A question to women

[axlryder]

I'll just leave this here then. I'm not really using it as a point, but it was pretty hilarious and oddly relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ty4PhRWt1hU

Hi there! That's pretty funny =)

not equivalent, AGAIN. Doing physical harm to someone and possibly KILLING them is not the same as looking at something. Please, just stop trying to use fallacious examples. Analogies are fine if they make sense. Also, if you're going to say mine doesn't, stop now. We both know it does and I that I can prove it. I just don't feel like drawing every single parallel for you.

No your example really doesn't. Who in the world acts that way? It might match the argument better, but it makes no sense on it's own. Something times 0 is still 0.

The examples I'm using are just to establish some general principles. That's just the first step. The second step would be to see if they apply to our case, but you never let us go there. They're colorful and not equivalent because they don't have to be.

He That's not the point of the scenario, as in this case we're referencing when a guy DOES stare at a woman's breasts because she's wearing a shirt that's practically inviting him to do so. The brother without games may be trying to exercise self control and possibly get some jollies out of the glance he did get, but that doesn't mean the brother playing isn't being a jerk by intentionally leaving the door open so HE can feel good about having video games, and then go and yell at the brother who looked longer than he personally felt comfortable with. If he ran the very obvious risk of having the brother look longer than he felt comfortable with, than he should have just shut the freaking door or accepted that it might happen. He made the decision to leave it open, he wanted his brother to glance, so he ran the risk of having his brother look. How do you not get this?

Yes, and women do run the risk of men staring, and if I cross the street I do run the risk of getting hit by a car. These are things that we accept could happen, and we consciously choose the option leading to them because we believe the advantages outweight the disadvantages. But that doesn't mean it is something we can't go against.

woah now, buddy, careful with your phrasing. There's nothing wrong with sexuality, don't try and generalize my statement like that. Also, your point was incorrect because I explained to you that this particular example is very specific and games can be both good and bad. Cleavage, on the other hand, has zero social and long term psychological benefits. It does do harm, though, so I consider it bad.

You consider it bad because you consider it empty and hollow and damaging. It's all just an opinion. You can state it having zero social and long term psychological benefits as a fact, but it's subjective, not in the least because 'benefits' is very subjective.

Anyway, I'm curious about another thing now: how do you feel about other forms of 'boasting', like driving a fancy-looking car, or wearing expensive designer's clothes or having designer's furniture?

it's very apt. I've defended it and justified every aspect of it. That boy didn't choose to be bothered either, he just was bothered (it's kind of hard to choose to be bothered). Same way the girl didn't choose to be bothered either, she just was. Both of them are still being unfair and hypocritical. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

But why? Why is the boy bothered? It doesn't make much sense and therefore doesn't feel like it helps induce anything.

We're talking about a real-world phenomenom here, women being bothered by men staring. That doesn't mean men staring at anything is suddenly botherable and thus an apt analogy.

Moral codes, values and taboos are not exact science. Subjectivity, emotions, feelings, etc. play a role. You can't come up with an analogy in the abstract and then say what works for the one works for the other.

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

Well yeah that is kind of my entire point from the beginning. That what she's doing is not wrong =p

I had already asked that you not partially quote me, yet you did it again despite acknowledging you wouldn't. I must now ask that you go back and reply again to my previous post, this time quoting my arguments fully and in the proper order, rebutting each point in a satisfactory way. Feel free to erase any text you had written that I quoted, or previous quotes of my own that I left in. If you choose not to do that, I will consider the comment which I am replying to to be a breach of the terms we agreed to, thus making you an dishonest debater and not worth my time. For the record, partial quoting is (in my experience) a rather frowned upon practice in written debates, as it neglects potentially crucial points in the opponents argument, thus making your own rebuttal incomplete and potentially invalid as a proper response. Even if you feel a later point is contingent on a previous point which you already rebutted or is simply redundant, you should point that out instead of ignoring it. Be careful, however, as fallaciously making such a claim can further hurt your argument. Also, I'm glad you liked this vid, lol.

 

[tobyornottoby]

I'm not entirely sure if I got that right, is this it:

you were, when you said "According to that mentality, any business advertising their wares but not giving it away for free is unfair." Of course that's ridiculous because of what I said (not equivalent). Also, I already addressed the temptation part.

okay, seriously bro? We already outlined that he wants him to briefly glance, but not "watch". I already said this. When I watch TV I don't sneak a peek at it once every ten seconds or so. Watch = stare. I'd have thought you would drawn the parallels by now.

not equivalent, AGAIN. Doing physical harm to someone and possibly KILLING them is not the same as looking at something. Please, just stop trying to use fallacious examples. Analogies are fine if they make sense. Also, if you're going to say mine doesn't, stop now. We both know it does and I that I can prove it. I just don't feel like drawing every single parallel for you.

