certain point I realized they were not actually willing to change their stance on the point so I decided to discontinue the conversation. Which seems like giving up but to me I saw it as saying my part and not wasting anymore effort or time trying to force them to see my opinion.
I typically dont talk to anyone in general for two hours.
But maybe its because i come off as narcissistic most people buy into what i have to say regardless.
I dont think anything you did was wrong other than debating someone who insulted you because after a certain point, they’re not interested in the material being debated rather just to insult you and your argument.