You specifically addressed me with strawmen and wild assumptions about what I believe (generally reducing them to ridiculous extremes, never a good faith debate tactic).
> You operate under the assumption that more knowledge and the more you know about things, the better. So from your point of view spending 12 hours watching philosophy essays and history videos can only be a good thing.
See? This was addressed to me, not in general.
> Exactly, it is a philosophical issue, whereas the person I was replying to was debating on the grounds of “knowledge is good”.
"The person I was replying to" is me, so again you're singling me out.
And I'm not hostile, or do you think people pointing out you're misrepresenting their opinions are "hostile"?
> It would be better to debate the opposing opinion instead of getting so defensive, but alas.
Alas, for this to work, you would need to engage with what the person you're replying to actually wrote, defend your position ("it's junk food for the mind", "it's opium"), be open to having your mind changed if the arguments are good, and avoid making unsupported assertions about my belief system or what I think about knowledge and technology.
Don't act all offended now just because I called you out.
Apologize if you made wrong assumptions, and resume the argument in good faith, and for all that's good and honest -- lose the "I know better" attitude.
> You operate under the assumption that more knowledge and the more you know about things, the better. So from your point of view spending 12 hours watching philosophy essays and history videos can only be a good thing.
See? This was addressed to me, not in general.
> Exactly, it is a philosophical issue, whereas the person I was replying to was debating on the grounds of “knowledge is good”.
"The person I was replying to" is me, so again you're singling me out.
And I'm not hostile, or do you think people pointing out you're misrepresenting their opinions are "hostile"?
> It would be better to debate the opposing opinion instead of getting so defensive, but alas.
Alas, for this to work, you would need to engage with what the person you're replying to actually wrote, defend your position ("it's junk food for the mind", "it's opium"), be open to having your mind changed if the arguments are good, and avoid making unsupported assertions about my belief system or what I think about knowledge and technology.
Don't act all offended now just because I called you out.
Apologize if you made wrong assumptions, and resume the argument in good faith, and for all that's good and honest -- lose the "I know better" attitude.