No your example really doesn't. Who in the world acts that way? It might match the argument better, but it makes no sense on it's own. Something times 0 is still 0.

The examples I'm using are just to establish some general principles. That's just the first step. The second step would be to see if they apply to our case, but you never let us go there. They're colorful and not equivalent because they don't have to be.

No, the point you were actually making was that if a man is tempted by breasts either way, adding temptation doesn't add anything new to the table and thus is negligible on a woman's part (somehow?). Well you're wrong, as these shirts, unlike shirts that fully cover you, are actually an invitation to look at a woman's chest. There are, like anything else, exceptions (beaches, extremely large breasts that are bound to show some cleavage even with a more modest neckline, 110 degree weather, etc.) but in general, these shirts serve no other real purpose. The point is, if you're going to feel uncomfortable if a man's staring at you, don't wear a shirt that was SPECIFICALLY designed to attract the attention of a man's gaze, especially if you're wearing it with the FULL knowledge that he's definitely going to be glancing down there and you actually want him to. If you do wear it in spite of all that, than realize you're being a hypocrite and totally unfair in attempting to chastise a man for staring and he'd then be totally justified in chastising you right back if you did.

That's not the point of the scenario, as in this case we're referencing when a guy DOES stare at a woman's breasts because she's wearing a shirt that's practically inviting him to do so. The brother without games may be trying to exercise self control and possibly get some jollies out of the glance he did get, but that doesn't mean the brother playing isn't being a jerk by intentionally leaving the door open so HE can feel good about having video games, and then go and yell at the brother who looked longer than he personally felt comfortable with. If he ran the very obvious risk of having the brother look longer than he felt comfortable with, than he should have just shut the freaking door or accepted that it might happen. He made the decision to leave it open, he wanted his brother to glance, so he ran the risk of having his brother look. How do you not get this?

Look at it this way, if the brother started watching, and the brother playing turned around and said "I DIDN'T ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO WATCH, IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!"

and the the brother responds saying "THEN WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN!?"

and the brother playing says "BECAUSE I WANTED YOU TO GLANCE SO I COULD FEEL GOOD ABOUT HAVING COOL GAMES!"

and the brother responds saying "HOW COULD YOU BE SO SELFISH AS TO THINK IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO USE ME TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF, BUT THEN YELL AT ME FOR WATCHING EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LIKE VIDEO GAMES AND WANTED ME TO GLANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU HYPOCRITE!"

Yes, and women do run the risk of men staring, and if I cross the street I do run the risk of getting hit by a car. These are things that we accept could happen, and we consciously choose the option leading to them because we believe the advantages outweight the disadvantages. But that doesn't mean it is something we can't go against.

Of course we shouldn't deny that part of ourselves, but we should also try and limit it to the appropriate time and setting. We should also approach it with the appropriate mind set. What our society has done to sex is disgusting and intentionally showing off cleavage contributes to that empty, hollow view of sex. That manufactured, selfish, commercialized, manipulative, impersonal, hedonistic view of sex that messes with people's heads and warps them NEGATIVELY.

Also, how is being counterproductive not a bad thing? Did you read that before you typed it? have you seen the state of our world? We can't progress fast enough, broskie. Either way, of course that's all idealism talking and that's not going to happen. It's also not relevant to what we're debating.

yes, sex is great between two people who care more about one another than they care about their own personal pleasure or hang ups. Cleavage has nothing to do with the actual act of copulation, though. And sex is not directly related to what we were debating about. Though cleavage might help lead to some empty, hollow sex, I suppose.

I've played magic a bit, it's pretty fun. Either way, it's still not relevant, and if you're trying to get around to saying that a man is breaking a social taboo by staring at a woman's cleavage, I'm telling you it's an unfair taboo if the woman herself isn't breaking a taboo by intentionally showing off her cleavage to get a man to look. So of course, her having the right to yell at him because she's not breaking a taboo and he is is also stupid.

woah now, buddy, careful with your phrasing. There's nothing wrong with sexuality, don't try and generalize my statement like that. Also, your point was incorrect because I explained to you that this particular example is very specific and games can be both good and bad. Cleavage, on the other hand, has zero social and long term psychological benefits. It does do harm, though, so I consider it bad.

