1) Your original comment, which I replied to, was sarcastic/off-put in tone. You sounded offended. You didn't sound as if you truly wanted to have a level conversation about whether or not home schooling can be, absolutely 100% of the time is, or sometimes-but-not-always can be/is detrimental to social development. Which, by the way, to my mind, is an easy conclusion to draw - that home-schooling absolutely can have detrimental effects on youth socialization and in many cases does. I'm aware that some people choose to home-school their children so they can indoctrinate them in their religious dogma, for instance. Even if you were in a "home school" of 50 kids I think this would have a negative impact on socialization (since fringe beliefs are isolating) and it wouldn't be possible in a public school, where even if your teachers AREN'T teaching evolution the simple fact and variety of the classmates around you means you are more likely to be introduced to ideas that challenge the ones your parents have driven into you your whole life. That doesn't mean homeschooling always has a negative impact. That just means it's easy for it to do so.

2) Your next comment, in which you used "ynno." First, not a word. Second, the phrase "you know" is used conversationally when stating the facts, general rules that most or all audiences would understand; hence, "they know" to what is referred. It is an expression of general social awareness. What you're stating doesn't qualify. Which leads me to my third point: because you weren't stating a general "rule of thumb" fact that, indeed, "everyone would know," the use of that phrase further compounded your tone of being offended, sarcastic, and not being interested in a level discussion. Someone who thought I was wrong and was interested in actually having a conversation with me about it, possibly to even convince me of my misaligned viewpoint, might say something like "What about recreational activities outside of school?" or etc. It wouldn't state that the presence of or participation in extra-education was obvious; clearly, from my comment, I either wasn't aware or wasn't considering these options. If I were your conversational partner in this discussion the best move would have been to say, "Well what about these options?" in which case we could have moved on to discussing the prevalence of these options and how they compare to, ynno, daily interaction with hundreds of your peers for 8 or so hours a day.

3) I edit my comments, get over it. I usually do so quickly after the fact and completely understand when someone has failed to catch the edit and doesn't respond to it, in which case I direct them to it.

4) My edit does not imply this is a sensitive topic - for me. The way you handled the entire discussion reveals it is a sensitive topic for you. One which you are not able to have without provoking your conversational partner because you don't like what they have to say.

5) I reiterate that interest groups which a person pursues out of choice, or to say, "opt-in groups," do not provide the same socialization as groups into which a person is simply thrown and then, once within the human mass, must learn how to deal: how to find people with similar interests, personalities, etc; how to interact with people without similar interests or with whom one does not get along; how to observe how others in both situations interact; how to interact with others that are perceptibly different from you (race, religion, lifestyle choices such as diet, political choices, etc); as well as what it's like to try new experiences, sign up for clubs because your friends are signing up for them, in general be exposed to new interests, and so on. I never would have participated in Track and Field if one of my friends hadn't persuaded me to in 10th grade. I don't imagine that a friend in an extracurricular club would have tried to convince me to join another, different club which, by the way, would also conflict with the first club's meeting schedule.

6) I don't care if you get buttmad, I care if you go around saying stupid, inciting shit, and then acting as if you're not responsible for it when people respond negatively. This is in my opinion one of the rudest exchanges I've seen on Hubski, specifically, your first two comments in this thread, and when I saw "one of the rudest exchanges" keep in mind that I have called out several users in a manner not dissimilar to the manner in which I have called you out. Altercation is no stranger to me.

Never, in any universe, does a person who says "Do tell" mean "Please repeat exactly what you just said to me because by god I'm responding to that comment but apparently I just can't read it!" It is insulting to waste the opportunity you were given to make and defend your point of view via some sort of discussion by acting like b_b didn't even know the contents of the comment he replied to. And then you want to know why he didn't treat you as an equal! He didn't treat you like an equal because you were conversing like a child.

It literally matters not a whit to me if you react emotionally to a single thing I say. It matters to me that I enjoy the discussion here, both those I read and those I participate in. When I see you or anyone else actively shitting on the quality of discussion, Imma step up. That's what this is about.

7) This is not a win/lose thing, see above.

I hope this helped you but I doubt this did anything but irritate, anger, and/or upset you. If that's the case, why don't you take a second to consider the time and thought I've put into crafting this reply, and indeed many replies to you, and then weigh it against every one-liner or even one-word response you've thrown out on Hubski. Newsflash? "Mmmhmm" does not qualify as "thoughtful discussion." It counts as "worthless throw-in hoping that someone else asks me to elaborate on why I thought "mmhmm" was an appropriate response to a post, because clearly if I didn't need someone to act like they were interested in my opinion, I would have just stated it."

So why don't you take a few hours to sleep on what I have to say before you jerk off with a hastily-written, aggrieved response. Aren't you the one who did research on what online community they wanted to join and settled on Hubski of all options? You must've had a reason to join Hubski, and for chrissakes I hope it was more than hoping to leech off of our pseudo-intellectual discussions without even trying to care about whether all your comments are shitposts.

Try giving back to this community you so carefully selected. Try some long, thought-out, balanced, assuming-the-other-person-is-unaware-not-unintelligent interaction. Because that's the one protip I have for you: If you want to actually have a two-sided discussion about something, or if you want to change someone's mind, don't assume they're wrong. Assume they don't know what you do. Half the time that'll work and half the time they'll reveal that they do know and don't care, in which case there's no point in trying to make them. And you won't piss your conversational partner or your audience off while you're at it.

______________________

I don't eat cottage cheese, so I can't help you there, but I do appreciate the attempt to get the conversation back to a less adversarial place. (Not sarcastic.)