...when you post your unique interpretation of what was said, and the person who wrote the post says to you, you are misinterpreting what was said, this is where communication breaks down with you. Instead of taking into consideration that you have indeed not understood the connotation of the post, you insist that your interpretation could not possibly have been incorrect and you proceed to badger people, insisting you know what they said despite their trying to correct your misinterpretation.
Even if a person wrote an unclear thought or made some literal error that could be argued on a pedantic basis, most people recognize that this is a common problem when trying to communicate. And it is made even worse when communicating on a forum where extra cues such as body language and intonation are absent, replaced by smilies sometimes added to overcome the limitation of communicating only verbally.
Most people understand this communication difficulty and when it occurs most people try to understand what the person was saying by the correction or clarification. In addition, we've probably 'all' been guilty of using absolute terms like "all" and "every" on occasions when such a term was inappropriately applied. When called on these kind of pedantic errors, it is duly noted but hardly ever would become some bone of contention in the post as opposed to being recognized as just a casual poor choice of words.
You seem unwilling to consider that what the person was trying to communicate is more important that what you at first concluded they were saying.
And I can even tell you what you are going to say to this post that is trying to help you communicate better with people. You are going to put up a mental block to the possibility you do not interpret posts as the message is written. You will not allow yourself to consider the possibility you don't get what people mean when you apply your unique interpretation to what they say. You will brush this off as some personal attack when in reality it is a sincere attempt to share with you an observation about the constant arguments you get into with people when a discussion would be so much more productive.
And then if you are true to form, you will repeat your question that is based on your unique interpretation of what I posted and ignore my attempt to clarify what I intended to communicate. Despite how what I posted may or may not have communicated that thought, it should be clear by my follow up reply to your misinterpretation what I intended to communicate. I'll repeat that again just for the record.
A movement as you are using the word implies organization, maybe plans, maybe rules, some structure. The OP used the language "a movement". I used the language, "a movement" because it was used in the OP. But I also used the language, "would like". "Would" in my sentence is a future subjunctive verb. A future subjunctive verb is used to communicate feelings such as wishfulness or imagination, not things that are currently real or true. "Like" obviously denotes a preference, again, it is not a statement declaring that a critical thinking movement exists or what the specifics of such a movement 'would' be.
And in addition, your question implies all sorts of things not communicated at all in my post. That is where you slip into straw men. You are attributing things to my statement based on your unique interpretation of what I said. Repeating what I said does not change the meaning of what I intended to communicate. It merely reflects on your inability or unwillingness to consider you are not interpreting the statement in a typical way.
You are adding things to my statement which are not there. You are ignoring the future subjunctive verb and interpreting only my use of the OP language in my post. But that future subjunctive verb, "would like", changes the meaning of the sentence. It negates the literal meaning of the language of the OP and instead changes the meaning of the sentence to one of imagining something more nebulous in this case.
