Rifneno wrote...
You know what else is annoying? People who dismiss things without understanding them, then cry when their blanket statements are pointed out as incorrect because of their ignorance.
That's you, in case I was being too subtle.
Seriously what ignorance, someone's belief or disbelief of a 'theory' is not ignorance nor any statements made in light of that belief system is an indication of ignorance. Someone has the right to choose to believe in IT or not believe in IT. That choice is not a reflection of their understanding or lack there of.
I don't dismiss IT, I choose to not believe in it, and make my arguements based on that disbelief. If you disagree with my statement that clearly say you disagree with my statement because IT does offer you another view to the ending. Don't say, I am incorrect because I don't understand a theory I don't care to believe in.
Last I check this was a discussion about control... not IT, and my inital post was about the Catalyst's nature which effects ones decision about Control. Obviously believing IT will also have an effect on what someone will choose, but my discussion doesn't factor that nor do I want to factor it. I did edit the original post to indicate IT followers will have a different interpertation. But again, that is not my own.
Rifneno wrote...
No wonder you don't understand it. You can't even understand a simple concept like "it's not about IT, it's about your stupid blanket statement that all paths require believing in the 'catalyst's BS."
Hmmm, why is my statement BS? Lets scroll up. Actually Bill countered my arguement was exactly that, my statement was incorrect because I don't understand IT. Sorry to say, it is about IT. I pointed out I don't care for IT, and as I said before not caring about IT doesn't mean ignorance or lack of understanding, it only means you just don't believe in it.
You statement also shows you didn't read a thing I wrote. I clearly state that (outside of IT, assuming everything I say doesn't involve IT), you have to believe the choices are real to make any of them. You can disbelieve and disagree with the Catalyst (I personally think it's bat sh** insane), heck you can even distrust it. But to believe that the endings (any endings) will happen as told without hindsight (or a belief in IT) one has to believe it speaks the truth about the choices. Otherwise you are stuck in a oh f*** moment.
It also shows none one considers maybe I do understand IT, but decided I don't believe in it nor will I make arguements to factor its possibility (that is the role of IT supporters to do). Obviously if you do believe in IT you will disagree with me. However, instead of disagreeing with my statment it is attacked like it was made in ignorance. In your case, blantant attacks to my intelligence and further offensive attacks to my statements.
At no point did I say my statements can not be disagreed with nor did I ever present my statements more than an opinion. I admit that I do not consider IT valid and the statement is made under that model. I even acknowledge that IT followers will have an alternative view and even edited the original post to indicate that.
Neither have I insulted any IT believers, if my disbelief of your theory is concieved as an attack then I apologise. It is not intended as such. I just don't believe in IT, it is simple as that, if you do believe in it then it is your choice. I do stand by my comment that some IT believers do act like String Theory Physicist, and those that do aren't cool. Coming in and forcing your theory on people that don't believe it is rude.
Yet you Rifneno, feels compelled to insult me directly...
Modifié par Madecologist, 22 décembre 2012 - 10:27 .
Retour en haut
Then they claim anyone who doesn't buy their theory is ignorant, dumb and short-sighted. That is to be expexted though, because that's common behavior for any type of conspiracy theorist. Us non-believers are always the blind and ignorant onces. 
