Your (and their) arguments may not be in bad faith, but they are in conflict with objective reality.
They either believe Jill Stein will actually win, which is false based on all of US history, including the elections she already participated in.
Or they believe there is literally no difference for, say, women, when 1/3 of SCOTUS are religious extremists appointed by an insurrectionist. Or on climate. Or Ukraine. Or voting rights. Etc. The question “is a president allowed to break the law and do whatever” is somehow still open. Is that not completely insane?
I understand what they claim they are doing with the protest vote. But in actuality, they have looked at the difference and decided that it isn’t much. That can only come from a position of privilege or extreme ignorance.
The other case I also pointed out is they might be unaware of the facts. You are engaging in bad faith by misrepresenting my words to form a what you think is a strawman to argue against.
i asked copilot to weigh in on this. i have edited it for brevity (there was a lot of boiler-plate), but this is the last half or so completely unedited:
Whether or not someone is engaging in bad faith would depend on their intent and whether they genuinely believe in their arguments or are purposefully distorting the discussion.
It’s important to approach such discussions with the aim of understanding and addressing the actual points being made, rather than attributing motives or misrepresenting positions. This fosters a more productive dialogue and helps avoid the pitfalls of bad faith arguments and logical fallacies. If you feel the discussion is not progressing constructively, it may be beneficial to step back and reassess the approach to ensure a good faith exchange of ideas.
Thanks, Copilot. Can Copilot explain the other possible positions beyond “doesn’t understand she won’t win” and “doesn’t believe or is unaware there is a difference between the two who will win?” You are not providing other options, maybe Copilot could explain it to me.
well i am not interested in getting bogged down in defending any particular motivation, i’m only trying to keep the conversation intellectually honest. it seems that you understand, now, that there might be other motivations, and as such that your previous accusations were in fact bad faith.
stating your perspective about it doesn’t make it reality. you need to actually listen to what people say, and if you think it’s unrealistic, then you can say you think it’s unrealistic, but you can’t just assert that they can’t possibly have any other motivations.
You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.
You have been stating your perspective all along that it is bad faith, asserting that there are no other motivations. You didn’t actually listen to what I had to say, you just asserted a position.
I don’t think you are taking this seriously. You are certainly picking and choosing which rules apply to whom. Why are we engaging at all?
You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.
i made your position more succinct. you provided two options and said they were the only possible explanations, then said “that’s reality”. you constructed a false dichotomy. there was no nuance to your comment that would have undermined this construction of your argument. your assumption of other peoples beliefs and motivations is a bad faith approach altogether.
No, you didn’t. It’s frustrating that you claim to be interested in intellectual integrity. You deliberately omitted or failed to read parts that you now claim have fulfilled your mission of honest discussion. You accused me of bad faith when the Copilot definition you wish to use explicitly says there must be intent. You claim to be in favor of honest and good faith discussion, but have only been interested in applying your rules to the parts of the discussion you don’t like.
Anyway. We’ve probably wasted enough time talking past each other today. Good luck out there.
Your (and their) arguments may not be in bad faith, but they are in conflict with objective reality.
They either believe Jill Stein will actually win, which is false based on all of US history, including the elections she already participated in.
Or they believe there is literally no difference for, say, women, when 1/3 of SCOTUS are religious extremists appointed by an insurrectionist. Or on climate. Or Ukraine. Or voting rights. Etc. The question “is a president allowed to break the law and do whatever” is somehow still open. Is that not completely insane?
I understand what they claim they are doing with the protest vote. But in actuality, they have looked at the difference and decided that it isn’t much. That can only come from a position of privilege or extreme ignorance.
this is still putting words in their mouths. it’s not good-faith engagement.
No, that’s reality.
The other case I also pointed out is they might be unaware of the facts. You are engaging in bad faith by misrepresenting my words to form a what you think is a strawman to argue against.
i asked copilot to weigh in on this. i have edited it for brevity (there was a lot of boiler-plate), but this is the last half or so completely unedited:
Thanks, Copilot. Can Copilot explain the other possible positions beyond “doesn’t understand she won’t win” and “doesn’t believe or is unaware there is a difference between the two who will win?” You are not providing other options, maybe Copilot could explain it to me.
well i am not interested in getting bogged down in defending any particular motivation, i’m only trying to keep the conversation intellectually honest. it seems that you understand, now, that there might be other motivations, and as such that your previous accusations were in fact bad faith.
stating your perspective about it doesn’t make it reality. you need to actually listen to what people say, and if you think it’s unrealistic, then you can say you think it’s unrealistic, but you can’t just assert that they can’t possibly have any other motivations.
You didn’t actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.
You have been stating your perspective all along that it is bad faith, asserting that there are no other motivations. You didn’t actually listen to what I had to say, you just asserted a position.
I don’t think you are taking this seriously. You are certainly picking and choosing which rules apply to whom. Why are we engaging at all?
i made your position more succinct. you provided two options and said they were the only possible explanations, then said “that’s reality”. you constructed a false dichotomy. there was no nuance to your comment that would have undermined this construction of your argument. your assumption of other peoples beliefs and motivations is a bad faith approach altogether.
No, you didn’t. It’s frustrating that you claim to be interested in intellectual integrity. You deliberately omitted or failed to read parts that you now claim have fulfilled your mission of honest discussion. You accused me of bad faith when the Copilot definition you wish to use explicitly says there must be intent. You claim to be in favor of honest and good faith discussion, but have only been interested in applying your rules to the parts of the discussion you don’t like.
Anyway. We’ve probably wasted enough time talking past each other today. Good luck out there.
have a nice day
because i objected to your bad faith characterization of another user’s comments.
Please consider being honest about your bad faith characterization of my position, with respect to your own AI definition.