Who said you get to define what a "drag on society" is? I agree that we must define our terms before we can have any real debate, but it was hotpocket who first proposed that Harry Potter was a drag on society, not you or me. So your argument may not be an ignoratio elenchi, but it re-draws the playing field without hotpocket's consent, and that is certainly not fair (or, if nothing else, renders your argument moot). If hotpocket believes that people who read Harry Potter are a drag on society, then by definition they are....to him. Perhaps his only criterion for something to be a drag on society is that it increases the amount of shit he has to hear about Harry Potter. I think you do agree that "drag on society" is completely subjective, don't you? There is no "true" direction of "progress" for society. If you feel otherwise then we can surely stop debating now.
But why are we arguing in this way at all? This is the internet; this isn't how we do things in this arena. We don't cite terms like ad homeni here; we simply insult people. You're never going to get anywhere on the internet by resorting to discussions of philosophy or pulling out quotes from your Master's thesis. You might as well bring a fencing foil to a duel with pistols. Besides, no one will take you seriously.
But don't worry, you can still achieve your initial aim. Your aim was to subjugate others, wasn't it? To bend them to your will, to tower above them? Whether you do it by reason or slander, what difference does it make? Well, I assert that your stratagem of reason will render you little more than indifference, which is no victory at all. No, we must change tack! To aspersions! When in Rome, right?
But I admit I am not very good in this vein. Although perhaps we could help one another. After all, you have shown a natural ability for condescension (that was terrific how you called hotpocket "sweety"). Here, because I like you, we can work together and both improve our vituperations. First I will insult you, and then you can insult me. Okay, here I go:
"Let me turn the tables and ask YOU something? Is this the only forum where you can find use for your education in Philosophy? Your Master's level classes only have value in brow-beating males lusting over pictures of adolescent girls? Wow, sounds like that degree was worth it. And you seem to have a lot of resentment towards males in general. What's the matter, baby, not gettin' any? Why don't you try quoting some Nietzsche? I'm sure that goes over big with the guys. Bitch."
Okay, how was that? I thought the "bitch" was a nice way to end it. Okay, now it's your turn. I'll even give you some help. I am sensitive about my appearance, intelligence, virility, socio-economic status, and I struggle with gender confusion. So wail away at those topics. Oh, and I am even susceptible to physical threats if you wish to go there.
@ kayla
Who said you get to define what a "drag on society" is? I agree that we must define our terms before we can have any real debate, but it was hotpocket who first proposed that Harry Potter was a drag on society, not you or me. So your argument may not be an ignoratio elenchi, but it re-draws the playing field without hotpocket's consent, and that is certainly not fair (or, if nothing else, renders your argument moot). If hotpocket believes that people who read Harry Potter are a drag on society, then by definition they are....to him. Perhaps his only criterion for something to be a drag on society is that it increases the amount of shit he has to hear about Harry Potter. I think you do agree that "drag on society" is completely subjective, don't you? There is no "true" direction of "progress" for society. If you feel otherwise then we can surely stop debating now.
But why are we arguing in this way at all? This is the internet; this isn't how we do things in this arena. We don't cite terms like ad homeni here; we simply insult people. You're never going to get anywhere on the internet by resorting to discussions of philosophy or pulling out quotes from your Master's thesis. You might as well bring a fencing foil to a duel with pistols. Besides, no one will take you seriously.
But don't worry, you can still achieve your initial aim. Your aim was to subjugate others, wasn't it? To bend them to your will, to tower above them? Whether you do it by reason or slander, what difference does it make? Well, I assert that your stratagem of reason will render you little more than indifference, which is no victory at all. No, we must change tack! To aspersions! When in Rome, right?
But I admit I am not very good in this vein. Although perhaps we could help one another. After all, you have shown a natural ability for condescension (that was terrific how you called hotpocket "sweety"). Here, because I like you, we can work together and both improve our vituperations. First I will insult you, and then you can insult me. Okay, here I go:
"Let me turn the tables and ask YOU something? Is this the only forum where you can find use for your education in Philosophy? Your Master's level classes only have value in brow-beating males lusting over pictures of adolescent girls? Wow, sounds like that degree was worth it. And you seem to have a lot of resentment towards males in general. What's the matter, baby, not gettin' any? Why don't you try quoting some Nietzsche? I'm sure that goes over big with the guys. Bitch."
Okay, how was that? I thought the "bitch" was a nice way to end it. Okay, now it's your turn. I'll even give you some help. I am sensitive about my appearance, intelligence, virility, socio-economic status, and I struggle with gender confusion. So wail away at those topics. Oh, and I am even susceptible to physical threats if you wish to go there.
Reply to this Comment