I guess that would be because I both am, and am not doing that...
Riiight. Well, at least you have confirmed my theory:
The impression I am getting is that you REALLY want to take part in a discussion about whether this was a good movie or not, but you have a big problem with any argument you would make: you haven't actually seen the movie. Therefore, you are trying to use other people's experiences(the critics) as a substitute for your own. And the issue I am highlighting is that while you are using other people's judgments about the movie to make your point, you are also claiming you aren't really judging the movie.
Also, you have now unfortunately made a complete reversal of my earlier point:
I'm really glad to hear you say that. Recognizing that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because it does not appeal to you personally in a huge sign of maturity IMO.
And your recent comment:
I made a judgement about the movie from the original trailers and information released (that I thought it sounds like a load of dogshit, and that I wasn't interested in watching it)
So unfortunately, my earlier comment can no longer apply. Hopefully one day you can evolve back to the "not my cup of tea" mentality rather than the "looks like dogshit" one you have reverted to.
Also, you have now unfortunately made a complete reversal of my earlier point:
I'm really glad to hear you say that. Recognizing that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because it does not appeal to you personally in a huge sign of maturity IMO.
And your recent comment:
I made a judgement about the movie from the original trailers and information released (that I thought it sounds like a load of dogshit, and that I wasn't interested in watching it)
So unfortunately, my earlier comment can no longer apply. Hopefully one day you can evolve back to the "not my cup of tea" mentality rather than the "looks like dogshit" one you have reverted to.
To be fair, canine excrement may not be his cup of tea.
Also, you have now unfortunately made a complete reversal of my earlier point:
I'm really glad to hear you say that. Recognizing that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because it does not appeal to you personally in a huge sign of maturity IMO.
And your recent comment:
I made a judgement about the movie from the original trailers and information released (that I thought it sounds like a load of dogshit, and that I wasn't interested in watching it)
So unfortunately, my earlier comment can no longer apply. Hopefully one day you can evolve back to the "not my cup of tea" mentality rather than the "looks like dogshit" one you have reverted to.
To be fair, canine excrement may not be his cup of tea.
I certainly hope not. But the point is that a mature person can admit they are not interested in something without trying to demean it. "Not my cup of tea" suggests the tea is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, you just don't like the flavor. It does *NOT* suggest that the tea is actually urine and that anyone who drinks it is drinking urine. And saying "well, some people may like urine" does not make it any better.
Also, you have now unfortunately made a complete reversal of my earlier point:
I'm really glad to hear you say that. Recognizing that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because it does not appeal to you personally in a huge sign of maturity IMO.
And your recent comment:
I made a judgement about the movie from the original trailers and information released (that I thought it sounds like a load of dogshit, and that I wasn't interested in watching it)
So unfortunately, my earlier comment can no longer apply. Hopefully one day you can evolve back to the "not my cup of tea" mentality rather than the "looks like dogshit" one you have reverted to.
This is what I was meaning by the SJW thing... The giving/witholding of your opinion dependent upon what you perscieve to be 'correct responses'...
I don't want to see the movie, because I think it looks like dogshit, thus it is not my cup of tea. That doesn't mean that I am saying that it is bad, just that I think it looks bad. That also doesn't mean that I have an issue with anyone else liking it... Why should I not say that I think it looks like a pile of dogshit, when that is my opinion? Why should I omit or ammend my opinion, simply because someone else might consider it 'demeaning'? I find that kind of presumption and entitlement to be #problematic...
What I find #triggering, is your disrespectful attitude that until I give an opinion you consider correct or acceptable, you feel you have the right and or obligation to point out what you perscieve to be 'my error', as if that will lead to a change in opinion from me. It may be an error to you, but it is not to me... This is highlighted, as mentioned above, by the "Oh, well, I'll have to take back that approval..." with the presumption that your approval actually matters to me, or that I seek it. As someone else commented, I'm expressing an opinion, and trying to have a discussion, not have a debate...
Suppose for example you meet someone who may become a new partner, and they don't like a particular sexual act which you do... You could consider that a dealbreaker right there and simply not take things further (ie not watch the film) You might enter into a relationship with them knowing that you will never be able to partake in that particular act with them. or, you might enter into a relationship with them, and pester and nag at them to try it, because they might just like it, because afterall, you think it's awesome... While someone might be willing to try, chances are, they would have the self-esteem to stick to their thoughts on the act, put their foot down, say no, it is not happening, and possibly even (likely) end the relationship... And for what? For the reason that someone didn't have the capacity to accept someone else had a different view which was as valid to them, as their view was to themself, and to show that view respect...
And as ryan surmized, cups of dogshit are not my thing
I don't want to see the movie, because I think it looks like dogshit, thus it is not my cup of tea. That doesn't mean that I am saying that it is bad, just that I think it looks bad. That also doesn't mean that I have an issue with anyone else liking it... Why should I not say that I think it looks like a pile of dogshit, when that is my opinion?
You are free to say whatever you like. However, you have now made it clear that you do not actually *understand* the terms you are using. Again, "not my cup of tea" does *NOT* suggest anything is wrong with the tea, it suggests you simply do not like it's flavor. By saying you think it looks like dogshit, you are suggesting something *IS* wrong with it. And to be more specific, you have made quite a few comments about what you think is wrong with this movie, based on what you have read. Which is completely fine. But the point is, talking about what is WRONG with something has nothing to do with it not being your "cup of tea". So, you are using terms incorrectly, and therefore not making sense.
