👍

Oooh, I’ll add that to my (unrealistically long!) reading list. Thanks!

It’s not even only pedophilia, but every other kind of abuse, especially when abusers feel they ameliorate or are guilt free by half-informing the abused, or informing them in a way they know will be understood differently. Right to work, for example.

I understand you. What I’m saying, for example, if I am considering between a green salad, fruit, or smoothie for lunch, my argument for greens would be iron content, fruit argument may be for the C content, smoothie would be “I can get both.” But in the United States, we’re taught “argument” is disagreement, or negative. So yes. I do agree we can take a dialectical approach, which if I’m understanding it correctly, takes contradiction in ideas and basically does the same as my lunch example? But I’m still grappling with my understanding of the word, so there’s also that. As a side note, it occurs to me dialectics informs your style when correcting us on misconceptions (and also wondering if it’s your general disposition to be so patient and good natured, or if understanding and practicing dialectics had lent extension to any degree)?

I think it’s how we’ve been trained to understand it.

Arguing isn’t bad. How it’s done may be!

Thank you, for taking the time. I honestly can’t wait for their next argument to learn even more!

Mhmm, really digging your expansion here as an addendum to our earlier conversation on the same subject.