Quote:
Originally posted by Kaimetsu
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?