Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.2K

...because you just get mad, so she kind of tricked me, I said a few things, nothing major, and sure enough she got mad, got up from the table and stormed off. Now she's not speaking to me.

Usually it goes like this. "Sandy Hook was a hoax." "Oh my gosh how can you say that, we are talking about CHILDREN here, my GOSH."

When I try to explain that she's kind of doing backwards logic, and that all she has is an emotion based argument, it gets worse.

I say, well if it was indeed children, then yes it was children.

But if NOT, then children aren't really the point.

Tired of you conspiracy people on Poal and Voat getting me in trouble.

...because you just get mad, so she kind of tricked me, I said a few things, nothing major, and sure enough she got mad, got up from the table and stormed off. Now she's not speaking to me. Usually it goes like this. "Sandy Hook was a hoax." "Oh my gosh how can you say that, we are talking about CHILDREN here, my GOSH." When I try to explain that she's kind of doing backwards logic, and that all she has is an emotion based argument, it gets worse. I say, well if it was indeed children, then yes it was children. But if NOT, then children aren't really the point. Tired of you conspiracy people on Poal and Voat getting me in trouble.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (79).
[–] • 9 pts

This isn't about Sandy Hook, it's about how you two discuss disagreements over facts. As partners, it's unacceptable to escalate discussion of facts to emotional appeals in a (likely unintentional) attempt to sidestep a lack of reason and evidence on one or both party's side. E.g. if you disagree with her, it's unacceptable for you to call her names or screech autistically at her. As it's also unacceptable for her to make emotional appeals such as "think of the children" to try to sidestep the need to provide reason and evidence.

Just to reiterate, this is not about Sandy Hook. I know little about it and have no idea which of you is correct about the facts of that event, and it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that you both agree that disputes of fact must be settled via arguments (i.e. premise, evidence, conclusion) not destructive conversational escalation.

[–] • 0 pt

Good advice, thanks. You're right.

[–] • 1 pt

Also, is it really necessary to have the same views on every single thing? Part of why you have a partner is for differing views. I can understand why people would believe something like that. Barring solid evidence, it's all a murky world where the only honest position to hold is that you don't really know, and these various possibilities each have evidence behind them. It also doesn't really matter for day-to-day decisions.

[–] • 1 pt

Yes, nailed it. Some of these guys commenting might not have ever been married.