Better than expected

2. I disagree. While everyone does necessarily project to a certain extent because that is how we view the world, I am not in this case stepping outside the bounds of normal on that front. I'm not assuming that this person is at all like me. You are grasping at a connection that does not exist, that is all.

3. Your list is wrong. It is rife with assumptions of understanding that cannot be confirmed.

If we go in order, hatok posts first and explicitly asks what the point of that is.
Next, Accelerator shares this stance and posts an image indicating as much.
After him, Peace-and_war makes a tangentially related statement. It can be assumed that he thinks the final person is not a prick.
Below responds to hatok with a joke answer, his statement cannot be taken to indicate he stands on either side of this.
Ars Nova then describes the image to hatok.
I express an objection to the idea that the image is an indicator of positive social interaction.
Digital Atlas agrees with the idea that the image is an indicator of positive social interaction.
Stuff happens.
Androssi makes a joke that does not express an opinion either way on the topic.
More stuff happens.
tale_wind says something not related to the original thesis and cannot be assumed to care for the topic.

So your list has five people who agree with the thesis. Including two people who did not show a definite opinion and two people that posted their opinions after my first post where this started. You should correct that or at least confirm it before treating it like it is a viable source of information to argue from. So we now have 3 people who may or may not get it and agree with it and 2 people who don't get it and me who may or may not get it but certainly disagrees with it. That's fairly even and if we consider that two of the people who definitively agree with the initial statement posted after I started down this road I had an not understanding majority to start from so it made sense to consider the point at least ambiguous. So I concede that it was one person and not no one as previously stated that understood. But I did have a majority justification at the time.

4. I do not understand.

 

2. I say you are projecting because of your read of intent. It is a fact that the person in question was being manipulative by being courteous. That is the purpose of courtesy after all. However, you imagine that this is negative or paint it as such. This is where the projection comes in. While I see their manipulation as a mature way to handle the situation, specifically because the ends they are aiming for are good ends, you see those ends as negative for no apparent reason.

3. Aside from the meta of these people in the middle (who, history shows, will voice any objections they have off the bat), an argument from the majority is still a bad argument.

4. Exactly.

 

2. Acceptable.
3. Unacceptable.
4. I still do not understand.

 

Both of you, cut it out. You're both conflicting on how you read something. The argument you're having is longer than the YouTube comments themselves.

 

No.

 

3. Argumentum ad populum.
4. Exactly.

 

Going to the topic of you know... the topic
Youtube comments suffer from Nova Syndrome. The moment most people start jhaving intelligent discussion they stop themselves and go "The spamzone youtube comments section isn't really the place to talk about something seriously"
There's plenty of perfectly good youtube comments, but the general consensus is that good comments don't belong on youtube, so the people that make them stop themselves

 

HEY I ALREADY DID CUT IT OUT

Don't you dare name that after me I'm far from the worst offender

 

[cough] Amaury [/cough]

 

3. The problem is that I'm not arguing that it is the truth because there was a point where more people were confused I was bringing up the need for a fuller clarification by expressing the opposing opinion because not every poster understood it. The fact that it was the majority was important because it was a doubt rather than a specific position being supported. Therefore, your fallacy does not apply here.
4. You can continue giving monosyllabic answers that do nothing to explain your reasoning, but it will not aid in anyone's understanding or further an argument or discussion. That said, I still do not understand.

 

3. And I quote: "I'm calling him out because I wanted his explanation because he posted it and no one else in the tread was comprehending his point, which does indeed lead my to believe that he's wrong in making it." The position being supported is that the comment was not more mature than usual.
4. Exactly has three syllables.

 

3. It leads me to believe he's wrong in making it, not that his point is wrong. I believe his point is wrong regardless, but if you cannot get people to understand your point then you should not make it or you should make it more clearly.
4. Does not hurt my overall point.

 

3. Not seeing anything constructive.
4. Debating this point (4) would defeat the point. Condescension is felt, not observed. You are being condescending whether you realize it or not. I cannot prove that you are being condescending because you don't believe you are. But you are, because that is how it reads. In this way, my read of you parallels your interpretation of that comment in the OP. The irony of your being unaware of yourself is why I say 'Exactly'.

 

3. There was never anything constructive here.
4. Acceptable.

 

3. Incorrect. At the very least, the comment in the OP was leading the original poster of that comment thread to become more constructive and less dogmatic in expressing their opinions. That commentor was working for a net good. You have yet to refute this. You actually accepted this point earlier.

Even if you had not/it was not a net good, it is still hard to see the logic behind the argument, 'If it's bad, might as well make it worse'.

 

3. I was talking about the whole of these point 3 exchanges. Also, the original youtube poster was never instructed on how to improve himself unless the read more option has anything further to say on that. I accepted that I was outmatched on the argument front, not that I feel the poster was being constructive.

I don't think anyone is arguing to make anything worse.

 

I mean, it's your call. But you're all looking pretty foolish. :/

We all talk of maturity a lot, and in a thread praising someone for approaching something reasonably, we choose to fight. I don't even need to explain that. The irony takes care of it for me.

 

We don't all talk about it very often.

 

Do you think of yourself as a mature individual? I've called you such before, I know.

 

I would prefer not to be?