> The questions were a reply to Magic Banana who wasn't.
Fair enough, I was mistaken on this point, then. I apologize.
> So to you a conversation is worthy only if it is an argument?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argue
These are the relevant definitions for "argument" the way I am using the
word:
* the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing
* a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or
establish a point of view
* a reason given for or against a matter under discussion
And the relevant definitions for "argue", the way I am using the word:
* to give reasons for or against something
* to give evidence of
* to consider the pros and cons of
* to prove or try to prove by giving reasons
So with that in mind, I suspect that you are instead using the word
"argument" to mean "an angry quarrel or disagreement", which is not what is
happening here, and then conflating that definition (which I am not referring
to when I use the words "argue" and "argument") with my use of the words. I
assume this is unintentional.
I have long grown weary of people who do this. It seems to be a common
feature of young people these days to just immediately conflate the entire
idea of argumentation with negativity and use this fallacy as an excuse to
both refuse to argue anything, and demand for someone who is willing to argue
to stop doing so. This is a destructive attitude, albeit one I assume is
borne of ignorance rather than malice.
So with that all in mind, when we're talking about a topic that two people
disagree about, then, yes, a conversation which does not include
argumentation is worthless. If neither of us is presenting arguments for our
respective positions, we are not going to get any better of an understanding
of each other's positions, much less be convinced to change our minds.
> And intelligence means reading between the lines. Look at the overall
attitude, don't just isolate a single word and analyze it separately.
You talk about context, but you yourself are ignoring the much larger context
that the "maybe malware" description comes straight from RMS's talks, where
he doesn't imply "potential malware" to mean "definitely malware" and
typically even specifically clarifies that it doesn't mean the latter.
Instead you're inventing your own interpretation out of thin air, directly
contradicting the literal interpretation of what was said. "Reading between
the lines" is not an excuse for building up strawmen.
