| wholikeswood said:
@ Khuutra: You're a smart guy, so don't pointlessly ask him if he really, really, really believes his god-complex. It's tiring to read. If you're going to construct a strong riposte, then do it. Otherwise, let the thread die.
|
My apologies. I only meant that I suspect that it is a put-on,, and that he's been ttrolling the entire time. I do not mean to drag this out more than necessary.
Moving on then.
ZenFoldorVGI said:
Khuuta, to be honest sir or madam, I didn't read your first post.
I wish that this was more surprising than it actually is, but I can't bring myself to pretend that I didn't expect it already. You realize, at this point, that I could just throw the entire rest of your posts out of the window, since you've invalidated them by replying to me without addressing any part of my argument? If this were a debate, you would have just forfeited. That's either hilarious or depressing.
I didn't create this topic for serious debate, in all honesty.
Then what did you make it for? What's your intent? Were you just trolling the entire time? That is the vibe I am getting, here, especially if you didn't make the topic for the sake of discussion.
You are a very persistent poster. You are using an age old baiting technique, trying to trap me into a serious argument spiteful words, where my OP will immediately be diminished by simple and unimportant clarifications. I was you, once.
.... Man, what?
Look. There's nothing spiteful in my dissection of your post, nor is there spite in pointing out that your post is flimsy at best and pointlessly inflammatory at worst. Pulling you in to defend your viewpoints it's being spiteful, it's asking for some qualification of previously unqualified conjecture. This is not an unreasonable request to make of a body.
Moving on.
You are doing a few things that are absolutely atrocious, however, and the first is consistently insulting my grammar.
I'm not sure you know what "insult" means, though my correction of your use of colloquialisms is rather obnoxious and for that I apologize. However, I am clarifying that I am apologizing for participating in behavior that may be obnoxious: I never "insulted (your) grammar" and am not admitting to that. I simply corrected you. There is a difference.
The last refuge of a scoundrel is to deflate and attempt to publicity humiliate an opponent in a debate by addressing their verbage.
Okay.
Okay, okay, I know I said it was out of bounds before, but this is a bit much. Look up "verbage" on dictionary.com or something.
You know that is out of bounds bullshit sir or madam, and it's also a shameful admission of inadequacy when addressing the true content of an opposing viewpoint(but according to you, my viewpoint completely out of my ass, and shouldn't exist, for the most part).
I am not attacking your viewpoints by means of your misuse of colloquialisms. Do not be ridiculous. That is at best an side which is unrelated to the (im)material content of your previous posts.
Moving on.
In this case you're using my adequate grammar as bait and it worked, so it doesn't totally destroy our discussion, but cut that shit out now or I will put you on ignore and you and I both know you'd never get over that little insult, because I know you. I carry your heart with me.
...Do you realize there's no ignore feature on this site?
How far are you willing to take this conversation, exactly, when you claim that you "carry [my] heart with [you]"? Do you read the things you say or do you just type them out because they sound cool? I am not invested in you in any way, I'm invested in the conversation and pointing out how fallacious your reasoning is in nearly all cases.
As for your questionss, I will glance back over them.
Somehow, I have my doubts.
This doesn't change the fact that the original point of that post wasn't in its questions, which would be that i was invitign you to speak, it would be in its statements, whereby your original statements were torn down. It's an invitation only to explain yourself and the fault stuff you wrote.
You are exactly right, I say, without pointing out your typos and poking fun of your dialect, clothes, and checking account balance in the process. It is perfectly true, and as valid as any other opinion. This thread is an opinion piece, btw.
Ah, here's the rub.
Not all opinions are equally valid, and no, pretending that there is actually a moralistic side to busienss decisions is not "true".
Of course, no opinion is going to be "true". God, this is a real mess now, innit?
The problem here is that in equating business decisions with any moral scale that you are applying an untenable set of standards to a process which is inherently non-moralistic. Sorry. That's just how it is. It's like calling a storm evil, or trying to claim that a rattlesnake had something against you in particular. Even if one of those two things kill you, they didn't mean anything by it. Don't confuse "effect" with "agency", it does nothing but hurt your arguments.
Next, you implied that I was stealth trolling, and that the opinion piece was specifically meant to piss Sony fanboys off. You assume, at your peril sir.
What peril, exactly? You've said you weren't debating, here. What else is this for?
You then imply that I can't have it both ways. Opinion and generally accepted truths are mutually exclusive.
Whoa there, that ain't it at all, don't know where you got
this particular idea (it is a bad one). "Generally accepted" has nothing to do with the truth, in the first place, and "truth" and opinions aren' mutually exclusive just because they tend to have almost no correlation whatsoever.
Not only that, I didn't imply anything: you really can't have it both ways. You can't pretend that all opinions are subjective and then pretend that there's an objective standard that people have to adhere to. Objectvity and subjectivity aren't mutually exclusive, but adherence to one or the other is, and holding to subjectivity for your own opinions while holding others to an objective standard isn't just a double-standard, it's hypocritical.
Well, sir, I'm a realist.
Not really.
I'm not arguing using an ideology.
The worst part of this line is that I'm almost positive that you don't realize how intellectually bankrupt it is to claim that you are arguing outside of an ideology.
No matter what perspective you speak from and no matter what you're trying to say, every argument is rooted in a perspective, whether it's one that assumes the truth or one that (more self-aware than the aforementioned) merely attempts to put forth a certain idea. Every argument is bound up in ideology, even if it's only the ideology of how to formulate arguments. I don't even know what you're trying to say here, because the words you used literally do not make any sense in the order you arranged them.
Could it be that you're trying to claim that you're arguing from an objective perspective? No, that would be nonsensical.