This is highlighted, as mentioned above, by the "Oh, well, I'll have to take back that approval..." with the presumption that your approval actually matters to me, or that I seek it. As someone else commented, I'm expressing an opinion, and trying to have a discussion, not have a debate
It's not my "approval" I'm giving, but simply a point about your earlier mature comment that you have since unfortunately backed away from. And since you have backed away from it, my earlier point can no longer stand.
For the reason that someone didn't have the capacity to accept someone else had a different view which was as valid to them, as their view was to themself, and to show that view respect...
Ironically, this is exactly what you are doing. Even if you are not personally interested in a movie, implying that something is wrong with it by saying it looks like dogshit is *NOT* showing "respect" for the view of someone who might feel differently. Calling something dogshit implies something is in fact wrong with it, not simply that you are not personally interested.
I don't want to see the movie, because I think it looks like dogshit, thus it is not my cup of tea. That doesn't mean that I am saying that it is bad, just that I think it looks bad. That also doesn't mean that I have an issue with anyone else liking it... Why should I not say that I think it looks like a pile of dogshit, when that is my opinion?
You are free to say whatever you like. However, you have now made it clear that you do not actually *understand* the terms you are using. Again, "not my cup of tea" does *NOT* suggest anything is wrong with the tea, it suggests you simply do not like it's flavor. By saying you think it looks like dogshit, you are suggesting something *IS* wrong with it. Which is completely fine. But the issue is, you don't actually understand what you are saying, and are therefore making statements that make no sense.
No, I'm saying that I *Think* there is (several things) wrong with it. Wether there is or not, is a different matter. Wether you think there are or not, is another matter still.
You too frequently confuse ‘truth’ with ‘obsessive and unnecessary dedication to accuracy’... That you keep feeling the need to dictate to people, correct them and lecture them, really is not a healthy outlook or a necessary activity... As I said, 'discussion', not 'debate'...
No, I'm saying that I *Think* there is (several things) wrong with it.
A distinction without a difference. Everything a human being says is what they think, so whether you say it is dogshit, or you think it is dogshit, you are making the same point. Either way you put it, that you "think" that is implied without needed to be specifically said, and does not change the actual meaning in this case.
It's not my "approval" I'm giving, but simply a point about your earlier mature comment that you have since unfortunately backed away from. And since you have backed away from it, my earlier point can no longer stand.
Again with the SJW manipulation technique of trying to appeal to my ego with the presumption that I care if my opinion is considered mature or not...
For the reason that someone didn't have the capacity to accept someone else had a different view which was as valid to them, as their view was to themself, and to show that view respect...
Ironically, this is exactly what you are doing. Even if you are not personally interested in a movie, implying that something is wrong with it by saying it looks like dogshit is *NOT* showing "respect" for the view of someone who might feel differently. Calling something dogshit implies something is in fact wrong with it, not simply that you are not personally interested.
But I'm not calling it dogshit... Just that I think it looks like dogshit. I would say that I'm surprized that someone as pedantic as you can't make that distinction, but that would mean holding the belief that you are not being deliberately provocative, and frankly, I'm not prepared to give you that level of consideration... I believe that you know exactly what I mean, therefore I'm not prepared to keep indulging your pedantry...
No, I'm saying that I *Think* there is (several things) wrong with it.
A distinction without a difference. Everything a human being says is what they think, so whether you say it is dogshit, or you think it is dogshit, you are making the same point. Either way you put it, that you "think" that is implied without needed to be specifically said, and does not change the actual meaning in this case.
It is not making the same point, because one is an opinion, the other is a statement...
eg. 'I think my bed is warm' is not the same as saying 'my bed is warm'... Someone else might agree that my bed is warm. Someone else, might think my bed is cold. My bed might actually be cold, but if I think it is warm, then that is only my opinion, that I think it is warm, and not a definitive statement...
I think we are aimply going to have to agree to disagree...
No, I'm saying that I *Think* there is (several things) wrong with it.
A distinction without a difference. Everything a human being says is what they think, so whether you say it is dogshit, or you think it is dogshit, you are making the same point. Either way you put it, that you "think" that is implied without needed to be specifically said, and does not change the actual meaning in this case.
It is not making the same point, because one is an opinion, the other is a statement...
Regardless of how you choose to word it, both statements are obviously what you *believe* to be the case. Also, let's get back to what you said a few minutes ago:
For the reason that someone didn't have the capacity to accept someone else had a different view which was as valid to them, as their view was to themself, and to show that view respect...
Now, let me remind you that you did not simply say "the movie doesn't look good to me, so I'm not going to see it". You said it looks like [modded]. Using that kind of term definitely does *not* show "respect" for someone who may have a different view, which you felt the need to highlight being so important in your post above.
Don't get me wrong; you can use whatever kind of term you like. But the problem is you can't even follow your own logic.
Regardless of how you choose to word it, both statements are obviously what you *believe* to be the case.
The difference being, even if I were to believe both statements, is that one is subjectively decidable, where one statement remains exclusively with the realms of a conjectural opinion.
Example: I think my bed is warm. Someone can use a thermometer to measure the temperature, and there would be a concensus of if that temperature is actually warm or not. What someone living in Siberia 'considers warm', and what someone living in Dubai 'considers warm' are going to be dramatically different...
