Seth Ackerman wrote:
>
>
>
> > go ahead and talk about it. but using it to try to "win" by trying to
> make
> > your opponent appear callous to these issues is the problem.
>
> Why is it a problem? This is my question.
>
Seth, I'm not sure, but I think your interlocutor confuses politics with amateur sports, like softball or kick the can. Hence one must follow certain (somewhat mysterious) "rules" of the game or you "lose." At least that is the only way I can make sense of the post your are replying to -- since it gives no hint whatever of the writer's views of the world but merely concentrates on finding places where you have violated the rules.
I tend to think that posts focused on another poster's coherence or consistency (rather than on the simple rightness or wrongness of a perspective) are not really worth responding to. The result of responding to such posts is almost always an upward spiral of confusion.
Incidentally, since quite callous ideas can be held by quite tender people (and the opposite), and since you have focused (as far as I can see) on ideas not people, I don't see how your posts can make anyone feel either callous or tender.
Carrol