Undoubtedly she means that, after starting attacks on me, she will send my retorts to higher admins without a trace of context.

:p
Sorry, throw your crystal ball away, it isnt working :D

Well, perhaps she means that she copies and pastes the same arguments to use them more than once.

haha, interesting concept

If not that, perhaps that she copies and pastes other people's arguments.

Probably a good tactic in her case.

look, just leave me alone, I am not going to argue with you at all, you arent worth my time or effort...however, graal is
There are more appropriate ways of handling things, and that is what I will do other than cluttering up the forums with arguements with you. End

How hypocritical. Hopefully you will remember these words the next time you decide to start an argument with me.

People get in arguments with you far too often. How silly of you to think you have nothing to do with it. :/

they may get into arguments with him, but is that his fault? If anything, it's as much the other person, as it is Kai, because it takes 2 to argue

I think Kai is a great debater, and really he just answers other people's arguments... someone makes an argument, or statment, and he answers it with something, then they make another statment, and Kai replies...

I find those arguments entertaining to both be in, and watch
:)
it's the kind of things that makes a board more fun to be a part of, since that is the point (to me) of forums... a place to talk about, and maybe argue over ideas, and opinions
:P

I'm sure I have something to do with them, but the fact is that Moon Goddess has, in the past, often started arguments with me. I can't say I've never started any, but mine are the minority. All I am saying is that she is hypocritical in telling me to leave her alone.

So you ignored her asking you to leave her alone becouse you felt you needed to get your say in first? And that say was that she is a hypocrite?

First? The argument had been going on for some time, so the status of 'first' was already unattainable. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in her post, lest people think that I am the one responsible for our arguments.

Well, I meant that you had to get in one last word before ignoring her...



It really doesn't matter who was first, but you seem to wish to continue for the sake of defending your position. Which can certainly be defined as continuing the argument. Each time you respond on behalf of your position you are in essense inviting them to attempt a rebuttle. If you really wanted to defend your position, You could simply end the argument by not replying... As you were asked to.

That or I had to address her duplicitous comment.

I doubt she intended any ill will by it as you are suggesting.

Intentions are irrelevant. I am merely clearing up a possible misconception.

Re: Re: Re: Later
 

Oh don't get me wrong, I never said I cared.. I was simply saying that you wasted your time posting a good-bye thread when you'll be back in a few days... Seems I was right too.

Then try stating it in a way that doesn't imply ill will.

Edit:

Actually, Forgive me. The way you stated it didn't imply ill will at all.

You actually said, Her comments were intended to be deceptive.

It could not have been implied since the definition of "duplicitous" explicitly states it was deliberate.

Yes, the difference is this: An argument is an angry debate. I am certain that is what you meant.

There is a very fine line. It turns into an argument the moment both sides get angry. *not sure what to call it if only one side is angry.


Just make sure you understand, debate and argument are synonyms.... Becouse thier definitions are so close. Just wanted to point that out.


By the way, congrats on placing additional sparks between kaimetsu and moon goddess.

Sure, as soon as she starts thinking about how she should phrase things :)

just leave it alone, and let this thread die please

Your right, it does take 2 to argue, but it only takes 1 to stop.

All the debates, They would be much better if they were moderated. To end this infinite cycle they tend to take on.

Not everybody understands how debates are intended to occur. And often one or both sides end up flaming instead of debating.

I think you understood her just fine. In this thread there really wasn't much of an argument, except a spark or two. Then moon goddess kindly asked you to not continue. Then I decided to. Yes indeed, I did continue it. But she need not reply I really have no intention of focusing on her. I didn't even notice you two were so at odds until now. :rolleyes:


Actually, you are acting rather hypocritical yourself kaimetsu. I'm sure you've noticed. By expecting her to phrase things properly, and refusing to do so yourself. [added]That smile at the end seems to imply you knew you were being hypocritical and were trying to make a point, or you thought you had a good point.[/added]

Well, until there is a forum exclusively for formal debates with kaimetsu, I feel this is a good a place as any to have one. The topic appears to be kai's inability to be the responsible one. At least in my mind.

lol, goodluck...I shall stay out of it and watch

She made a misleading statement, which I corrected. Then you started making a big debate out of it so I went along with that. After my correction, it was all over. There was no need to come along and tell us to stop because we already had.