Now, let me remind you that you did not simply say "the movie doesn't look good to me, so I'm not going to see it". You said it looks like [modded]. Using that kind of term definitely does *not* show "respect" for someone who may have a different view, which you felt the need to highlight being so important in your post above.
Don't get me wrong; you can use whatever kind of term you like. But the problem is you can't even follow your own logic. You say people should show respect for someone else's view, but use a term of extreme disrespect to an opposite view.
I said I think it looks like [modded], not that it is. What you're saying, is that I should not give my opinion about something because someone else might consider it disrespectful... TRIBBLE that kind of entitlement, and TRIBBLE the insinuation that it is disrespectful to someone else's view, because my opinion might not allign with theirs. My opinion, does not impact or negate theirs... I'm not saying that they can't like it because I think it looks like a pile of dogshit, they're still able to think whatever they like about it, it just means our opinions are not alligned, and as you so frequently point out, there's nothing wrong with that... So yes, I am hypothetically respecting their view, because I am not only respecting their right to hold it, but acknowedging that it means something to them. I don't have to share other people's views to respect that they respect them... You, on the other hand, are trying to demean and undermine my opinion with attempts at emotive guilting, rather than simply accepting and respecting that that is my view, clearly showing that you cannot respect a contrary viewpoint. As I said, we are going to have to agree to disagree, and anyone with a scrap of courtesy, would accept that and let the subject drop. I don't think you have it in you to do that. Please prove me wrong.
What you're saying, is that I should not give my opinion about something because someone else might consider it disrespectful...
No, that is *not* what I said. What I said was *IF* you are going to lecture people about how they should be respectful of other people's opinions, and *THEN* you give your opinion in a disrespectful way, then you are not following your *OWN* logic.
Here is a little example:
Person A: hey, here is this thing I like
Person B: that thing looks like [modded]
Person A: WTF?
Person: B: hey, I'm just giving you my opinion, I never said you were wrong. And by the way you should be respectful of my opinion.
Person B may not have said person A was wrong, but he gave his opinion in a *WAY* that was disrespectful of Person A. And I'm not even saying there is anything "wrong" with that. But what I *AM* saying is that if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
What you're saying, is that I should not give my opinion about something because someone else might consider it disrespectful...
No, that is *not* what I said. What I said was *IF* you are going to lecture people about how they should be respectful of other people's opinions, and then you give your opinion in a *DISRESPECTFUL* way, then you are not following your *OWN* logic.
Again, you are free to use whatever term you want. You are free to be as disrespectful as you want. But if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
No, because giving my opinion in a (according to you) 'disrespectful' way, is not actually disrespecting other people's opinions, is it... It is not preventing them holding their opinion or attempting to diminish their opinion through disagreement... It is not attempting to make someone agree with my opinion, thus disrespecting their opinion by seeking to change their mind away from their own opinion... It is none of those things, and I believe you fully understand that. Thank you for proving to the forum that you do not have the courtesy to let a subject drop... As the old saying goes, give someone enough rope, and they will hang themself with it. Thank you for doing precisely that, and exposing yourself thusly...
What you're saying, is that I should not give my opinion about something because someone else might consider it disrespectful...
No, that is *not* what I said. What I said was *IF* you are going to lecture people about how they should be respectful of other people's opinions, and then you give your opinion in a *DISRESPECTFUL* way, then you are not following your *OWN* logic.
Again, you are free to use whatever term you want. You are free to be as disrespectful as you want. But if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
No, because giving my opinion in a (according to you) 'disrespectful' way, is not actually disrespecting other people's opinions, is it...
Here is a little example:
Person A: hey, here is this thing I like
Person B: that thing looks like dogshit
Person A: WTF man?
Person: B: hey, I'm just giving you my opinion, I never said you were wrong. And by the way, you should be respectful of my opinion!
Person B may not have said person A was wrong, but he gave his opinion in a *WAY* that was disrespectful of Person A. And I'm not even saying there is anything "wrong" with that. But what I *AM* saying is that if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
As far as "dropping" the subject, no one is forcing you to reply. You are choosing to keep it going just the same as I am. The only difference is you claim you want it to be dropped, but keep willingly replying. That is you making that choice, not me forcing you to continue.
What you're saying, is that I should not give my opinion about something because someone else might consider it disrespectful...
No, that is *not* what I said. What I said was *IF* you are going to lecture people about how they should be respectful of other people's opinions, and then you give your opinion in a *DISRESPECTFUL* way, then you are not following your *OWN* logic.
Again, you are free to use whatever term you want. You are free to be as disrespectful as you want. But if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
No, because giving my opinion in a (according to you) 'disrespectful' way, is not actually disrespecting other people's opinions, is it...
Here is a little example:
Person A: hey, here is this thing I like
Person B: that thing looks like dogshit
Person A: WTF man?
Person: B: hey, I'm just giving you my opinion, I never said you were wrong. And by the way, you should be respectful of my opinion!
Person B may not have said person A was wrong, but he gave his opinion in a *WAY* that was disrespectful of Person A. And I'm not even saying there is anything "wrong" with that. But what I *AM* saying is that if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
As far as "dropping" the subject, no one is forcing you to reply. You are choosing to keep it going just the same as I am. The only difference is you claim you want it to be dropped, but keep willingly replying. That is you making that choice, not me forcing you to continue.
