RR wrote:Our arugments aren't different in nature. While you obviously think yours are stronger and I the opposite, we aren't basing them on anything but "motive suspicions". The is no magic ingredient that causes your theory to be inherently stronger than mine, as you seem to imply by using words like "convinced".
Yes, they are different in nature. I used my suspicions over your motives as my starting point, but that is not my only argument for your scumminess. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
RR wrote:
It's up to the town to decide whose actions were scummier.
QFT
RR wrote:Fark wrote:And you say "him", as if you already had someone in mind. Who were you thinking about at that point? (Not QoS, obviously)
I'd just like to point out that this semantic argument is far fetched to the extreme.
Uhm, it's not an argument. It's a question. A question you seem reluctant to answer. Let me re-phrase it. Were you thinking of anyone in particular, and if so, who?
RR wrote:Fark wrote:you have deemed my poor defense of my motives to be further proof of my scumminess, even though by definition, there is no way for me to adequately defend my motives, short of my death.
If there isn't, just say you have no way to defend it (which is no shame at all, sometimes there isn't) instead of defending yourself using appeal to emotion.
That is exactly what I did here, when asked why I investigated Jenter:
Farkshinsoup wrote:
I've never played with anyone here, so I just picked my N0 investigation randomly. To be honest, his name just stuck out to me. Obviously no way to convince you of that, but there it is.
You keep calling me out on arguments that I have not made ( my supposed "appeal to emotion"), and conveniently failing to acknowledge the things that I have posted (the above admission that I can't really defend my motives). It's a good way to portray someone as scum, but I'm not just going to roll over and let you get away with it.
RR wrote:Fark, a couple of sentences later wrote:...You rarely seem to make any arguments, or
refute any arguments against you
...
This stands in direct contradiction to the quote just above it.
1) You attack me for attacking your poor defense of arguments that can't be refuted (though again, you really should've said they can't be refuted originally instead of trying to defend yourself via appeal to emotion).
2) You attack my lack of defense against arguments
of the very same nature.
There is no contradiction. I am challenging your misrepresentation and poor arguments, not your motives. You have not even attempted to defend any part of your arguments, you just dismiss my challenges.
And again, I did say that I couldn't defend my motives, as I have shown with the above quote, so you're clearly trying to cloud the issue with yet another straw man. And as I pointed out, the arguments are not of the same nature.
RR wrote:
Fark wrote:...because I held and expressed a minority opinion, that made me scum. This is a poor reason to find someone scummy.
That opinion was minority for a reason - it's bad for the town.
As I stated in my original post responding to Aimless's arguments against me: That is an opinion, not a fact. Can you prove that my original idea was bad for town? Of course not. You yourself even admitted that you originally thought it might be a good idea.
A while ago, you stated this:
RR wrote:As for Fark's case on me, his two supposed contradictions look to me like clear attempts of clinging to trivialities. If anyone else takes it seriously, I'll be happy to defend myself.
I think, since Korlash has some doubts about you, that it's time for you to put forward this defense. Or were you just hoping that the clock would run out and you wouldn't have me challenging you anymore? Please try defending yourself against my ACTUAL arguments this time, I think that would be helpful.