Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kaimetsu
Did that stop you when I was talking to Gryffon?  |
There was hope for you then.
But since you've given me such a painfully easy example here, one more time just for you:
You contend you are making points effectively, I contend you are stating what sounds decent to you but has no actual factual or logical basis other than leaning in bias towards supporting your opinions.
Case in point:
I say:
when he claims something is damaging the roleplaying community here
You reply:
When did I say that? Can you only defeat somebody's argument if you intentionally misrepresent it? My argument is that Gryffon's backstory:
1. Indicates an egocentric attitude to roleplaying, which (even you must agree) is something to be avoided.
2. Encourages other people to adopt or develop similar attitudes, especially since he commands a kingdom.
However, not only does (2) of your
own list mention clearly damaging factors happening to the community, you had stated in previous posts that:
And once more you beg the question by assuming that Gryffon's actions are acceptable. You can't use it as the basis of your arguments or criticisms until you've shown it to be true.
At that point, you want me to prove that Gryf's actions are acceptable and not harming/damaging the RP community. Okay, then we have this quote of yours in regards to the harm Gryf is doing to the community:
Um. A precedent is something that precedes something else. The point isn't such much what has happened, but what might. If kingdom leaders are doing something, it kind of sets the message that it's okay.
So we are back again to what? That Gryf isn't doing something that is a problem, but it could lead to other people doing the same thing and resulting in problems...even though there is no history of that happening in the last several years because of the checks and balances that you still suspect can't exist.
And of course, you have used this argument a lot
Understand that I am not arguing against new races per se. I am arguing against a lack of regulation, where players are free to invent those races for themselves.
You have said that Gryf is damaging GK by adding a race that affects all the players, and when that is challanged you argue that you are actually arguing that its a dangerous precedent, and not about gryf specifically, but about a lack of regulation. Then its about Gryf being a bad example, then him damaging GK some more and the whole while you like to tell everyone else that their arguments are flawed because they can't keep up with your stance-of-the-moment.
You are all over the place Kai. Gryf and characters like him hurt the GK world by forcing new races on other players, then its just a bad precedent then a bad example and precedent then its just about the lack of regulation and not about Gryf's race specifically....can you see why you are lacking in the debate department yet?
You play the fence, when you get cornered you'll ask for people to pretty much provide evidence that they are not figments of your imaginiation before you'll accept anything they say, you flip, flop, you choose to relegate anything of relevance as irrelevent if it doesn't suit you, requiring grand proofs yet never offer any for your own arguments, you make the worst analogies in the world, then when cornered on them backpedal and claim they were 'parodies' of your opponents. You are a great arguer, and a poor debator.
You can post all the one liners and say 'NO-U-DEWS' you want but at some point in the future when people are reminded of that Kai person who posted on those graal forums, it will be your childish 'mannerisms' and annoying habits that will stand out in memory, if anything does.