Actually, you are, as you well understwnd, by continuing tomdeconstruct and deliberately misconstrue my opinion in an attempt to provoke a response, knowing that I will likely issue a correction. Well, no more, as I have had enough of repeating myself and your deliberate disingenuity... By all means continue if you wish, but you will only be continuing to prove that you are a troll without the awareness to let something drop, and thus lack the social skills of a child...
What you're saying, is that I should not give my opinion about something because someone else might consider it disrespectful...
No, that is *not* what I said. What I said was *IF* you are going to lecture people about how they should be respectful of other people's opinions, and then you give your opinion in a *DISRESPECTFUL* way, then you are not following your *OWN* logic.
Again, you are free to use whatever term you want. You are free to be as disrespectful as you want. But if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
No, because giving my opinion in a (according to you) 'disrespectful' way, is not actually disrespecting other people's opinions, is it...
Here is a little example:
Person A: hey, here is this thing I like
Person B: that thing looks like dogshit
Person A: WTF man?
Person: B: hey, I'm just giving you my opinion, I never said you were wrong. And by the way, you should be respectful of my opinion!
Person B may not have said person A was wrong, but he gave his opinion in a *WAY* that was disrespectful of Person A. And I'm not even saying there is anything "wrong" with that. But what I *AM* saying is that if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
As far as "dropping" the subject, no one is forcing you to reply. You are choosing to keep it going just the same as I am. The only difference is you claim you want it to be dropped, but keep willingly replying. That is you making that choice, not me forcing you to continue.
Actually, you are, as you well understwnd, by continuing tomdeconstruct and deliberately misconstrue my opinion in an attempt to provoke a response, knowing that I will likely issue a correction. Well, no more, as I have had enough of repeating myself and your deliberate disingenuity... By all means continue if you wish, but you will only be continuing to prove that you are a troll without the awareness to let something drop, and thus lack the social skills of a child...
If personal insults give you some sense of closure, that's fine. But the insults only serve to prove my point about you contradicting yourself. First it was that no one else played any part in your decisions, then that critics could influence your choice. Next it was that you weren't judging the movie since you hadn't seen it, then it was that you were judging it based on what you read. And finally you were lecturing about how people should be respectful, and now you are providing personal insults. You have see-sawed back and forth between conflicting views and statements over many pages, which is what lead to much of our disagreement.
All of that said, if you were actually being honest about being 'done' with this little conversation(ie "no more, I have had enough)", I will wish you well! If you were not, and want to keep chatting, I will be happy to oblige
If personal insults give you some sense of closure, that's fine. But the insults only serve to prove my point about you contradicting yourself. First it was that no one else played any part in your decisions, then that critics could influence your choice. Next it was that you weren't judging the movie since you hadn't seen it, then it was that you were judging it based on what you read. And finally you were lecturing about how people should be respectful, and now you are providing personal insults. You have see-sawed back and forth between conflicting views and statements over many pages, which is what lead to much of our disagreement.
All of that said, if you were actually being honest about being 'done' with this little conversation(ie "no more, I have had enough)", I will wish you well! If you were not, and want to keep chatting, I will be happy to oblige
1. It is not an insult to state the truth. I repeat. Even a child knows when to shut up. That you do not, shows that you lack the social skills of a child. If you find it insulting, that suggests accuracy in my words...
2. What you consider 'see-sawing', and the examples you have given, are ludicrously pedantic and deliberately misconstruing things I have said, and deliberately mis-stating your alleged understanding of them in an attempt to 'prove a point'. My points and opinions have been sufficiently explained to not require further explanation, and yet you insist on focussing on what I have clearly stated as the most minute of statistcs, and taking that as a definitive. You are deliberately misunderstanding my words, and are simply trolling for a reaction, so from now on, I shall treat you likewise...
3. I was not 'lecturing about how people should be respectful', I was giving an example of disrespectful behaviour. If you considered it a lecture, then clearly it was a lesson you needed to hear and assimilate. You insistence on continuing to respond to my posts shows very clearly that you fall into that latter example of someone who does not know when to shut up.
4. My response is at my choice, and as such, I will choose if and when I decide to acknowledge your posts. I consider this conversation over. If you choose to keep deliberately misconstruing my posts and twisting my words, I may choose to keep correcting you. Suffice to say, that every time you do so, continues to prove my point that you are merely a troll, and thus a) not really worthy of response, and b) certainly not deserving of the courtesy of respect.
You wont win Marcus. Some people just love to argue for the sake of arguing.
I tend to find it's best to leave when certain posters 'go on the attack' with pedantic circular logic.
You will find (as you have already in this thread) that most posters (even if they disagree with you) still actually have a 'discussion', that is even if you are on different sides of the fence you still have a 'back and forth' conversation.
When this certain poster does not like what you have said, they immediately go 'on the attack' and at the point, it's no longer 'a discussion' and friendly banter, its "I am right, and you are wrong".
They will often 'prove' they are right via a series of pedantic arguments, circular logic and misrepresentation of what was said.
This person tends to 'suck the joy' out of a thread, as it seems their only interest is pointing out why something/someone is wrong and why they are 'right' - at that point it ceases to be a discussion and devolves into the over analysis of trivial minutiae. It get's tedious very quickly indeed.
