Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

=== Assistant: Here’s the argument-map for xRegardsx OP’s latest reply, using only what you’ve provided so far in this thread. ===
Here’s the argument-map for xRegardsx (OP)’s latest reply, using only what you’ve provided so far in this thread.

==== I’ll label each distinct claim/argument F1, F2, …. Some are counterfactual recommendations, some are motive/character attributions, some are normative gatekeeping. ====

===== F1. “You could have said: ‘My bad… That makes sense.’” =====
* Claim: A reasonable/appropriate response from Greg would have been a brief acknowledgment/apology + acceptance of OP’s clarification.

F2. “So, why didn’t you? What were you protecting…?”
* Claim: Greg’s behavior is better explained by self-protection (ego/status/identity defense) than by simple misunderstanding.

===== F3. “You only further tripled down on exaggerated appeal to authority, intellectual arrogance…” =====
* Claim: Greg continued to lean into “I’m a clinician” as a credibility weapon (and did so in an inflated/arrogant way).

F4. “…appeal to ridicule to shoot the messenger rather than the message…”
* Claim: Greg used ridicule/dismissal to attack OP (the person delivering the critique) instead of engaging the substantive points.

F5. “…and condescension.”
* Claim: Greg’s stance/tone is condescending.

(F3–F5 are all “rhetorical evaluation” claims: they interpret Greg’s prior comments as instances of certain fallacies/behaviors.)

===== F6. “You just confirmed exactly what I thought was the case.” =====
* Claim: Greg’s “You gotta be kidding me… block me” response validates OP’s earlier interpretation (that Greg was behaving in a predictable, bad-faith / status-protective way).

===== F7. “Your self-deceit here…” =====
* Claim: Greg is self-deceiving in this interaction.

F8. “…makes it hard to believe you know how to teach people things you yourself don’t know how to help yourself with…”
* Claim: Because Greg can’t self-regulate/engage well here, he’s not credible as someone who teaches these skills to others.

F9. “…including that you have a problem that needs addressing in the first place.”
* Claim: Greg has an underlying personal/professional issue that he isn’t recognizing, and it needs addressing.

===== F10. “To everyone else… this is exactly what I was talking about…” =====
* Claim: This exchange exemplifies the kind of behavior/dynamic the pinned guide warned about.

F11. “…and probably in more ways than one.”
* Claim: The match between the guide’s warnings and Greg’s behavior is multi-dimensional (not just one issue).

F12. “Thanks for the real world example.”
* Not really a claim; it’s a rhetorical closing that reinforces F10/F11.

===== F13. “If you can’t handle your criticism being criticized, this isn’t the place for you.” =====
* Normative claim: people who can’t tolerate pushback don’t belong in this sub (or won’t be accommodated).

F14. “That was covered in the post you skimmed.”
* Claim: The guide explicitly addressed this expectation, and Greg skimmed rather than read it.

==== To mark something “currently in question” under your rule, it needs a standing objection from another argument that is not itself being challenged. ====

===== At this moment in the material you’ve provided: =====
* Greg’s latest “You gotta be kidding me lol. Block me please.” expresses dismissal/incredulity and a request to disengage, but it does not supply a specific counter-argument against OP’s new, more detailed accusations (appeal to authority, ridicule, condescension, self-deceit, etc.).
* And crucially, nobody has replied to OP’s new F-claims yet with an unchallenged rebuttal.

So, by your operational definition:

✅ Currently unquestioned (so far): F1–F14
⚠️ Currently in question: (none yet)
🔥 Contested both ways: (none yet)

Important nuance: “Unquestioned” here means no one in the thread has challenged it yet, not that it’s established as true.

==== Even though your request is focused on the current comment, this is where your “standing objection” logic becomes visible: ====
* OP’s F3–F5 (appeal to authority / ridicule / condescension) function as new objections to Greg’s earlier posture and rhetorical moves.
* OP’s F6 also implicitly challenges Greg’s earlier “You gotta be kidding me” dismissal by treating it as confirmatory evidence of the very pattern OP accused him of (rather than evidence OP was being unreasonable).

Whether those objections remain “standing” will depend on what Greg (or others) says next.

If you paste Greg’s next reply (if there is one), that’s likely where we’ll finally get direct challenges to specific F-claims—at which point some of OP’s arguments may become “currently in question” under your rule.