Quote:
In a nutshell:
eStandard provokes 'heated' arguments because everyone generally writes in an arrogant tone. - "two wrongs don't make a right due to absolute conclusions."
Are you sure you aren't projecting your own arrogance into the statements of other peole? How are you not arrogan in proposing a language which eliminates arrogance? How is your supporting position less arrogant than a position which holds "eStandard" true?
Quote:
ePrime creates 'warming' debates because everyone can have a true right to their opinion per se.
Everybody has the right to his opinion right now, too. I like it, because this way I can demolish crap like this.
Quote:
"no right or wrong answer, only a relative conclusion."
You're saying that the right answer is that there is only a relative conclusion. Congratulations, here your degree in coherence of thought. Not.
Quote:
Combine say 10 relevant threads on a forum and we may approach an absolute conclusion for those who want to 'switch off' i.e. close-the-door or lid on a particular topic.
How do you define how many threads are enough? Do you relize that even a post of yours can be infectious to a whole collection of topic so that the expected relevance goes to zero in the interval of "snowyc post [1,+infinitum]?
Quote:
As far I understand most of us have been brought up in a world that naturally promotes
Absolutism with a lack of regard for
Relativism. When I first looked at this it opened-my-mind so to speak and now I believe I have a better balance in my writing, speaking and thinking style.
I've already disproved above your relativist nonsense. Relativists hold true that truths are only relative. However, since this proposition serves as axiom, it is necessarily absolutely true for your relativistic framework to function. Therefore, the founding axiom contradicts itself.
Gratz, it's not easy to do.
Quote:
As far as I know, the use of 'is' which equates to an '=' mathematical operator can 'program' a person's mind over time causing all sorts of problems, neuroses etc. The only people who should be doing any sort of neuro-linguistic programming should know what they're doing.
I have already disproved that your relativistic framework does not require the usage of the identity operator.
Quote:
Unlike the MBTI absolute 16 types 'boxing' system I don't believe that any one particular type 'is' arrogant. Although i do believe that some people love to believe that so they have a psuedo-reason i.e. 'the perfect rationalization' to bully those who they simply don't like based on a type that in reality means nothing, as Jung clearly stated.
No, the basis is idiotic beliefs held by the subject. Which is the case with you, my dear.
The rest you say is rethorical crap not worthy of my time.[/img]