You wont win Marcus. Some people just love to argue for the sake of arguing.
I tend to find it's best to leave when certain posters 'go on the attack' with pedantic circular logic.
You will find (as you have already in this thread) that most posters (even if they disagree with you) still actually have a 'discussion', that is even if you are on different sides of the fence you still have a 'back and forth' conversation.
When this certain poster does not like what you have said, they immediately go 'on the attack' and at the point, it's no longer 'a discussion' and friendly banter, its "I am right, and you are wrong".
They will often 'prove' they are right via a series of pedantic arguments, circular logic and misrepresentation of what was said.
This person tends to 'suck the joy' out of the thread, as it seems their only interest is pointing out why something/someone is wrong and why they are 'right' - at that point it ceases to be a discussion and devolves into the over analysis of trivial minutiae. It get's tedious very quickly indeed.
If you considered it a lecture, then clearly it was a lesson you needed to hear and assimilate.
So, by YOUR logic, if someone considers something a "lecture", then it was a "lesson they needed". That is YOUR logic. And now, here is an earlier comment you made...
That you keep feeling the need to dictate to people, correct them and lecture them,
Whoops. See that word you used? That means that by YOUR logic, since you considered what I was saying a "lecture", that it was a "lesson YOU needed to hear and assimilate". Again, that is YOUR logic.
But clearly, you are now going to backtrack and dispute your statement. You are going to desperately try to argue that what you said doesn't actually mean what you just said it means and doesn't apply to you. And that is the problem; you keep contradicting yourself.
And unlike you, what I am saying is not a personal attack. You might be a great person. But you are having a serious problem having a simple logical discussion because of the fact that you keep contradicting yourself. It is getting to the point where almost every new post you make is contradicting something you said in a previous post. The 2 quotes above are just the most recent example.
If you considered it a lecture, then clearly it was a lesson you needed to hear and assimilate.
So, by YOUR logic, if someone considers something a "lecture", then it was a "lesson they needed". That is YOUR logic. And now, here is an earlier comment you made...
That you keep feeling the need to dictate to people, correct them and lecture them,
Whoops. See that word you used? That means that by YOUR logic, since you considered what I was saying a "lecture", that it was a "lesson YOU needed to hear and assimilate". Again, that is YOUR logic.
But clearly, you are now going to backtrack and dispute your statement. You are going to desperately try to argue that what you said doesn't actually mean what you just said it means and doesn't apply to you. And that is the problem; you keep contradicting yourself.
And unlike you, what I am saying is not a personal attack. You might be a great person. But you are having a serious problem having a simple logical discussion because of the fact that you keep contradicting yourself. It is getting to the point where almost every new post you make is contradicting something you said in a previous post. The 2 quotes above are just the most recent example.
Hmm, yes, I suppose a 'lesson' could come under the academic description of 'a lecture', as opposed to 'being lectured' in a disciplinary sense... Pedantic deconstruction is not logic... Arguably, given the discord it leads to, rather than enlightening discussion, such deconstruction is a rather illogical exercise to undertake...
If you considered it a lecture, then clearly it was a lesson you needed to hear and assimilate.
So, by YOUR logic, if someone considers something a "lecture", then it was a "lesson they needed". That is YOUR logic. And now, here is an earlier comment you made...
That you keep feeling the need to dictate to people, correct them and lecture them,
Whoops. See that word you used? That means that by YOUR logic, since you considered what I was saying a "lecture", that it was a "lesson YOU needed to hear and assimilate". Again, that is YOUR logic.
But clearly, you are now going to backtrack and dispute your statement. You are going to desperately try to argue that what you said doesn't actually mean what you just said it means and doesn't apply to you. And that is the problem; you keep contradicting yourself.
And unlike you, what I am saying is not a personal attack. You might be a great person. But you are having a serious problem having a simple logical discussion because of the fact that you keep contradicting yourself. It is getting to the point where almost every new post you make is contradicting something you said in a previous post. The 2 quotes above are just the most recent example.
Hmm, yes, I suppose a 'lesson' could come under the academic description of 'a lecture', as opposed to 'being lectured' in a disciplinary sense...
And the spin starts. The problem is, we were both using the word in the exact same context. We were both accusing the other of "lecturing" other people. You then tried to spin my use of the term into a positive for yourself, saying that if I considered it a "lecture" then it was a lesson I needed, forgetting or simply not understanding that you were simultaneously calling my post a lesson YOU needed, since you called it a lecture. You can't have it both ways.
Pedantic deconstruction is not logic... Arguably, given the discord it leads to, rather than enlightening discussion, such deconstruction is a rather illogical exercise to undertake...
Oh, you wanted to have an enlightened discussion? How does your use of the term "dogshit" fit into that scenario?
If you considered it a lecture, then clearly it was a lesson you needed to hear and assimilate.
So, by YOUR logic, if someone considers something a "lecture", then it was a "lesson they needed". That is YOUR logic. And now, here is an earlier comment you made...
That you keep feeling the need to dictate to people, correct them and lecture them,
Whoops. See that word you used? That means that by YOUR logic, since you considered what I was saying a "lecture", that it was a "lesson YOU needed to hear and assimilate". Again, that is YOUR logic.
But clearly, you are now going to backtrack and dispute your statement. You are going to desperately try to argue that what you said doesn't actually mean what you just said it means and doesn't apply to you. And that is the problem; you keep contradicting yourself.
