You've got it. I have no interest in your lectures...
No, see, you're twisting my words already like a smug cunt.
You had said, "per your advice, I will not be responding."
My only advice was that you not respond
IF you could not accept the possibility of having your observations challenged or questioned... What would you call speaking without interjection if not lecturing?
But I was being vague before, so let me be clear:
You aren't interested in exchange.
You want to lecture. Don't pull this smug, juvenile crap where you take my vague suggestion and turn it around on me. As I said, if you can't engage the topic without having someone ply you with follow-up questions, by all means, sod right the fuck off.
... and it seems that I'm the only one who chose to put in enough of an effort to inform you of it.
That's really big of you.
Until you drop your "I am supreme reason and you're wrong but please tell me how you're wrong so I can lecture you" shtick...
Yeah... okay...
Let's just go over a few lines from the OP and my replies, and you tell me which part stands out as particularly "I am supreme reason-y."
I don't want to assume anything, because everybody has small variations in which flat earth model they subscribe to, but let's start by assuming a flat disc, for simplicity.
[...]
Before anyone gets too defensive (sorry, that's what happens, in my experience), I'm just asking. I'm willing to hear anyone's explanation, as long as that person is willing to be plied with reasonable objections. If I have reason to doubt your explanation, I'm going to raise a follow-up question, so please don't answer if you can't accept that possibility and be civilized about it.
That's about as close to my "terms" as I think we can get. Everything else dealt with the assumptions I listed off, which you already said aren't the problem. My "supreme reason-y" terms are the problem, whatever that means.
Oh! Speaking of which, this was also in the OP:
Also, if you have any problems with the assumptions I proposed, let me know, so that we can agree on a presumed model, and work from there.
: l
Am I "supreme reason" yet?
Am I foisting my "terms" upon you?
Or am I instead asking you to chime in if you have a problem with either my reason or my terms?
Oh, excuse me. How could I be so thoughtless? I'm such an egotistical turd.
> nb4 Pete quotes that and says something smug like "yes, I'm glad you're beginning to see things my way" like a predictable pedant
When at last we finally got into it a little, I even added the following concessions:
What terms, specifically, do you have a problem with? If you continue to say "meh, I don't like your terms," it doesn't give me anything to work with. I would be HAPPY to redress your grievances, but I can't do that until you tell me what, specifically, is the problem with my "terms."
[...]
So, I say again, please tell me what is problematic about the terms of the OP, and I am happy to ameliorate them, if it means attracting more people to the discussion - including you - so that we can actually talk about the OP.
All you've done is piss and moan about some vague suggestion that I'm proclaiming myself "supreme reason" and somehow foisting or demanding that it be my way or the highway. Well, for one thing, it's my thread, and for another, if you honestly can't accept terms like "hey, maybe let people ask some follow-up questions," I say again that you have no business in
any debate, nevermind this one.
Other than that one request, I've been pretty straightforward, from the get go, that I'm willing to work with the other side until we can hash out a few assumptions and start questioning them.
... you're not going to find much engagement with anyone other than the RET yes-men.
At least they aren't afraid of answering simple questions.
Like some people.
: \
And yeah, I'm clearly trying to shut down the debate. After all, it's been going so well before I explained to you that it's not going anywhere.
Did you just skim past this next part or what?
"Shut down" might be too dramatic, but what I mean is that you're attempting to dismiss the debate entirely, citing my problematic "terms" as the reason for your dismissal.
[...]
If you continue to carry on vaguely about terms without actually telling me what's wrong with them, I have to come to the conclusion that you don't actually have a specific problem with my terms, and you're instead trying to delegitimize the topic in an attempt to justify excusing yourself from it. I would expect you to come to a similar conclusion about me, if the roles were reversed.
Keep spinnin' that yarn, Pete.
And you know what, there may be no one responding, but until you or someone else
does respond, I have to assume that neither you nor anyone here can offer a reasonable explanation for the phenomena demonstrated in the OP. Your "supreme reason" criticism doesn't make a lick of sense, and I still maintain that you're attempting to sabotage the discussion by depicting it as illegitimate, until you can summon up the courage of your convictions to show me something different.
Last word's all yours, champ. I ain't got nothin' more to say to you if it's more smug, self-satisfied crap.