MrMcDoll wrote...
Amioran is using the typical first year philosophy student argument of utilising subjectivism in defense of a proposition.
Thank you for not understanding anything at all of what my original post mean and what it tries to do. If you are curious just skip to the end, I will say that to you in clear words, so you can understand (I wanted to use philosophical terms and with your knowledge because you would *surely* comprehend it, but then I finished the patience for sarcasm).
You are really an expert, I see, of the things you talk about.
Sadly this is not the place or I would be more than happy to make you see that what you talk about has NOTHING to do with what I wrote. But I suspect that you just like to bring imponents subjects that have nothing to do with the context of the argument just so you can look as having a knowledge about these things in the eyes of others.
Well, with me it doesn't work. I don't mind at all if you quote Cartesio if then you don't either understand what Cartesio was writing about and correlating things that have nothing in common just to look knowledgeable, because the result is actually the opposite. While being ignorant on some things can be more than acceptable, trying to look as an erudite misplacing completely concepts it is not.
MrMcDoll wrote...
In this case however, s/he has decided that subjective viewpoint is not a good enough viewpoint is never going to be a satisfactory reason for arguing your point. S/he is demanding objective facts, then setting the bar for actual objective claims so high that they are indefinable, thus "winning" his/her argument.
Return to the kindergarten, child, you belong there it seems. I don't care at all about "winning" an argument, especially here. I only care to try to let see the thing from another point of view to people here that care only about their opinion without considering minimally the one of others.
Evidently the fact that I proved you wrong did hit your ego hard and you try (yourself, not me) to put the things on a place where you can control them better.
If you really had something to prove me wrong you would have done so in the arguments I proposed (either to you personally) instead of starting this diatribe on "what I meant to do", diverting all the debate on philosophical grounds that have all another scope.
You seem to me like one of these "conspiracy guys", always prone to find hidden motivations behind the modus operandi of others, and that in the end find followers only on those that are either more paranoid than themselves are, while people with a little of brain can understand immediately that the only thing of concrete in their arguments is just the use of words they don't either understand the meaning in full used in a completely foreign context.
MrMcDoll wrote...
His/Her "objective" fact that justifies an ending retconn or additional endings are never going to exist because anything to do with anyone's opinion or statistical analyses are going to be labelled "subjective."
If they are, certainly, or do you pretend that I have to tell you that they are not just to make you happy?
For now all you, and others, proposed, are clearly subjective parameters, as opinion (or do you want to tell me that opinion is objective now?). There's not a single thing you have said that proved objective.
Morover a change as that of the ending is necessarily based on subjective parameters, because it is based on pure opinion.
It is not me that pretend a change based on pure subjective parameters, but you. Now instead you want to let me pass me as the one doing a thing as that.
MrMcDoll wrote...
What He/She fails to realise is that using subjective logic and actually arguing it reductio ad absurdum means that EVERYTHING is a subjective opinion on the truth value of any proposition ever, and that in that case the only thing we can get close to as objective fact is repeatable, empirical data - or in other words, repeatable trends in subjectivity.
First of all, stop talking to the audience, you are not in some kind of pedestal making a lecture. Address the thing to me.
Secondly stop using that "reductio ad absurdum" that you just learned an hour ago from wikipedia because you could say the same thing with less words in your language. You don't need to use latin to say a thing that you can say with less words with your mother language if not to try to look literate in front of others. You just look as a pompous idiot to those that know otherwise.
Thirdly all you talk about makes no sense at all. You are doing a rant based on your pure "conspiracy theory" and nothing more. If you can provide some OBJECTIVE date on which Bioware could base the change than I'm all ears. Until then, and if you continue to propose subjective data (as opinion), I'm sorry for you but I will not say that it's objective just so you can look good at whoever you are trying to look good with this rant.
MrMcDoll wrote...
In the case of ME3's endings there are actual statistically measured trends visibly showing that the subjective opinions of a visible majority want more than just "clarification."
And I imagine that these "statistics" trends are these forums, youtube, metacritics etc.? Are you seriously kidding me? Do you really believe that those "statistics" have some kind of objectivity behind them and than they reflect what it is the real opinion of people?
You pretend that I'm basing my arguments on a pure semantic attempt but then, as evidence of this, you bring upon youtube and metacritic as evidence of statistical data. Do you get how asinine a thing as this look from the outside?
MrMcDoll wrote...
Unfortunately, regardless of the avenues pursued by anyone in this thread, the OP has decided that they are much much more intelligent and reasonable than anyone else (self proclaimed humble pie even) and as such we could never hope to compete with their intellect, or truly comprehend their perspecti... oh crap... I've figured it out.
That you cannot compare with my intellect it is not something that I need a thread to understand.
Thank you again for bringing the thread off-topic with your "conspiracy theories" (OMG, all this rant just to say a thing that could be said with 2 sentences at max, you really wanted to have your "holier than thou" war on me, so that you could, in your mind, be at my supposed level, isn't it?).
If you have not yet understood all the point of the original post is to make people ponder a little about the word "tolerance" and its meaning, not only on the theorical aspect of the same (that's easy to do).
Naturally you preferred to see the thing as an attack to your beloved "ending hate" and tried all you can, since your ego was hurt by something I said, to come "on par" with me in some way. Since you couldn't do it directly you started your lecture from a pedestal to the audience, with your "big words" thrown in the middle (comptletely outside their context) to look good and trying to have something to say. It had nothing to do with the thread, but whatever, the important thing is trying to have a point, isn't it?
Sorry, child, I care anything at all about you and I'm never offended by the behaviour of others, simply because I don't care minimally about them (with others it is naturally included also me).
P.S: As you see I lost a lot of time to reply to you. This was done intentionally since this will be the last reply to you. I'm sorry but simply I cannot take you seriously after this.
Modifié par Amioran, 01 mai 2012 - 01:30 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
