Philosophical Vegan Forum

EquALLity wrote:So, basically, you're closed-minded. You won't stop until you're the victor- AKA this is about your ego, not reaching a real conclusion. Obviously there's nothing I can do to convince you you're wrong about something if the discussion's goal for you is you being right, so there's no point in responding to you, especially when you just can't/don't want to understand my points, and keep saying things that have nothing to do with my points while ignoring the points, misrepresenting things etc. etc..

Ironically, you probably think this makes you "the winner".

Not sure how the sarcasm slipped under your radar.

Red, summarize EquALLity's position in such a way that she will agree that you have correctly articulated her position.

EquALLity, summarize Red's position in such a way that he will agree that you have correctly articulated his position.

Whoever does this first is most likely right, because you have understood the other person's position, and still believe your own position is correct. This is a good rule of thumb; e.g. also true for creation and evolution, wherein those who believe in creationism do not understand evolution, yet those who accept evolution understand the creationist position.

I accept that challenge.

I said that EquALLity made a shit game, and she was irritated that I just gave a "blew it sucks" initial response. She says that the criticism should be constructive, especially in most cases. She also thinks I'm a prick for not giving an appropriate response. She also brings up not being obligated to play a game, since it's on an intenet forum.

That's the majority of it, so I think that's good enough.

RedAppleGP wrote:I accept that challenge.

I said that EquALLity made a shit game, and she was irritated that I just gave a "blew it sucks" initial response. She says that the criticism should be constructive, especially in most cases. She also thinks I'm a prick for not giving an appropriate response. She also brings up not being obligated to play a game, since it's on an intenet forum.

That's the majority of it, so I think that's good enough.

You left out the part about honesty and that you thought brimstone was saying the value of a game is completely subjective.

I don't think you're a prick because you didn't give an 'appropriate response', I think you're a prick because you called me dishonest and started a ridiculous argument.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Red, summarize EquALLity's position in such a way that she will agree that you have correctly articulated her position.

EquALLity, summarize Red's position in such a way that he will agree that you have correctly articulated his position.

Whoever does this first is most likely right, because you have understood the other person's position, and still believe your own position is correct. This is a good rule of thumb; e.g. also true for creation and evolution, wherein those who believe in creationism do not understand evolution, yet those who accept evolution understand the creationist position.

I don't even think that's true. You can be aware of someone's points without understanding the reasoning behind them,

From my understanding, his points are:
1) It doesn't matter if the criticism is constructive or not originally, I should've just asked for constructive criticism.
2) He wasn't calling me dishonest when he said I would lie in a certain situation, apparently.
3) Part of your post about him being right was saying that the value of a game is subjective, as opposed to that it doesn't matter if you've made games when it comes to critiquing them.
4) It's reasonable for him to complain I posted the game, even though the only reason he didn't understand it was because he didn't feel like reading my entire original post, and because he was curious to play the game.

EquALLity wrote: You left out the part about honesty and that you thought brimstone was saying the value of a game is completely subjective.

That wasn't really all that important.

EquALLity wrote:I don't think you're a prick because you didn't give an 'appropriate response', I think you're a prick because you called me dishonest and started a ridiculous argument.

I said you may have been sarcastic.

RedAppleGP wrote:

EquALLity wrote: You left out the part about honesty and that you thought brimstone was saying the value of a game is completely subjective.

That wasn't really all that important.

EquALLity wrote:I don't think you're a prick because you didn't give an 'appropriate response', I think you're a prick because you called me dishonest and started a ridiculous argument.

I said you may have been sarcastic.

I don't know if you're too dense to understand what you actually wrote or if you just aren't being honest.

You wrote: "That was an insult. Unless you're being sarcastic, but if you weren't now you're going to act as if you were."
Yes, you were saying I might've been sarcastic... And you said that if I wasn't being sarcastic that I'd pretend I was (AKA lying). It's completely transparent; I can't even believe you're trying to dispute this.

RedAppleGP wrote: I love how you say that and not provide any evidence for it.

Except I did, and you literally quoted it right below that.

RedAppleGP wrote:brimstone didn't say that?

No idea what this means.

Brimstone wrote a paragraph about what you got right. Why, in that paragraph, would he say you were right about a point that you never made?

RedAppleGP wrote:Which ones?

Like I said before, read the first sentence of his paragraph.

RedAppleGP wrote:Before you said I might be calling you dishonest, but now you're saying I am undoubtedly calling you dishonest?

I didn't change my opinion about this; I always thought you were calling me dishonest. Not 'undoubtedly', but it's what I think based on what you said.

RedAppleGP wrote:I have a feeling you're doing that right now.

So, basically, you have no idea what I meant in that section.

Not sure how else to explain it.

RedAppleGP wrote: I said you may be sarcastic if you were trying to piss me off. Go back and read the posts.

I know. It's completely irrelevant.

You said that if I wasn't being sarcastic that I would lie about being sarcastic. What is confusing about whether or not this is calling me dishonest?

RedAppleGP wrote:Evidence?

It's not consistent because there's no reason to "get the last laugh" if you weren't offended by something.
It's immature because it's "getting the last laugh".

RedAppleGP wrote:Evidence?

I said: "What is with this idea that name calling is so bad anyway? If you're being a prick, and I call you a prick, it's worse that you were being a prick than it is that I called you one."
You responded: "It's uncalled for, and immature."

When you say a certain action is uncalled for and immature, and don't clarify that you only mean in a specific case, it seems like you're saying it's always immature.
You're original point was also that I was being immature because I called you names first, before you called me any, which doesn't take into consideration the other context.

RedAppleGP wrote:I know, I'm not arguing that (even though I wasn't really being all that obnoxious). But was I obligated?

...Wait, so you know you should've given constructive criticism now? That's not what you were saying before.

And now that you understand that, your response is that even though you should've, you aren't obligated? *facepalm*

RedAppleGP wrote:What if I didn't care to?

That's on you for being too lazy to understand something completely before you comment on it, when all you had to do was read some sentences.

RedAppleGP wrote:Again, I was curious. Should I just resist? Plus, you wouldn't get any constructive criticism if I didn't play.

Ok, so you were curious. That's irrelevant; the point is that nobody forced you to play, so it doesn't make sense to complain about that I was posting it on a free forum.

EquALLity wrote:I don't know if you're too dense to understand what you actually wrote or if you just aren't being honest.

You're calling me dense? Oh the irony.

EquALLity wrote:You wrote: "That was an insult. Unless you're being sarcastic, but if you weren't now you're going to act as if you were."
Yes, you were saying I might've been sarcastic... And you said that if I wasn't being sarcastic that I'd pretend I was (AKA lying). It's completely transparent; I can't even believe you're trying to dispute this.

What you're saying is that you can't understand what I'm saying, is that it?

RedAppleGP wrote:You're calling me dense? Oh the irony.

"I know you are but what am I?!?!111"

RedAppleGP wrote:What you're saying is that you can't understand what I'm saying, is that it?

It's so obvious what you meant that I really don't know what to say.