And unlike you, what I am saying is not a personal attack. You might be a great person. But you are having a serious problem having a simple logical discussion because of the fact that you keep contradicting yourself. It is getting to the point where almost every new post you make is contradicting something you said in a previous post. The 2 quotes above are just the most recent example.
Hmm, yes, I suppose a 'lesson' could come under the academic description of 'a lecture', as opposed to 'being lectured' in a disciplinary sense...
And the spin starts. The problem is, we were both using the word in the exact same context. We were both accusing the other of "lecturing" other people. You then tried to spin my use of the term into a positive for yourself, saying that if I considered it a "lecture" then it was a lesson I needed, forgetting or simply not understanding that you were simultaneously calling my post a lesson YOU needed, since you called it a lecture. You can't have it both ways.
Considering that I know when to let a conversation drop, and know to respect other people's opinions, even if I disagree with them, I would say that it is you, not I, who needs the lesson...
Considering that I know when to let a conversation drop,
You keep saying you want the conversation dropped, yet you keep replying. No one is forcing you to do that; you have free will. It seems that you only want the conversation dropped if you can have the *last* word on the matter. "Getting the last word in" is a completely different thing than "knowing when to let a conversation drop".
Considering that I know when to let a conversation drop,
You keep saying you want the conversation dropped, yet you keep replying. No one is forcing you to do that; you have free will. It seems that you only want the conversation dropped if you can have the *last* word on the matter. "Getting the last word in" is a completely different thing than "knowing when to let a conversation drop".
And as I said above, all the time you keep posting deliberate misinterpretations of my words, I will choose to reply to you or not... It is not 'having the last word' when you keep posting deliberately provocative and factually incorrect comments misinterpreting and misrepresenting my words, which I may choose to correct...
Considering that I know when to let a conversation drop,
You keep saying you want the conversation dropped, yet you keep replying. No one is forcing you to do that; you have free will. It seems that you only want the conversation dropped if you can have the *last* word on the matter. "Getting the last word in" is a completely different thing than "knowing when to let a conversation drop".
And as I said above, all the time you keep posting deliberate misinterpretations of my words, I will choose to reply to you or not... It is not 'having the last word' when you keep posting deliberately provocative and factually incorrect comments misinterpreting and misrepresenting my words, which I may choose to correct...
Yes, you say you want the conversation dropped, and you say it's not about getting the last word in, but here is a serious question:
Under what scenario OTHER THAN you defending your point with effectively the last word do you actually consider the conversation dropped?
I am genuinely interested in your answer. Because it seems that you absolutely will not consider a conversation dropped unless you get to respond to any opposing viewpoint with the last word.
Oh look, you've done it again...
Although this review doesn't specify canine TRIBBLE, it does describe it as a 'sullen pile of smouldering TRIBBLE'...
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not denying that review said that. But you wanted to have an ENLIGHTENED conversation here. So regardless of what someone may say on some other website, in what way do you think calling something dogshit HERE creates that enlightened conversation?
Comments
Riiight. Well, at least you have confirmed my theory:
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
And your recent comment:
So unfortunately, my earlier comment can no longer apply. Hopefully one day you can evolve back to the "not my cup of tea" mentality rather than the "looks like dogshit" one you have reverted to.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
To be fair, canine excrement may not be his cup of tea.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I certainly hope not. But the point is that a mature person can admit they are not interested in something without trying to demean it. "Not my cup of tea" suggests the tea is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, you just don't like the flavor. It does *NOT* suggest that the tea is actually urine and that anyone who drinks it is drinking urine. And saying "well, some people may like urine" does not make it any better.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
This is what I was meaning by the SJW thing... The giving/witholding of your opinion dependent upon what you perscieve to be 'correct responses'...
I don't want to see the movie, because I think it looks like dogshit, thus it is not my cup of tea. That doesn't mean that I am saying that it is bad, just that I think it looks bad. That also doesn't mean that I have an issue with anyone else liking it... Why should I not say that I think it looks like a pile of dogshit, when that is my opinion? Why should I omit or ammend my opinion, simply because someone else might consider it 'demeaning'? I find that kind of presumption and entitlement to be #problematic...
What I find #triggering, is your disrespectful attitude that until I give an opinion you consider correct or acceptable, you feel you have the right and or obligation to point out what you perscieve to be 'my error', as if that will lead to a change in opinion from me. It may be an error to you, but it is not to me... This is highlighted, as mentioned above, by the "Oh, well, I'll have to take back that approval..." with the presumption that your approval actually matters to me, or that I seek it. As someone else commented, I'm expressing an opinion, and trying to have a discussion, not have a debate...
Suppose for example you meet someone who may become a new partner, and they don't like a particular sexual act which you do... You could consider that a dealbreaker right there and simply not take things further (ie not watch the film) You might enter into a relationship with them knowing that you will never be able to partake in that particular act with them. or, you might enter into a relationship with them, and pester and nag at them to try it, because they might just like it, because afterall, you think it's awesome... While someone might be willing to try, chances are, they would have the self-esteem to stick to their thoughts on the act, put their foot down, say no, it is not happening, and possibly even (likely) end the relationship... And for what? For the reason that someone didn't have the capacity to accept someone else had a different view which was as valid to them, as their view was to themself, and to show that view respect...