Ain't hypocrisy. She made a misleading statement that implicated me as the cause of the arguments. If it was intentional then it warranted a harsh reply. If it was not then it was a product of her lack of diplomatic effort, and again warranted a harsh reply. If she ignores me then I will ignore her. If she attacks me then I will attack her. This is my ethos.

If it were to stop there, then that's commendable, but not for you. Becouse she would have ended the argument, by not defending herself from your statement. As previously stated, it takes two to argue. And she ended it the one way possible, by taking a final blow, wheather or not she deserved it.
If only all people could be so bold. I am certain there were other options of defending yourself against misleading statements without attacking your opponent. If the situation were reversed and your opponents always responded to misleading statements with attacks, you would always attack them as well. As you have just stated. If they had the same ethos, surely you would both continually attack one another until one of you were bold enough to take the last attack and end the argument.
Or was that statement regarding attacking her if she attacks you, only for her?

1) I did not say I should be commended for anything.
2) The 'final blow' was simply a correction of sorts. It was hardly a vicious attack, and it did not leave any room for counter-attacks.

Attacking her? Hardly. How would you have posted the same message?

If they responded with attacks, yes. However, that is not the situation here.

I did not intend that to mean you asked to be commended, And anybody who is commended ought not ask for it anyway.

Vicious attack perhaps not, but an attack certainly. You do not believe being called a hypocrite is an attack? An attack need not be vicious.

Obviously you feel she attacks you regularly without provocation, Surely there is some sacrafice you could make to end any kind of relationship you have on better terms. It's clear to me you aren't willing to sacrafice anything for anybody. You could have simply replied "Very well, goodbye." Instead you insisted on first calling her a hypocrite, knowing very well she didn't wish to respond, most people would assume you were victorious. Which isn't truly the case, there are no winners.

Pointing out her hypocrisy was a key part of my self-defense. Call it an attack if you will, but I don't think many people would be particularly offended by it.

...yes, but why would I want to do that? What would be the advantage?

And why would I? :confused: Surely you realise that humans are inherently selfish?

...in which case her statement would go uncorrected. I can't see how this is the superior approach...

So, offense was your best defence. Ok.

The Advantage, being perhaps you could someday become friends if you both sacraficed some of your own pride.

I realize humans are inherently selfish, but I also realize this isn't a great thing. It's far better to be a person who would sacrafice himself for the sake of others. This is my belief.

It may be uncorrected, but at least it ends the attacks. And it doesn't contribute to your already large repulation as an arrogant individual.

A maybe-vaguely-if-you-are-hypersensitive offensive defense, actually.

You'll have to spell this out for me. How is that an advantage?

You're entitled to that belief, but I have no obligation to share it.

Sure, but your point is meaningless because you haven't shown that the latter is worth the former.

How is it arrogant to defend myself?

You seem intent on belittling that as an attack of any kind. Perhaps some people would view it as nothing, and others would view it as an attack. Can we leave it at that?

You obviously have very little or no respect for moon goddess, seeing as you can't even think of having her as a friend being any kind of advantage.


That is true, you may believe what you wish. Perhaps you could explain how you feel people should behave? Surely you don't see selfishness as a good thing?


Becouse it's better to end the argument when things get too high strung then let it continue. Surely you realize nothing good would come of an argument in which either party begins to show signs of retaliation out of pure anger. Better to end it than to continue posting even in defense.


If you didn't feel you were worth something, perhaps more than others, you wouldn't feel the need to defend yourself so strongly. And perhaps it would be easier for you to end the argument in the manner i've mentioned.

I already stated that.

Correct.

'Good' is only meaningful when criteria are involved. If your criteria for a good life involve happiness, wealth etc then selfishness is a good thing. What set of criteria define it as a bad thing?

Indeed, but here you have only exalted the worth of the latter without comparing it to the former.

Irrelevant, simply because this was not likely to turn into an argument.

