Comment on Why can't I argue against claims of suffering?

• all-knight-party@kbin.run ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I read all sorts of things from people all the time and can often overthink the results or have missed something else I could've read that would've created more context, but I wasn't there to see, or perhaps, with time, I read and then forgot.

  Basically, I think you'd then need to go down another rabbit hole of figuring out how good Rob actually is at reading people before his testimony is really worth all that much, because while Bob could lie about his feelings, Rob could lie about how he's interpreting Bob, dismantling the efficacy of his callout, and even if Rob were honest it wouldn't really prove anything. Just that Rob doesn't think Bob is being honest, so you'd just be arguing eternally until Bob somehow lets slip his mask, under the assumption he is actually lying, at which point you prove Bob is a liar who likes attention.

  But in the majority times that you'd be wrong, or you wouldn't get the mask to slip, you'd just prove yourself an asshole, and would progressively lose friends/popular trust and credibility until arguing anyone's true feelings wouldn't be a truly valid option any longer, since no one would want to believe you, even if you were right due to being more often incorrect.

  Basically, if you wanted to spend your time/have some sort of hobby or job where you attempted to force people to be honest about things they might lie about for emotional, popular, or financial reward, you'd have to go about it in a non confrontational investigative way, because you'd otherwise destroy your own opinion's worth or career long before it would get the public to change beliefs.

  So you could argue claims of suffering, but there'd only be two reasons to do so, to be a dick, or to prove they were lying for their own gain, and the first isn't worth discussing, while the second is better served through less direct means.

  source