You consider it bad because you consider it empty and hollow and damaging. It's all just an opinion. You can state it having zero social and long term psychological benefits as a fact, but it's subjective, not in the least because 'benefits' is very subjective.

Anyway, I'm curious about another thing now: how do you feel about other forms of 'boasting', like driving a fancy-looking car, or wearing expensive designer's clothes or having designer's furniture?

really, because I'm pretty sure Black slaves got their rights and they won that argument. Pretty sure homosexuals are winning their argument too. How the majority thinks has nothing to do with something being right or wrong, so I don't think it's even a very good point in trying to say that neither of us can win this argument.

it's very apt. I've defended it and justified every aspect of it. That boy didn't choose to be bothered either, he just was bothered (it's kind of hard to choose to be bothered). Same way the girl didn't choose to be bothered either, she just was. Both of them are still being unfair and hypocritical. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

But why? Why is the boy bothered? It doesn't make much sense and therefore doesn't feel like it helps induce anything.

We're talking about a real-world phenomenom here, women being bothered by men staring. That doesn't mean men staring at anything is suddenly botherable and thus an apt analogy.

Moral codes, values and taboos are not exact science. Subjectivity, emotions, feelings, etc. play a role. You can't come up with an analogy in the abstract and then say what works for the one works for the other.

ificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please.

Well yeah that is kind of my entire point from the beginning. That what she's doing is not wrong =p

I'll just leave this here then. I'm not really using it as a point, but it was pretty hilarious and oddly relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ty4PhRWt1hU

Hi there! That's pretty funny =)

 

[axlryder]

I'm not entirely sure if I got that right, is this it:

you were, when you said "According to that mentality, any business advertising their wares but not giving it away for free is unfair." Of course that's ridiculous because of what I said (not equivalent). Also, I already addressed the temptation part.

okay, seriously bro? We already outlined that he wants him to briefly glance, but not "watch". I already said this. When I watch TV I don't sneak a peek at it once every ten seconds or so. Watch = stare. I'd have thought you would drawn the parallels by now.

not equivalent, AGAIN. Doing physical harm to someone and possibly KILLING them is not the same as looking at something. Please, just stop trying to use fallacious examples. Analogies are fine if they make sense. Also, if you're going to say mine doesn't, stop now. We both know it does and I that I can prove it. I just don't feel like drawing every single parallel for you.

No your example really doesn't. Who in the world acts that way? It might match the argument better, but it makes no sense on it's own. Something times 0 is still 0.

The examples I'm using are just to establish some general principles. That's just the first step. The second step would be to see if they apply to our case, but you never let us go there. They're colorful and not equivalent because they don't have to be.

No, the point you were actually making was that if a man is tempted by breasts either way, adding temptation doesn't add anything new to the table and thus is negligible on a woman's part (somehow?). Well you're wrong, as these shirts, unlike shirts that fully cover you, are actually an invitation to look at a woman's chest. There are, like anything else, exceptions (beaches, extremely large breasts that are bound to show some cleavage even with a more modest neckline, 110 degree weather, etc.) but in general, these shirts serve no other real purpose. The point is, if you're going to feel uncomfortable if a man's staring at you, don't wear a shirt that was SPECIFICALLY designed to attract the attention of a man's gaze, especially if you're wearing it with the FULL knowledge that he's definitely going to be glancing down there and you actually want him to. If you do wear it in spite of all that, than realize you're being a hypocrite and totally unfair in attempting to chastise a man for staring and he'd then be totally justified in chastising you right back if you did.

That's not the point of the scenario, as in this case we're referencing when a guy DOES stare at a woman's breasts because she's wearing a shirt that's practically inviting him to do so. The brother without games may be trying to exercise self control and possibly get some jollies out of the glance he did get, but that doesn't mean the brother playing isn't being a jerk by intentionally leaving the door open so HE can feel good about having video games, and then go and yell at the brother who looked longer than he personally felt comfortable with. If he ran the very obvious risk of having the brother look longer than he felt comfortable with, than he should have just shut the freaking door or accepted that it might happen. He made the decision to leave it open, he wanted his brother to glance, so he ran the risk of having his brother look. How do you not get this?

Look at it this way, if the brother started watching, and the brother playing turned around and said "I DIDN'T ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO WATCH, IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE!"

and the the brother responds saying "THEN WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN!?"

and the brother playing says "BECAUSE I WANTED YOU TO GLANCE SO I COULD FEEL GOOD ABOUT HAVING COOL GAMES!"

and the brother responds saying "HOW COULD YOU BE SO SELFISH AS TO THINK IT'S OKAY FOR YOU TO USE ME TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF, BUT THEN YELL AT ME FOR WATCHING EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I LIKE VIDEO GAMES AND WANTED ME TO GLANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, YOU HYPOCRITE!"

