About time. I'd love to trade a wall with you, Zen.
glg said:
Whenever I see someone claim unprovoked, especially when it's vanilla town, it screams scum to me.
This is his main point. The rest are the supporting details to show why it screams scum to him. Yet they don't. It just leads into a circle:
Alright, i'll bite.
glg said:
First of all it's irrational to do
Soup think about this as if you were making this point against me. Where is the scum intention behind this reason? It's a blank/empty reason that he is providing to look as if he can substantiate his view. Just because someone gives you an answer with words doesn't indicate that there is actually meaning behind it. He could have very well typed a huge paragraph about how the sky is blue. He's providing a blank answer. There is no real thought process behind it. Believing that the claim was irrational has nothing to do with motivations behind claiming. Just as the sky being blue has nothing to do with motivations behind claiming. He's providing words, but there is nothing behind them.
If we're going to look at the context and intentions of things, look at how he is discerning his opinion. 'Irrational.' What does irrational mean in this lovely world of english?
Not logical, or unreasonable. He has stated his opinion of you before, and this is his very first jump:
glg said:
Vote: S-tier. I find it extremely scummy that he claimed town in his first post. The whole, "my partner didn't get the pm" thing is bull****, and even if that were true then he shouldn't have posted it in thread anyway. It's silly to claim town right off the bat, and I don't trust anyone who does claim town immediately.
Did I just hit a bullseye in reading consistency and intention of people? Damn straight I did.
True, he sky is blue and he could have made a whole paragraph as to why it is, but even if he did you have to ask;
Why is the sky blue in the first place? What may seem logical to some people, may not to others, even if there is truth in the matter.
Your whole case on GLG so far as that his logic does not live up to your standards of your own.
(1)Where else have you seen someone claim unprovoked?
(2)If it is irrational, how is that a scum tell? If it's irrational for town, it's irrational for scum.
(3)You're stating that I did it to get reactions. Which is a town motivation. You didn't name one scum intention in this post. The bold is actually very telling of you.
Don't tell me that you were playing with your head six feet under when you typed this, you're responsible for any content given and i'm not going to let that excuse fly.
It is true that in any given world, nobody will always agree with each other, and people may see things differently, and that may cause resentment. Why are you ignoring the bulk of his intentions? Stating something has a
purpose and sometimes that purpose may not be well thought out. I, can clearly see that GLG has not given much thought to this, and that yes, it is blank, but the genuine opinion is what strikes me as town. This read of his on you isn't something that is faked, and that is what i'm looking at.
GLG said:
and secondly people are thought to be town until they're guilty.
"and secondly people are thought to be town until the sky is blue."
Seriously Soupa do you even know what he is saying here?
Those are his two reasons for his main point. They are both blank reasons that lead one to believe he is substantiating his claim, but really typing words. He does not have a true thought process behind ite is not truly attempting to view our motivation/intentions/guiltlessness.
He then attempts to back up his push by taking down the view that it should be null. But he screws up by doing this as it completely contradicts the so called "reasons" of his suspicions in the first place:
I still attest to what I posted above, I suggest you read it to understand my argument. I agree that this part of the reasoning is complete rubbish, however.
I don't understand why this would be taken as "null", obviouslywhen they did that they intended to get reactions of some kind and didn't just do it fortehlulz. The slot has been so-so for me otherwise, I'd need to reread and pull out some quotes.
Remember, this is actually in response to me, I believe. The bolded implies some thought towards it, he's not exactly blind but what he's doing is
stating his opinion. I cannot defend someone being chalant with their reasonings, but I will defend them when I feel their motivation is clear, it's just exactly presented well.
Do you understand what i'm getting at here?
