yes!
great said, I sadly have to deal with a few of them.. ^^
mostly this [insert some crap comment..] is more like a [their interpretation of what I've said, which fits their flawed logic]
basically:
you said [their interpretation of what I've said, which fits their flawed logic] and then
- either base their argumentation on this misunderstanding but don't accept that they've misunderstood me
- or continue shooting hard with a shitton of other misunderstandings (which would probably be ur hashtags)
I also don't wanna discuss about what I've said and/ or truly ment. They should believe me. They have to. They can't know what I think and really mean..
But they're either not open or think it's about winning the discussion and "being right" and think they truly understand what I mean and I'm just trying to play a game (by telling em they've misunderstood me)..
thanks for the tip :)
This is called a "straw-man".
either base their argumentation on this misunderstanding but don't accept that they've misunderstood me
or continue shooting hard with a shitton of other misunderstandings (which would probably be ur hashtags)
I've seen this too, I call it the "words are written in stone" fallacy.
This is the "dime-store-psychoanalysis" fallacy.
Check this out, it (rule 3 alone) sort of solves all of these problems in one go,