Yes, and women do run the risk of men staring, and if I cross the street I do run the risk of getting hit by a car. These are things that we accept could happen, and we consciously choose the option leading to them because we believe the advantages outweight the disadvantages. But that doesn't mean it is something we can't go against.

Of course we shouldn't deny that part of ourselves, but we should also try and limit it to the appropriate time and setting. We should also approach it with the appropriate mind set. What our society has done to sex is disgusting and intentionally showing off cleavage contributes to that empty, hollow view of sex. That manufactured, selfish, commercialized, manipulative, impersonal, hedonistic view of sex that messes with people's heads and warps them NEGATIVELY.

Also, how is being counterproductive not a bad thing? Did you read that before you typed it? have you seen the state of our world? We can't progress fast enough, broskie. Either way, of course that's all idealism talking and that's not going to happen. It's also not relevant to what we're debating.

yes, sex is great between two people who care more about one another than they care about their own personal pleasure or hang ups. Cleavage has nothing to do with the actual act of copulation, though. And sex is not directly related to what we were debating about. Though cleavage might help lead to some empty, hollow sex, I suppose.

I've played magic a bit, it's pretty fun. Either way, it's still not relevant, and if you're trying to get around to saying that a man is breaking a social taboo by staring at a woman's cleavage, I'm telling you it's an unfair taboo if the woman herself isn't breaking a taboo by intentionally showing off her cleavage to get a man to look. So of course, her having the right to yell at him because she's not breaking a taboo and he is is also stupid.

woah now, buddy, careful with your phrasing. There's nothing wrong with sexuality, don't try and generalize my statement like that. Also, your point was incorrect because I explained to you that this particular example is very specific and games can be both good and bad. Cleavage, on the other hand, has zero social and long term psychological benefits. It does do harm, though, so I consider it bad.

You consider it bad because you consider it empty and hollow and damaging. It's all just an opinion. You can state it having zero social and long term psychological benefits as a fact, but it's subjective, not in the least because 'benefits' is very subjective.

Anyway, I'm curious about another thing now: how do you feel about other forms of 'boasting', like driving a fancy-looking car, or wearing expensive designer's clothes or having designer's furniture?

really, because I'm pretty sure Black slaves got their rights and they won that argument. Pretty sure homosexuals are winning their argument too. How the majority thinks has nothing to do with something being right or wrong, so I don't think it's even a very good point in trying to say that neither of us can win this argument.

it's very apt. I've defended it and justified every aspect of it. That boy didn't choose to be bothered either, he just was bothered (it's kind of hard to choose to be bothered). Same way the girl didn't choose to be bothered either, she just was. Both of them are still being unfair and hypocritical. I'm glad you're starting to agree with me.

But why? Why is the boy bothered? It doesn't make much sense and therefore doesn't feel like it helps induce anything.

We're talking about a real-world phenomenom here, women being bothered by men staring. That doesn't mean men staring at anything is suddenly botherable and thus an apt analogy.

Moral codes, values and taboos are not exact science. Subjectivity, emotions, feelings, etc. play a role. You can't come up with an analogy in the abstract and then say what works for the one works for the other.

ificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please.

Well yeah that is kind of my entire point from the beginning. That what she's doing is not wrong =p

I'll just leave this here then. I'm not really using it as a point, but it was pretty hilarious and oddly relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ty4PhRWt1hU

Hi there! That's pretty funny =)

nope, still got it wrong, this time you just quoted everything but didn't change your response. I'm telling you that you need to go through and address EVERY single point I made, not just an aspect of that point or pick out whatever you deem little flaws. I know you didn't do this because the amount of text and sentences you wrote could in no way properly rebut the number of points and all the aspects of the points I know I made. Please try again. Also, I can see right now that some of your points are pretty bad, so this is your last chance to rework them.


to give an example, trying to rebut all of this


"artificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please."

by saying "well that was kind of my point from the beginning" not only makes no sense, but isn't nearly sufficient enough to actually be called a rebuttal to all the points made in that paragraph, especially when you clearly misinterpreted them. I'm really starting to suspect your willful ignorance (or misinterpretation) of important points combined with your own fallacious metaphors and several evasive tactics, e.g., partial quoting/responding, diverting the main point, pointless quotations that aren't actually applicable, done intentionally or otherwise, are indications that you're wasting my time here due to being incapable of holding a proper debate.

