Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ochita]

Oh god, that must felt so good.
.

[Vector]

Oh god, that must felt so good.
.

... You're right, I am pretty happy about it >_<  Thank you, Ochita =)

[Ochita]

Hey, I didn't do the verbal smackdown.
_{Truth be told I'm not very good at debating..}

[Rose]

Hey, you're probably better than me.

I just tend to go "Yup, you're right."

[Deviled]

Nakar's LP of Ultima. It is hilarious.

[Akura]

_{Truth be told I'm not very good at debating..}

_{So you're no master debater?}

[Simmura McCrea]

_{Truth be told I'm not very good at debating..}

_{So you're no master debater?}

Seems Vector is. And a cunning linguist, from what I've heard.

_{Sorry. Couldn't help it.}

[Darvi]

You are so silly xD

[Nadaka]

Oh god, that must felt so good.
.

... You're right, I am pretty happy about it >_<  Thank you, Ochita =)

Wouldn't it have been more satisfying if you had to overcome a well mounted defense and then did so successfully?

[Rilder]

RASCALS, DO YOU WANT TO LIVE FOREVER?!
-Frederick II of Prussia

On that note, for some reason I've gotten back into Empire Total War a bit. Heh, I guess I just like Muskets >.>

[SHAD0Wdump]

Were-salami.

[Vector]

Wouldn't it have been more satisfying if you had to overcome a well mounted defense and then did so successfully?

It was a well-mounted defense.  It was, indeed, a defense that I had already employed and overcome in my own learning some month and a half ago, and a defense employed by hipsters, depressed people, and existentialists everywhere.  As such, my ability to trounce his entire entrenched argument in one post made me rather pleased, especially because I was rather sick at the time.

[Cthulhu]

Are you going to tell us the story?

I only debate when I know I'll win.

[scriver]

Yeah, Vector, you really need to give us more than that now. What was the defense? By what did you breach those walls?

[Vector]

It was the "arguing is pointless because we'll never get anywhere" argument (applied smugly), to which I applied the "well, actually, there may be no absolute metric of 'anywhere' but there are in fact relative metrics which we can agree upon and declare important--and your 'no position' is actually a position, doodabuddy.  It just happens to be an extraordinarily weak and unempowering one, which returns every argument to an argument about arguing that we have already proven unresolvable.

So, right or wrong, pick a different position and fight for it.  Diversify our concept of what is real through adding to the available narratives.  There is no truth.  Seek it lovingly."

That was pretty much it.  Of course, these arguments took up a few paragraphs of space apiece on a different internet forum, so this is a sort of condensation and vague mirroring of what we really wrote.  So far, though, it seems like a more scientifically-minded/logical/interesting response than "have faith because everything will be all right," so I suppose I'm fairly pleased with it.  Every test can be found problematic, and that finding of problems in such a way is by no means transgressive.  The more mature argument likely entails an attempt to salvage what is usable from a text, or to create understanding from the errors of what has already been found... a Socratic dialogue with a focus on building and bricolage, rather than destruction based on minor contradictions.