I'm attempting to speak to an audience on what exactly the current state of the gaming industry is,
Oh Lord you actually did it
and if I delve into two different dimensions of the human psyche,
This... does not mean anything. You are using phrases that don't mean anything and it distresses me.
then that is no reason to pointlessly flame me.
Point out one time that I have flamed you. I will apologize on the spot.
You are angry, you simply show it differently. Your icy approach to flaming mirror's my fire and fury. When the fire in me, meets the ice in you, what could be left but wet ashes?
...That makes no sense.
In the first place it makes no sense because it's a confused visual metaphor: fire doesn't exist on its own, you're just talking about a chemical reaction tkaing place in a piece of matter. Ice of comparable volume would put out most fires. The only thing that gets rid of ice is time and environmental temperature differences.
Secondly, why on Earth are you trying to frame my arguments in relation to your own, when you haven't even really framed your own arguments? Do my arguments somehow reflect yours? How? In what way are they related? By what methodology do you come to this conclusion?
On the degree of PS3 fan celebration, I hold no sway over that. Take my advice or not. I give it freely. Implying, once again, that my post is about Sony fandom and its evils is missing the point, and you know it.
Then your post isn't actually about anything in particular?
You continue to insist that you are stating facts, but you aren't: you are making value judgements concerning moralistic standards that can't be applied in the contexts of which you speak. Past that, what exactly did you talk about bsides Sony fandom? At no point have you tried to extropolate on any of your previous points.
Next, you ignorantly
There's that word again.
claimed that since my opinion isn't based in fact, that it ceases to be a valid opinion. That is incorrect. Opinions are very seldom based in fact. If they were, they would be fact.
All right I didn't think I would have to use this again so soon, excuse me.
An opinion by definition is an educated summation of the facts into a coherent whole, an interpretation of a given set of data that allows one to analyze data in non-obvious ways! Opinions are never fact, because they cannot be fact by definition of the word, but they are always based in fact because otherwise they are not opinions in that sense.
"Opinion" is not somek ind of shield you can use to defend unqualified and unsubstantiated presuppositions about the workings of a given data set! Hell, you haven't even produced a data set, you're just talking into the wind!
As for the majority of my OP, it was actually very valid and based around what are imo, commonly held assumptions
Commonly held assumptions neither constitute opinions nor imply proper interpretations of data sets! I would say that you're doing nothing but making blind shots in the dark, but that would imply that you're performing some guesswork as to the function of something, but you aren't even doing that beecause up o this point you haven't actually made any conjecture as to the function of a givenset of data.
You are posting nothing but insubstantiated claims about a given library and the people who support it. That isn't even opinion, it's just stirring the embers.
(let me stop a minute and comment on how you've changed the discussion from specifics to my general behavior, which is a great move, but wouldn't help you in a real debate).
I did no such thing. Everything to which I have referred so far is somehting intrinsic to the posts made in this topic, and I have not brought up past behaviors into this except to point out that your particular debating stlye does not merit the kind of bragging that you do.
You are simply focusing on the parts of the OP you find to be weak, rather than the strong bits,
In the first place, if I did this, it would be completely acceptable because that is how debate works: you attack the weaknesses in your opponent's argument, not the strong bits. Anything that is fallacious is a weak bit.
In the second place, wrong. I quoted and replied to every single statement in the original post of this topic. No sentence was left unexamined and I replied to every single line that you posted. There are no exceptions.
which revolve around Blu-Ray, and then the probable inability of the console to finish in second place this generation.
You didn't say anything about blu-ray except using it as "proof" of a moralistic interpretation of Sony's behavior, which is ridiculous to the point of absurdity, and the "probably inability of the console to finish in second place" has nothing to do with anything except for the operative assumption that you have an idea abou how much Sony fans should be celebrating, which is fallacious.
As for my opinion, I think it is quite astute,
Astuteness implies some degree of sagacity, and in debate it implies a high-quality interpretation of a data set. You have not interpreted anything whatsoever.
but you've proven the type of debater who would go out of your way to attack your opponent's IQ instead of their content, so I'll leave my ego in check for this single post.
Again, I have done nothing of the sort. To attack your IQ would be about like calling you stupi, and I have never done that. I don't believe you're stupid. You just made a very bad OP and have failed to either defend it or to better qualify the arguments that you expressed therein.
As for your flaming, granted it is passive-aggressive, but it is much more apparent than the flaming you implied my OP was filled with.
Que?
You keep confusing me.
For the record, I DID make this OP for you. Perhaps I mis-spoke, perhaps not, but my meaning was obviously misunderstood. I didn't mean I made this for PS3 defenders, fanboys, or owners. I meant I made it for the forum police. I made it for people who would not have such ugly things said outloud. I made it for the people it would piss off, and you certainly personify that poster. I made it for you. It always was.
So you were trolling the entire time.
To be honest, it just seems like you're trying to use misdirection and verbage to marginalize a thread that is chock-full of valid and obvious points, which is as we both know, exactly what you are doing.
If you had made valid points I would not be able to attack them.
You might dazzle your choir with large words and insignificant quips about my grammar, but you shame yourself with your performance, which is a shame.
"Performance"? Who do you think I'm performing for? I'm talking to
you.
You are capable of much more. You're smart, I'll give you that, but you're imprecise. You would kill a gnat with a hammer, and you lose your meaning in lengthy and unnecessary baiting tactics.
...Man. What. I have been replying to your posts. That's all I've been doing.
No offense intended, but if I don't impress you as a debater, then you probably don't know what to look for.
Feel free to try again, but this time, start all the way over. Don't focus on pages ago retorts you thought were good, that no one read. You have the power to defeat me, you just don't have the strength.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