 

[tobyornottoby]

nope, still got it wrong, this time you just quoted everything but didn't change your response. I'm telling you that you need to go through and address EVERY single point I made, not just an aspect of that point or pick out whatever you deem little flaws. I know you didn't do this because the amount of text and sentences you wrote could in no way properly rebut the number of points and all the aspects of the points I know I made. Please try again. Also, I can see right now that some of your points are pretty bad, so this is your last chance to rework them.


to give an example, trying to rebut all of this


"artificially boosting your self esteem by encouraging men to view you as a purely sexual object, possibly occasionally sleeping with them to get some kind of visceral thrills, only to get old and realize it was all for nothing and now you're left emotionally bereft because you've been placing precedence on something hollow and superficial to begin with is a good reason? I must disagree, good sir. yes, not everything needs to be about progress, but the negatives aren't a "side effect". They ARE the effect. It's damaging to both her and the men she's titillating, whether she realizes it or not.

No, despite me saying it over and over, you still seem ill informed on what we're debating. I'm saying that woman is being unfair and hypocritical for intentionally displaying cleavage because she WANTS a man to look so she could feel good about herself (though it may very well make him feel uncomfortable), but then feels she has the right to yell at him when he stares because that makes her uncomfortable. That is wrong and that is what we're debating. It is specifically on whether or not she is being unfair on hypocritical (and thus whether or not he's justified in getting upset right back at her).

yes that's very nice, but it's not a proper rebuttal. It doesn't provide justification as to why she should be allowed to do what she's doing and not him. Note that you didn't bold her legal rights as if she's not doing anything wrong here.

I already consider both of them to be doing wrong, but it still doesn't give a good reason why either of them should be openly chastised in public, and especially not why just one of them should and not the other. Try again, please."

by saying "well that was kind of my point from the beginning" not only makes no sense, but isn't nearly sufficient enough to actually be called a rebuttal to all the points made in that paragraph, especially when you clearly misinterpreted them. I'm really starting to suspect your willful ignorance (or misinterpretation) of important points combined with your own fallacious metaphors and several evasive tactics, e.g., partial quoting/responding, diverting the main point, pointless quotations that aren't actually applicable, done intentionally or otherwise, are indications that you're wasting my time here due to being incapable of holding a proper debate.

Ah well, then I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm not going to do that.

You have made a lot of points in your last post, and I do not see it as fruitful to discuss every single one of them. Mainly because I still believe we are disconnected on a higher level, meaning discussing the actual subject matter is less useful, as we'll continue to not fully understand one another's points. We'll continue to talk at cross purposes (which is the closest English idiom I could find, http://www.english-at-home.com/idioms/talking-idioms/).

Whether this is simply because of my debating style (which is indeed, how I would describe it, more poetic and impulsive, or in game terms, more 'Paida' than 'Ludus') or because of differences in our judgmental systems or something else, I've been wondering. I'm not sure.

Either way, I've certainly been enjoying myself, and I hope you don't feel this as a waste of time in the end, and I wish you a good day/night =)

 

[axlryder]

Ah well, then I'm sorry but I'm afraid I'm not going to do that.

You have made a lot of points in your last post, and I do not see it as fruitful to discuss every single one of them. Mainly because I still believe we are disconnected on a higher level, meaning discussing the actual subject matter is less useful, as we'll continue to not fully understand one another's points. We'll continue to talk at cross purposes (which is the closest English idiom I could find, http://www.english-at-home.com/idioms/talking-idioms/).

Whether this is simply because of my debating style (which is indeed, how I would describe it, more poetic and impulsive, or in game terms, more 'Paida' than 'Ludus') or because of differences in our judgmental systems or something else, I've been wondering. I'm not sure.

Either way, I've certainly been enjoying myself, and I hope you don't feel this as a waste of time in the end, and I wish you a good day/night =)

We are not misunderstanding one another (or at least, I'm certainly not misunderstanding you). I have made the purpose of our discussion abundantly clear several times. If you still don't understand, than that falls on you and your own comprehension. Your debating 'style' is exactly what I said it was. You willfully ignore (or misinterpret) important points, use fallacious metaphors, use excessive partial quoting, attempt divert the main point, and employ pointless quotations that aren't actually applicable. If that is a style, I'd call it a poor one. I feel this attempt at a graceful bow out is merely you trying to save face (it would appear as such), but you can view it however you wish, as that is your prerogative. I consider it a forfeiture. This was kind of fun, however, and I'm glad you enjoyed yourself.