Dear Krellin,
You have shown no courage, only fear, in turning down my "friendly wager".
You have shown a great incapacity to read others with a mere hint of generosity and camaraderie.
(So much so, in fact, that I find it troubling that you would post anything at all: is your life so deprived of attention and love that you need to alienate and insult strangers in hopes that words are thrown back at you? Or maybe you have issues controlling your anger and it just oozes on the screen whenever you sit at the computer?)
You have, on many occasions, alleged to know the intentions of the writer even when such intentions were not expressed in their writings (not even implicitly, not even to the most twisted mind). You also speak of a great love for logic. Then let me tell you about this: "the intentional fallacy". To put it simply, the intentional fallacy states that intentions, being mental facts, cannot be observed. This means that you cannot 'in truth' ascribe intentions to someone since there is no means to verify the validity of such an ascription. Now, some would say that the text manifests such intentions. And that it might. But how do we know what a text means? We know in virtue of public codes (dictionary, grammars, etc.) that make up the normative background within which language and texts become meaningful. In other words, if someone has the intention of saying something, he'll use whatever rules of language available to him to express his intentions. But if his text doesn't manifest his intentions properly, then the intention is not manifested (still but a mental fact). And we know that mental facts are not something we can observe.
THEREFORE: whatever you read beyond the text cannot be a truth claim. At best, it's a hypothesis about the meaning of an ill constructed sentence, an attempt to supplement it with our best guess (which will likely still be informed by the rules of language, what is possible in light of the observable sentence, and not by a knowledge of one's psyche). At worst -- and I fear that's your case --, claims about intentions are ways in which one tries to ignore the other and what he has said in order to construct his own interlocutor, one that one can control.
And you do, Krellin, try to control almost every thread you participate in. You do so by changing the terms of the debate when they don't suit you, trying to create a world of mean intentions and stupid people you can insult. Not only are you guilty of a logical fallacy in so doing, but you also fail to show the most simple and basic respect for your interlocutors.
Oh, and rights, such as the right to free speech, exist solely because of one's situation in a community of peers (we could go deeper into it, but I won't). Given that you ignore your peers, as though they were well below you, you more or less excuse yourself from their community. Thus, I don't believe you can expect them to award you the rights that you claim (this somehow meets with Draugnar's earlier point).
AND THUS: I shall mute you by the end of the day. I am not doing so now because I believe that I owe you a chance to explain yourself one last time. After all, I did say many things here and decency demands that you be awarded the chance to address them.
I hope that you find happiness in your life Krellin.
Movement rules question
)
)
)
)
)
)
)