And as ryan surmized, cups of dogshit are not my thing
You are free to say whatever you like. However, you have now made it clear that you do not actually *understand* the terms you are using. Again, "not my cup of tea" does *NOT* suggest anything is wrong with the tea, it suggests you simply do not like it's flavor. By saying you think it looks like dogshit, you are suggesting something *IS* wrong with it. And to be more specific, you have made quite a few comments about what you think is wrong with this movie, based on what you have read. Which is completely fine. But the point is, talking about what is WRONG with something has nothing to do with it not being your "cup of tea". So, you are using terms incorrectly, and therefore not making sense.
It's not my "approval" I'm giving, but simply a point about your earlier mature comment that you have since unfortunately backed away from. And since you have backed away from it, my earlier point can no longer stand.
Ironically, this is exactly what you are doing. Even if you are not personally interested in a movie, implying that something is wrong with it by saying it looks like dogshit is *NOT* showing "respect" for the view of someone who might feel differently. Calling something dogshit implies something is in fact wrong with it, not simply that you are not personally interested.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
You too frequently confuse ‘truth’ with ‘obsessive and unnecessary dedication to accuracy’... That you keep feeling the need to dictate to people, correct them and lecture them, really is not a healthy outlook or a necessary activity... As I said, 'discussion', not 'debate'...
A distinction without a difference. Everything a human being says is what they think, so whether you say it is dogshit, or you think it is dogshit, you are making the same point. Either way you put it, that you "think" that is implied without needed to be specifically said, and does not change the actual meaning in this case.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
But I'm not calling it dogshit... Just that I think it looks like dogshit. I would say that I'm surprized that someone as pedantic as you can't make that distinction, but that would mean holding the belief that you are not being deliberately provocative, and frankly, I'm not prepared to give you that level of consideration... I believe that you know exactly what I mean, therefore I'm not prepared to keep indulging your pedantry...
It is not making the same point, because one is an opinion, the other is a statement...
eg. 'I think my bed is warm' is not the same as saying 'my bed is warm'... Someone else might agree that my bed is warm. Someone else, might think my bed is cold. My bed might actually be cold, but if I think it is warm, then that is only my opinion, that I think it is warm, and not a definitive statement...
I think we are aimply going to have to agree to disagree...
Regardless of how you choose to word it, both statements are obviously what you *believe* to be the case. Also, let's get back to what you said a few minutes ago:
Now, let me remind you that you did not simply say "the movie doesn't look good to me, so I'm not going to see it". You said it looks like [modded]. Using that kind of term definitely does *not* show "respect" for someone who may have a different view, which you felt the need to highlight being so important in your post above.
Don't get me wrong; you can use whatever kind of term you like. But the problem is you can't even follow your own logic.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Example: I think my bed is warm. Someone can use a thermometer to measure the temperature, and there would be a concensus of if that temperature is actually warm or not. What someone living in Siberia 'considers warm', and what someone living in Dubai 'considers warm' are going to be dramatically different...
I said I think it looks like [modded], not that it is. What you're saying, is that I should not give my opinion about something because someone else might consider it disrespectful... TRIBBLE that kind of entitlement, and TRIBBLE the insinuation that it is disrespectful to someone else's view, because my opinion might not allign with theirs. My opinion, does not impact or negate theirs... I'm not saying that they can't like it because I think it looks like a pile of dogshit, they're still able to think whatever they like about it, it just means our opinions are not alligned, and as you so frequently point out, there's nothing wrong with that... So yes, I am hypothetically respecting their view, because I am not only respecting their right to hold it, but acknowedging that it means something to them. I don't have to share other people's views to respect that they respect them... You, on the other hand, are trying to demean and undermine my opinion with attempts at emotive guilting, rather than simply accepting and respecting that that is my view, clearly showing that you cannot respect a contrary viewpoint. As I said, we are going to have to agree to disagree, and anyone with a scrap of courtesy, would accept that and let the subject drop. I don't think you have it in you to do that. Please prove me wrong.
No, that is *not* what I said. What I said was *IF* you are going to lecture people about how they should be respectful of other people's opinions, and *THEN* you give your opinion in a disrespectful way, then you are not following your *OWN* logic.
Here is a little example:
Person A: hey, here is this thing I like
Person B: that thing looks like [modded]
Person A: WTF?
Person: B: hey, I'm just giving you my opinion, I never said you were wrong. And by the way you should be respectful of my opinion.
Person B may not have said person A was wrong, but he gave his opinion in a *WAY* that was disrespectful of Person A. And I'm not even saying there is anything "wrong" with that. But what I *AM* saying is that if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Here is a little example:
Person A: hey, here is this thing I like
Person B: that thing looks like dogshit
Person A: WTF man?
Person: B: hey, I'm just giving you my opinion, I never said you were wrong. And by the way, you should be respectful of my opinion!
Person B may not have said person A was wrong, but he gave his opinion in a *WAY* that was disrespectful of Person A. And I'm not even saying there is anything "wrong" with that. But what I *AM* saying is that if you are going to be disrespectful while *ALSO* telling other people they should be respectful, that is hypocrisy.
