Yes, this is the statement I disagreed with. ^_^ And that's why I was providing my reasons for disagreeing with it. This is all my posts concerned - my explanation as for why I think this is a faulty stance to have. But you know...it's a moot point now. 8) You agree with me here:dwchang wrote:you being able to comprehend something fully...
If you did not create the work of art, you do not and cannot have the ability to 100% understand it. Since you cannot understand it fully, you can never truly 100% reject it.
Check my post on the last page (I think it was the one before my last long post on that page) - I said these exact words "human beings wouldn't get very far" and that "you can base your conclusions" on that uncertaintly. ^_^ I'm glad you agree with me. Earlier you continued to argue that you can't base your conclusions on innacurate (not 100% certain) information. This is almost a verbatim repeat of what I said, but it shows we have the same stance, so it settles most of my complaints. ^_^dwchang wrote:I never said you can't have tastes or choose to hate something, but I am saying you can never fully understand. "But" - You can base your conclusions based on that percentage, but you will never fully be correct, but that's your perogative and obviously human beings wouldn't get very far if they tried to make judgements based on 100% understanding..it would rarely ever occur.
Actually I never said that. ^_^;; I said society agreed as a group to reject his dictations saying they should be killed. I may reject his doctrine, but abhor - that's "putting words in my mouth". ^.~dwchang wrote:Hitler massacred the jews and killed many people in a World War II. You disagree with this point of view and in fact abhor it.
Yes, we were getting repetitive, but now that you're repeating arguments I've used (essentially taking my point of view), the repeated information is now mixed with something new - it's an agreement as well as an argument. That's what happens when you stick with the same topic long enough - either both sides give up or one side starts to say new things. I'd say this post proves something good can come from sticking with something till it dies a slow twitching death. ;pdwchang wrote:Since you and I were saying the same thing, it was easy of me to assume that perhaps something earlier had been misunderstood, thus my attempt to *try* and bridge this misunderstanding.
No. ^_^;; I was just waiting for you to add to your stance - explain the exceptions I was *sure* you made when it comes to something like this. I didn't think you were nearly the extremist you came off as in your other posts. This one shows that you aren't. ^_^dwchang wrote:If you're going to take all that as dodging the topic, so be it, but I have addressed this issue at least twice and thus figured it was something else.
I get it from your "can't judge, can't reject" statements. Disagreeing with something to the point where you join with others to ban that thing (in the case of some art works - note that the picture of Mary covered in urine and feces didn't last long in the museum - even though it may have been made with the best of intentions as 'art' ) - if you disagree and also make judgement on an item, then you *are* rejecting that thing (a thought, an actual piece of artwork) regardless of the creator's intentions. You make a distinction between reject and disagree - but I didn't want to turn this into a semantic debate.dwchang wrote:Again, this does not at all disallow the ability of free thought and the choice to disagree/dislike. I still don't get where you're getting that other than reading into my words too much.
Like you, I also think reject means to deny something. Only it isn't the existence you're denying in the case of 'rejecting an anime' or 'rejecting a message' - you're denying the existence of some moral 'right' in that message. Sure the message exists. ^_^;; Who would ever think that to reject a message means you pretend it doesn't exist? If it didn't exist you'd just be ignoring it. To reject is to acknowledge the existence and then throw it away as being flawed in some way. I honestly don't see how that is different from your 'disagree'. If you think the message is right you say 'yes,' if you think it's wrong you disagree and say 'no.' If you think the message is right you accept it and say 'yes,' if you think it is wrong you reject it and say 'no.' Where's the difference you're making between these words when you say you can "disagree but not reject"?
Yeah...had to get into semantics there. >.< I hate getting into semantics.
The irony could not be stronger here.dwchang wrote:I might add that's not usually wise to attack the character of the person you're trying to degate.
I think pretending to be polite while bashing someone is a thousand times worse than merely pointing out that the topic is being sidestepped. And you yourself admitted:You had good motives for changing the focus, better than I'd feared, but you still changed the focus from an argument that you couldn't think of anything new to say for:dwchang wrote:I have addressed this issue at least twice and thus figured it was something else.
