RussSchultz said:
Demalion: unless you can stop with the "inability to understand basic english" slights, you can count this discussion as over.
Well, I don't just say "you are displaying an inability to process basic English", I demonstrate where you are failing to do so.
Showing my demonstration to be in error will work towards your requirement for me to stop saying you are wrong. So will moving on to a different topic of conversation.
Holding a conversation with me and continuing to require me to explain the problem with your statements, and simply dictating to me that I'm not allowed to find that problem, will not.
If you think there is something wrong with those choices outside of your personal criteria of feeling uncomfortable when not getting what you want, you are free to make a case for it.
Until then, those are your options.
But to continue it one more time: here you are again, insisting I refuse to believe anything else possible but my own conclusion.
Of course, this, as well as English, logic, etc., leads me to believe that he is, in "fact", wrong, but all I'm insisting on is an actual discussion where the possibility of him being right and wrong can both be represented. He, on the other hand, seems to want to skip to the "done deal" of him being right, without having an accountability to the intervening discussion.
Do I need to quote to you AGAIN where I explicitely state that I don't agree with this idea that my conclusion is the only acceptable one and any other is completely wrong?
Here is the fallacy you propose:
You said, after our conversation progressed, that properly could include performance.
I said we were making progress and you were admitting to the error in your
prior statement.
You are maintaining that you were not wrong in your
prior statement, while circumventing any and all reasons I propose why the
latter statement contradicts it, by insisting that you aren't now saying what I proposed was wrong with your prior statement. Of course you aren't, that was why I said we were making progress from your original statement.
Again: *I'm not saying you're refusing to believe anything else about properly now, I'm saying your original statement denied that properly could include performance by agreeing with someone who proposed that it could not, and by attacking me when
I said "properly can include performance" to that person.
Your responses also propose that "You weren't disagreeing with saying properly could include performance" in your reply to me, and you ignored my question about what you thought I was saying when you...disagreed with me.
* What I'm saying you
refuse to accept is that your modified statement indicates something different than what your initial statement did. I.e., that there was a problem with your original statement.
* I'm
also saying your original statement's presented commentary doesn't make sense, and I've explained why in my first reply to it.
You are addressing my replies on the premise that I'm telling you that what you are proposing
right now is that properly cannot include performance, when this entire branch of discussion
started when I was saying what you were
now proposing was
different than what you
had proposed. The discussion of
why I think you
had proposed such a thing is nowhere addressed by you in your pursuit of this nonsensical address.
This is something I explained earlier as well...take a look of some of the explanations you've been skipping.
Why should I even both to discuss my reasoning if you continue to assert that I have no reasoning; that I don't accept anybody elses conclusion; and that I assert that all other conclusions are wrong? ESPECIALLY SINCE I'M ACTIVELY AND EXPLICITELY SAYING THE EXACT OPPOSITE!
Now.
Had.
Why should I think you make sense when you propose that I'm arguing what you are doing
now when it was drawing a distinction between what you
now said and what you
had that prompted this discussion?!
If you could just back down and accept that my assertion of my conclusion does not preclude your assertion of your conclusion, perhaps we could address the meat of our differing conclusions.
"Backing down" comes
before addressing the "meat of our differing conclusions"?!
Also, get the "conclusions" straight...it might also help if you didn't just keep skipping over my explanations and restating things that ignore what I just tried to explain to you.
