Jophiel wrote:
Unless you're going to let someone else be the judge and accept their decision without argument, there's no point. No one is going to convince you that you're holding an illogical position. Gbaji tries to go down that road all the time ("You have to convince me that I'm wrong or else I must be right!") and there's nothing to do but laugh at it.
I understand your valid concern, but my point is that is true on both sides. If you hadn't noticed, we agree on most things, only disagree on some of my more conservative views. When someone says exactly what we believe, we see that person as an intelligent logical thinker. The second that person says something in contrast (especially if it is before ever agreeing on anything), that individual becomes an idiot. I would argue that is a natural reaction that we all have. It's naturally difficult to accept the logic behind a concept that you are against.
The reason why it's difficult for people to point out the logical flaws in my arguments is because even in the most controversial discussions, the arguments made by others were admittedly only based on the end result, not the means to get there. I know that I'm not always right and I also realize that "winning" an argument doesn't make me right. Hence the reason why I told angrymnk that any further detailed response is worthless because WE have no idea what we are talking about. So, even though he is wrong, if I started clearly defining what constitutes as "torture" without actually knowing WtF I'm talking about, then I'm just as wrong, even though I still "won" the argument.
angrymnk wrote:
It is pointer. Who said anything about a line? Just tell about your least objectionable torture. We can establish a line using your frame of reference. I am that nice.
Is the
pointer in reference objective, subjective or something else? If it's objective, please link the source. If it's something else, please explain what that something else is.