^_^ As the person attacking your stance (arguing with your original statement), it was my place to hold until you either falter or add to your argument. Which I did. You got tired of repeating yourself and changed the subject. When I said you sidestepped it I may have been insulting since I didn't know you did it with good motives, but I was still stating the truth (as you yourself admitted).dwchang wrote:Since you and I were saying the same thing
But you know, I really don't think you realize exactly how condescending you sound. Every one of those posts you made after mine had a snap at 'Arigatomyna' for 'misunderstanding' like a little child, and how you were the big grown up ready to help the poor girl since she's so obviously confused. ;p You sound like a pompous person in those posts - every time you mentioned my name in the last paragraphs. If you didn't mean to sound like you thought I was an idiot, then that's fine. But you still insulted me every time you said my name. Know why? Because instead of talking *to* me, you talked to everyone else in the thread *about* me - saying essentially "look at her, look at how nice I am to educate her, see how I talk down to her, I'm the cool one."
Maybe if I'd been around to reply immediately you wouldn't have done it. Maybe you didn't mean to sound like that. Maybe you didn't even realize other people would take what you said that way. But you did sound like that, and a personal attack which is responded to by simple fact (that you skirted the issue - which again, you admitted) is not a returned personal attack. I didn't talk down to you - I merely looked on you with the same disdain I give anyone who talks down to me.
And just to reiterate - taking a knowing stance that's sticky sweet and polite doesn't change the insult any. It just sugar coats it. My last post *was* aggressive. Because I sat here and read over post after post you'd made in my absence where you mocked me each and ever time with your :dwchang wrote:Especially when said person has made extra efforts to try and remedy the situation in a peaceful and logical manner. Perhaps I'm misreading things, but this is the third or fourth post that comes across as fairly negative and agressive.
At least when I quoted you I tried to use your exact words.dwchang wrote:The only thing left is hoping to clear things up with Arigatomyna since I think she's got a different picture painted...
I am just trying to help re-illustrate it for Arigatomyna since I think she has a skewed perception of what I'm saying.
(OMGWTF personal freedoms!!!111ONE).
or even *gasp* disagree with something.
And for the record, I never:I put nothing in your mouth when I spoke of Hitler. I merely (and yes, check my post about Hitler - I can quote it another thread if you like since I can't scan back that far here) - I took what you said and *applied* it to how people following your doctrine would have reacted to Hitler. I illustrated a potential flaw in your doctrine by taking an equally extreme point of view (100% being the original extreme). I never said you were like Hitler or anything of the sort. I said people who refused to reject things without being 100% accurate as to the creator's intentions would allow such doctrines to continue.dwchang wrote:you in particular seem to be putting words in my mouth and trying to correlate it to Hitler
Know why I said that? With hopes that you'd see the problem with having such an extremist point of view. But as I noted above, you've explained some exceptions in your last post - explained things you never mentioned in your previous posts. So that is no longer an issue.
As long as you don't keep saying I'm the ignorant one who misunderstands instead of the stubborn one who refuses to back down, it's fine by me. I may be stubborn, but if I misunderstand something, I'll be the first to admit it (like I did about your 'sidestep' - I didn't know you did it because you honestly thought the argument lay elsewhere - I was at fault there for assuming the worst). And if you honestly *didn't* mean to mock me with each of your last posts, then I'll ignore that as well. But I refuse to admit I made a personal attack against you - I made a heated debate with you (someone I'd respected as a debator) - I didn't mock you as someone who 'misunderstands' and 'doesn't see the picture,' etc.dwchang wrote:If you ultimately don't agree with my point of view, then I have no qualms with agreeing to disagree, but I am still trying to make clear my point of view since it keeps being skewed (at least I think so).
Okay. ^_^dwchang wrote:Hopefully this thread will end in a "ok" or something
. At the same time, based on some of the things said, it's as I thought and the majors points are cleared up anyway with some agreement. That was my original intent with redirection which you see.