As far as "dropping" the subject, no one is forcing you to reply. You are choosing to keep it going just the same as I am. The only difference is you claim you want it to be dropped, but keep willingly replying. That is you making that choice, not me forcing you to continue.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If personal insults give you some sense of closure, that's fine. But the insults only serve to prove my point about you contradicting yourself. First it was that no one else played any part in your decisions, then that critics could influence your choice. Next it was that you weren't judging the movie since you hadn't seen it, then it was that you were judging it based on what you read. And finally you were lecturing about how people should be respectful, and now you are providing personal insults. You have see-sawed back and forth between conflicting views and statements over many pages, which is what lead to much of our disagreement.
All of that said, if you were actually being honest about being 'done' with this little conversation(ie "no more, I have had enough)", I will wish you well! If you were not, and want to keep chatting, I will be happy to oblige
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
There's my reaction.
1. It is not an insult to state the truth. I repeat. Even a child knows when to shut up. That you do not, shows that you lack the social skills of a child. If you find it insulting, that suggests accuracy in my words...
2. What you consider 'see-sawing', and the examples you have given, are ludicrously pedantic and deliberately misconstruing things I have said, and deliberately mis-stating your alleged understanding of them in an attempt to 'prove a point'. My points and opinions have been sufficiently explained to not require further explanation, and yet you insist on focussing on what I have clearly stated as the most minute of statistcs, and taking that as a definitive. You are deliberately misunderstanding my words, and are simply trolling for a reaction, so from now on, I shall treat you likewise...
3. I was not 'lecturing about how people should be respectful', I was giving an example of disrespectful behaviour. If you considered it a lecture, then clearly it was a lesson you needed to hear and assimilate. You insistence on continuing to respond to my posts shows very clearly that you fall into that latter example of someone who does not know when to shut up.
4. My response is at my choice, and as such, I will choose if and when I decide to acknowledge your posts. I consider this conversation over. If you choose to keep deliberately misconstruing my posts and twisting my words, I may choose to keep correcting you. Suffice to say, that every time you do so, continues to prove my point that you are merely a troll, and thus a) not really worthy of response, and b) certainly not deserving of the courtesy of respect.
I tend to find it's best to leave when certain posters 'go on the attack' with pedantic circular logic.
You will find (as you have already in this thread) that most posters (even if they disagree with you) still actually have a 'discussion', that is even if you are on different sides of the fence you still have a 'back and forth' conversation.
When this certain poster does not like what you have said, they immediately go 'on the attack' and at the point, it's no longer 'a discussion' and friendly banter, its "I am right, and you are wrong".
They will often 'prove' they are right via a series of pedantic arguments, circular logic and misrepresentation of what was said.
This person tends to 'suck the joy' out of a thread, as it seems their only interest is pointing out why something/someone is wrong and why they are 'right' - at that point it ceases to be a discussion and devolves into the over analysis of trivial minutiae. It get's tedious very quickly indeed.
Mentioning no names of course.
So, by YOUR logic, if someone considers something a "lecture", then it was a "lesson they needed". That is YOUR logic. And now, here is an earlier comment you made...
Whoops. See that word you used? That means that by YOUR logic, since you considered what I was saying a "lecture", that it was a "lesson YOU needed to hear and assimilate". Again, that is YOUR logic.
But clearly, you are now going to backtrack and dispute your statement. You are going to desperately try to argue that what you said doesn't actually mean what you just said it means and doesn't apply to you. And that is the problem; you keep contradicting yourself.
And unlike you, what I am saying is not a personal attack. You might be a great person. But you are having a serious problem having a simple logical discussion because of the fact that you keep contradicting yourself. It is getting to the point where almost every new post you make is contradicting something you said in a previous post. The 2 quotes above are just the most recent example.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Hmm, yes, I suppose a 'lesson' could come under the academic description of 'a lecture', as opposed to 'being lectured' in a disciplinary sense... Pedantic deconstruction is not logic... Arguably, given the discord it leads to, rather than enlightening discussion, such deconstruction is a rather illogical exercise to undertake...
And the spin starts. The problem is, we were both using the word in the exact same context. We were both accusing the other of "lecturing" other people. You then tried to spin my use of the term into a positive for yourself, saying that if I considered it a "lecture" then it was a lesson I needed, forgetting or simply not understanding that you were simultaneously calling my post a lesson YOU needed, since you called it a lecture. You can't have it both ways.
Oh, you wanted to have an enlightened discussion? How does your use of the term "dogshit" fit into that scenario?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I believe that 'dogshit' is and was a suitable noun in this instance...
You keep saying you want the conversation dropped, yet you keep replying. No one is forcing you to do that; you have free will. It seems that you only want the conversation dropped if you can have the *last* word on the matter. "Getting the last word in" is a completely different thing than "knowing when to let a conversation drop".
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
So you are saying you want to have an "enlightened" conversation about dogshit?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Oh look, you've done it again...
Although this review doesn't specify canine TRIBBLE, it does describe it as a 'sullen pile of smouldering TRIBBLE'...
Yes, you say you want the conversation dropped, and you say it's not about getting the last word in, but here is a serious question:
Under what scenario OTHER THAN you defending your point with effectively the last word do you actually consider the conversation dropped?
I am genuinely interested in your answer. Because it seems that you absolutely will not consider a conversation dropped unless you get to respond to any opposing viewpoint with the last word.
I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not denying that review said that. But you wanted to have an ENLIGHTENED conversation here. So regardless of what someone may say on some other website, in what way do you think calling something dogshit HERE creates that enlightened conversation?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008