Lindisfarne wrote:
McNuke:
By making the comment "Defending a person isn't good scumhunting. "in this context it seemed to me that you are implying that being pro town means that one should always go with the majority even if you logically see that the person under fire is being attacked by what you see is a ill founded argument
wut?
That makes no sense. Elaborate please?
Now if someone is slinging weak attacks at a person, then you can attack the attacker's logic. That isn't defending, per se. It is coincidental that it will give the defender a reprieve, but you are aggressively weeding out bad logic, which could lead you to scum.
If someone is under attack, unless you KNOW they are town, stay neutral, unless the attacker is using weak logic in their argument. And even then, you attack the logic.
I hope that clears things at least a bit for you.
In the last line of my post I clearly make a comment that we are talking about an ill founded argument. It is after then that you persist to tell me that you should not defend unless someone is using "weak logic"...aka ill founded. Perhaps you did not get message in my post that I was talking about "in this context". By this I meant Isacc had been trying to make a point about the logic used to attack tyhess by saying that the premise of it was opionion and therefore "weak logic". So even by your own words it would make sense for him to state his opinion so by you claiming he was to defensive it was a logical conclusion for me to think that your version of "good scum hunting" was always agreeing with the majority.
"McNuke" wrote:Why do you find anything wrong with pointing out something more then once? It is very common to point out more then once that what you are saying is an opinion so that the point is clear that you are not trying to state facts. Personally it sounds more like you are just bashing on his post just because it has an opinion that is not the same as yours.
Argument by repetition. Why would anything NEED to be said more than once?
Well if you could not read it in my post then I will say it here in a hopefully easier to understand way. In longer posts that state more then one opinion it is common to restate that they were opinions to provoke thought and not facts that have no alternative. And you are right it was not NEEDED, but either is a period at the end of a sentence. In both cases though they are helpful for better communication.
"McNuke" wrote:I find the most suspicious action so far was how worked up Lindisfarne was of Isacc's opinion that contradicted him. It is one thing to counter the opposing opinion and another to say that someone should not go against you opinion.
"Lindisfarne" wrote:
how worked up I was of Isacc's opinion that contradicted me? What the shit are you talking about?
Well this talking about the same thing mentioned in your first comment towards me. From my point of view Isacc had stated his opinion that was rational and at the same time would disprove the so called "logic" used to attack tyhess in the case that it was true. By your own words you should attack weak logic, and in my experience the easiest way to attack logic is by stating a possible case that would disprove a premise and then the entire argument which his claim would do. So where I felt that you were getting worked up was that Isacc was doing exactly what you think someone should do when they feel there is weak logic, and yet you said he was not and being a bad scum hunter. To call someone that you had to have problems with the post.
"Lindisfarne" wrote:
Rogue:
This really seems like a much ado about nothing. Wall of text post after wall of text post on the tinyest things in a post is rather distracting from the big picture.
QFT. Lets go grab a beer.?
First you are trying to grill tyhess while other people are saying its not big deal move on, and then you say yea this guy gets that its no big deal which you agree with. Why the change of heart?