Arrogance is the undue confidence in ones abilities. Believing myself to be superior to Moon Goddess is not arrogance. In any case, a large ego is not a prerequisite for defending oneself. Any ego at all will do the trick.

Well forgive me, I must not have understood the way you stated it.

Clarify, is this the little respect, or the no respect.
I believe it is best to give everybody some degree of respect. Though you may not know it at the time, most (if not all) people have qualities worth respecting.

Forgive me, for a few moments I forget not everybody inherently believes selfishness to be 'bad'.

If 'Good' was to be a giving caring person. Then Selfishness would be bad. If 'Good' was to be somebody who cared as much for other people as himself. Then Selfishness would be bad. If 'Good' Was to be somebody who easily makes friends. (i am implying selfish people don't easily make friends). Then selfishness is bad.


I suppose that depends entirely on your perspective, How much do you really care that people would mis-interpret a statement about you? V.s. ending the argument with less damage to both sides.

Simply becouse Moon Goddess was willing to let it go, unlike most others. I am certain there have been/will be other situations in which this won't be the case.

The "Believing myself to be superior to Moon Goddess" is certainly personal opinion. That is in a general sense, Certainly there are area's where either of you would excel more than the other. And those aren't insignificant.

Perhaps there is a missing quality not being addressed. The ability to not defend yourself, for the greater good. (yes I remember, you find nothing good in not defending yourself).

Respect is not a single variable. If I tried hard enough then I might find some qualities of hers that I could respect, but they are drowned out by the weaknesses.

1) No, bad logic. I asked for criteria, not opposites. There are criteria that define selflessness and selfishness as being good, but that's not important. I asked for criteria that define selfishness as bad, and you have not yet delivered.
2) Selfish people make friends as easily as selfless people (if not more so).

What damage have I incurred?

And if I do the same thing in those situations then you will have an argument. If and only if.

Obviously, but everything is subjective. By my criteria I am superior to Moon Goddess. That is not arrogance, it is simple fact.

Okie. Name a significant area in which she would defeat me :)

'The ability to not defend yourself'? Isn't that just a rewording of 'the inability to defend yourself'? What makes you so sure that her departure was for 'noble' reasons and not simply because of the fact that, whenever she debates with me, she loses?

Ok, your unwilling to try to find something worth respecting in her.

1) There doesn't seem to be much point trying to argue weather this is good or bad with you. Since we would never agree on what is good and what is bad. At best we could give our opinions on what the majority of people believe is good or bad.

2) That is entirely speculation. Shall we conduct studies?

I guess none, since you believe you have successfully thwarted everybodies efforts to scathe you. And you don't value Moon Goddess in any way shape or form. Or Attempt to find such value in her.

Then I guess this argument will require careful study. :\

So, by your criteria saying your superior to moon Goddess is not arrogent. We'll, share this criteria.

Since everything is subjective as you've stated, it matters not what I say, or how I say it. Your opinions will always be right in your eye's. and you will declair yourself the winner proudly.

No, I did not intend it as the rewording of the inability to defend yourself at all.

The ability to choose, to not defend yourself. Even when you are capable of doing so. But it seems unlikely you would understand there ever being a situation where that is at all desirable. Much like being Self-less.

Well well, another argument. I love the day when arguments are not made on this forum for pathetic and unlogical reasons!

Just as you are unwilling to jog across America.

You misunderstand. Establishing 'good' and 'bad' as relative terms (ie defining them with respect to specific criteria) removes all subjectivity from the definitions. I am simply asking for a set of criteria that selfishness does a poor job of meeting. This can be answered objectively.

Speculation? No. Deduction.

Then what is your point?

Feel free.

Various factors. It's mostly built around the basics: Intelligence (all the constituents thereof), sense of humour, physical ability, lingual capabilities etc. By my reckoning, I surpass her in each of these ways.

Depends. Debates aren't quite that simple - there usually is an obvious victor, but the loser usually refuses to acknowledge his defeat. In any case, I do not think I am in any danger of losing this argument.

I know you didn't. But I was making a point that you have failed to address: How can you tell the difference?

Oh, don't be so petulant. I understand your generic moral system perfectly well - I merely eschew it in favour of more logical ideals.