Assuming bad faith is not a good way to make progress in an argument.
Progress? Have you not been reading this thread? There IS no progress. It's also not much of an assumption, but rather one of the only things process of elimination has left me with.
Assuming bad faith while accusing the other person of having a psychological disorder is a [/i]worse[/i] way to make progress in an argument.
Technically, I was saying that the only concievable method of this still being good faith is simple inability to communicate like a normal human. Again, you have quite successfully halted all progress in this thread, to the point where other threads sprang up to circumvent your blocking of progress.
As I've said before, you are clearly not open to discussion, you are either incapable of or unwilling to make any sort of reactions to or concessions to other points of view, as has been stated by others in this thread.
This, in turn, means that there will BE no progress.
What I said in the last time I left this thread still holds true: You hold completely different values for this game than we do, and are unwilling to aknowledge that this will continue to set us at cross purposes, to the point where it seems a forgone conclusion that we are never going to agree.
Once it became clear you were impervious to such arguments, and would continue repeating the same things ad infinitum, this whole thing became quite tedious, and my responses were out of something like common courtesy to at least read what someone had been writing. When you go about saying that we are disagreeing only because we are incapable of understanding your argument, that just goes straight out the window.
But hey, just for funsies, let's revisit this little gem:
If it was satirical of what I was saying, then it was poor satire, as it doesn't really make a very good analogy (as I've just shown).
Saying that what I had said is either not satire or not good satire because you don't recognize it is a little like saying that Star Wars must be a terrible movie because you've never seen it, and if it were good, it would be popular, and if it were popular, you would have seen it, therefore, it must be a bad movie.
Now then, remember, to maintain character, you have to blithely ignore my multiple mentions of things like "metaphors" or my direct use of similie in that last paragraph.
I'm not sure why. You were making a point (satirically) against what I was saying, so I further explored it seriously, including the differences between the examples in your strawman and what I was actually saying. The fact that you were being "satirical" doesn't change that. The way I figure, you were satirizing what I was saying by using an example that seems to follow the same logic as what I was saying, but with more obviously silly reasons, and I was trying to examine whether or not that actually held water.
What? Are we saying we are capable of recognizing metaphor, now? Isn't that breaking character a little? Well, let's just look back at what you actually said...
Regarding art, that gets more into a notion of styles, and different dwarves depicting different things in different ways, which goes far beyond practical considerations. The way you're describing things is more about differences in styles than about drawing different things; you're describing artwork that evokes different styles/emotions entirely. After all, if you felt like it, you could draw a goblin in a glorious, sympathetic manner or a dwarf in a menacing, snarling manner. It's less about knowing how to draw different objects (if you know how to draw a dwarf you'll know how to draw a goblin, assuming you know what the two look like, unless you're an artist of EXTREMELY specialized technical skill, and specialized in a really weird way), and more about knowing how to draw them to different effect.
Granted, there's some truth to what you say there anyhow, in that for vastly different things (landscapes vs. people, abstract shapes vs. historical events), you might be good at one and not at others. Of course, it's also possible to, say, draw a historical person in a really bizarre and abstract manner, too, so that only goes so far. The situation is weird with art, because damn near anything is possible, since the purpose is purely aesthetic and largely arbitrary. I'm honestly not sure how I'd handle specialization for that sort of thing.
Now, where, exactly, in that is recognition of metaphor? What was the comparison I was making? How was I making a satirical remark? Please, prove to me that you can point it out.
Seriously, you're the one assuming bad faith, yet I've been trying to talk about this seriously and make points about it. If anyone here is arguing in bad faith, it's the person avoiding rational discussion by saying the other person must have a mental disorder (I seriously take offense to this) or must be trying to be intentionally difficult. Seriously, don't make personal attacks or bizarre accusations against me. Just don't. It doesn't help anything. Just because you're frustrated in an argument doesn't mean the other person has a psychiatric disorder or is trying to intentionally act like an idiot.
No, I am concluding that, for whatever reason, you are impossible to reason with. You are incapable of communicating like a human, which either means you are a synthetic lifeform that can't quite pass the Turing Test, have some kind of language disability, or else are simply faking it so as not to have to engage in conversation like a human, and hope that by blithely ignoring other people's arguments, or pretending not to understand them, you can eventually "win" by default when everyone else has given up on arguing with you.
Considering as you are capable of passing yourself off fairly well in other conversations, I'm guessing the latter is the most likely explanation.
Author
Topic: Coopers (Read 11205 times)