|
|
|
| Caedus_16 wrote: |
| Statement 2. The argument I was referring to was in the Plagueis thread, where you lost |
And here we come to the crux of the situation. Who says that I "lost"? Who decided this? Majority opinion? You? How did you get the power to choose "winners" and "losers"?
I think you mean that my position is deemed unacceptable because a number of people grouped together in a specific location don't agree with it. But this, of course, is only the well-known fallacy which asserts that the majority is always right. If you're unmoved by the obvious logical problem with this concept, history provides numerous counterexamples. But - as has been made painfully clear - you don't really care about counterexamples or evidence, do you?
If you think the majority position on Plagueis is somehow unassailable, you've studiously ignored all the evidence from the text which says otherwise. I presented this evidence in an exhaustive fashion; you looked the other way. That's not a "loss" on my part. It's you putting your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge evidence which threatens your position, while conspicuously presenting no evidence of your own. You're taking a case of textual ambiguity and trying to manufacture certainty which does not actually exist. But you haven't succeeded in transplanting this imaginary certainty into the text itself. The text remains the same, and its characters are no more omniscient than they were in the first place.
| Caedus_16 wrote: |
| Statement 1. This implies that you honestly believe that your opinion is always right. |
I never said anything like that at all. You may be experiencing a failure of reading comprehension. As usual, you're blatantly ignoring the topic at hand and the content of what I actually said, in favor of desperate and hallucinatory ad hominem assumptions which have no basis in reality. Is this what you call "winning" an argument?
To revisit the original claim: You're argumentative to be right, not to figure out what it really is. This seems to insist that I'm not trying to figure out "what it really is", but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you're setting up an obviously fictitious dichotomy here, by implying that someone can be both right and wrong at the same time. If someone were to base their position on what they wanted the outcome to be, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary and the fact that the text itself didn't prove their position, that preferred outcome would hardly qualify as "what it really is". When you say "what it really is" you really mean "what I wanted it to be" or "what the majority has decided it must be". Because "what it really is" would have to be something defined by the textual evidence, as opposed to emotion, cliques, herd mentality, preexisting agendas, popularity or anything else external to the text.
_________________
Hir yw'r dydd a hir yw'r nos, a hir yw aros Arawn.
Last edited by Arawn_Fenn on Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:47 pm; edited 6 times in total
|
|
