Translation: âYouâre stupidâ, in many, many words. Just because youâre verbose, doesnât excuse your attempt at an ad hominem.
See, you can say things clearly. Wait, that would make your entire post a oxymoron as well, as clearly you didnât need to use all your fancy words, because youâve just conveyed your argument without them.
By your own admission, the nuance between âreasonâ and âjustificationâ is distinct enough to be recognisable, and thus not a tautology.
You can say that you have a reason to do something AND that you were justified in doing it because it adds the nuance that your reasoning was proven correct sometime after the fact. Your reason for eating is because you are hungry, but your justification for eating is that itâs essential for staying healthy.
Itâs an important difference in nuance, and removing either of those words also removes that nuance.
Iâd like to throw a fiver into the âAthra is just doing this because heâs a masicâ pot. If there isnât one use someoneâs helm as a betting pot. Perroyâs taken his off. Just saying that âPCBetting Potâ has a nice ring to it.
The whole point was that people donât just act on nothing other than sheer sadm or cruelty. People generally do not work that way. They need to have a reason behind it because people do not want to be villains.
Sometimes you just have to have a bit of fun to bring the tone down a bit.
Yes, it is not a friendly reply, and it hides a jab. But how else should I read your posts, if not in the same way?
There is one point that you have made, and zero points that come across as not demeaning.
Since you asked:
These are all not-so veiled insults. And thatâs essentially the contribution you gave to the discussion. I suppose you expected a reply in tone, otherwise you wouldnât keep provoking. Mind, I havenât even been rude as you have.
Thatâs true however, the justification they create might just be something they themselves donât really believe in, or itâs a rational defense that will not really explain the reason behind their action.
There might be an hidden drive which people are unaware of and that is the cause of my actions; and my justification arrives after to make me feel at ease with my conscience.
See post 777 and 767. Points are as follows: 1) If your argument isnât comprehensible, then itâs a bad argument. 2) you said that you have to write your arguments in a certain, overly verbose way, and then disproved that in the same post you argued that in. Not all of us need to use 1000 words when 100 will do.
Further, youâve not actually used quotation marks. Youâve used the forum quote tool. The two are not the same thing.
No, Iâve been aggressive in argumentation (because I have no patience for your pseudo-intellectualism), and contributed to the discussion by pointing out some of the flaws in your statements.
Ahem:
Stop lying, calling people stupid -is- rude.
EDIT: Stop editing your posts after the fact, read them over before you post them. It wonât save you from the originals being quoted.
Iâm aware youâve made such points, as my own reply also shares an important point that replies to the second one, a reply that you have conveniently overlooked to focus on the part that implies a friendly jab.
The situation is exactly the same: your arguments hide a jab at me. And my reply targets both the jab and the substance of your input.
Also I edited the above reply to mark the similarities and keep a lighter tone - I thought you stopped replying.
If you accuse others of being pseudo-something without any proof to discredit them, as you do here, thatâs called ad hominem btw.
As is calling them fools, hypocrites, verbose, pseudo-intellectuals and other epithets. As I said, a jab is something you should have seen coming at that point, or you think only you can be self-indulgent?
I just said that compared to yours, my reply is much more polite.
You can also say mine is less rude.
Oh my god just shut up already, we get it, you like to talk.
Edit: I donât even read the posts at this point, paragraphs of back and forth, but jesus, surely you have something better to do???
Youâre right. Itâs just hard to go to sleep at this point. But I think this is the healthy thing to do. So I will try to rest.
Sorry for the ongoing bickering, other pieces in the thread are really good.
My city is quarantined. No university, no pubs, no night life, no gym, no theatres, no cinema.
I can assure you, I have very few things left to do right now.
You have not countered the point that you yourself managed to defeat your own argument by simplifying an earlier argument that you suggested could not be simplified.
No you didnât. You said âMind, I havenât even been rude as you have. Iâve been a real gentleman with you. 
â, but then you edited it after I replied in a vain attempt to look better. Iâve already quoted the original post, donât try to worm your way out of it with edits. You said you were not rude, but you called me stupid in as many words, ergo, you were rude.
I do not believe you, for the above reason.
Ah, I see. My bad, itâs a 5 am typo: it was meant to be âas rude as you haveâ - implying a comparison.
Yeah, thatâs a point you made up just in the last post however. The best thing you came up with before that is calling me an hypocrite because you think I use pleonasms (I donât). Which is by far not your second point; calling someone a hypocrite also doesnât really address the argument.
Yeah, my reply was, to be exact, referring just to this point:
Towards which my reply is correct: you sometimes need to write in an elaborated way, and plain style has to be sacrificed to avoid ambiguities.
Sometimes arguments have to be more elaborated to account for more things. In the earlier version, Cassieâs argument could entail more than one thing. When she assured me it actually didnât, then it became a simple argument. And I could write it in a simple form; I hope that explains point 2 aswell.
Edit.
Not in a vain attempt to look better, but in an attempt to sound less offensive to you. I thought, when your character icon disappeared, that you probably went off for the night, and therefore would read it back again in the morning. I didnât like the reply myself, I found it to be somewhat clammy thus I removed it. I should have not?
The entire reply had absolutely no substance behind (much like yours) and it was just an huge âyou reap what you sow replyâ, which still mantains the same sense right now. It just comes across as less smug.
No, you donât want to believe me because you donât like me; your friends tell you not to like me and you donât understand my points, and that makes you feel less smart, something you seem somewhat hurt about in a lot of these posts.
Small update! Overnight the number of people contacting me for the UserID list has increased to a whopping 67! Way to go, gang!
If people donât understand your analogies, chances are you are at the fault, not them. Intent doesnât transfer transparently over written form unless youâre very precise with your analogy.