Ah, now I'm left with two choices. Walk away and prove that I can't deal with aggression. Continue arguing and prove that I put too much energy into it.
Fuck that bullshit.
Nick, you're proving my point in this thread. What I had intended to be input of a rational nature, you turned into a personal issue. When I addressed that point, again directly, you accuse me of cherry-picking the argument and that nothing I discuss with you will be taken into consideration because you've already cast your judgment on me. Then, when I acknowledge that and simply state my case so that both sides can be seen, you launch into attacks again and then claim that I'm being paranoid by calling your dirty tactics into question.
Yeah, I'm the one on their high horse, Nick.
I'm not proving your point. You have no point. And how were my arguments not rational? You didn't address my or merk's points worth a shit, instead evading them with TiNe rationalizations. And the reason I said you were cherry-picking was because you brought up general examples that were unverifiable, as if that was some great proof of you being assertive, lol. State your case so both sides can be seen? Wtf are you reading? I'm so tired of this air of objectivity, lol.
And you are so right. I am totally afraid of intensity. Like, when someone says something mean to me I'm afraid to respond because I might lose. They might make me look silly. Because everyone knows that the only way to be confident in the world is through aggression. Get over yourself, Nick. Take a walk in reality and realize that there's more interactions and self-respect than playground pushing and shoving. Wake up and realize that "being intense" in an argument does not make you better at arguing and that responding to people's aggression in a similar manner to their own doesn't produce an intellectual debate. You can intensely argue a point without aggression and without emotional manipulation. Perhaps you need to learn how to distinguish the two.
READ MY FUCKING PREVIOUS POST. I SAID that one can be aggressive/confrontational without having it be emotionally charged. And I didn't suggest those motivations for you, I merely observed your behavior. And go ahead, put words in my mouth, I never said aggression was the best tool. IN FACT, I specified briefly how there is a certain art to aggression, suggesting it was more than just some act or stupid behavioral tool. Nice try though. I didn't say intensity made one better at arguing, nor did I say responding intensely fostered a productive debate. AGAIN VERO, read my earlier posts, where I AGREED that it was good to aim for neutrality and that it's pointless to get caught up in emotional bickering. and lmao @ ur last two sentences. I stated this very clearly a few posts ago. The fact that you're responding so defensively only demonstrates how you cannot distinguish between normal aggression and emotional intensity, as my post harbored no emotional charge, yet you interpreted it that way. Way to contradict yourself, Ms. Logic! 
As a general rule, I don't feel the need to continue in a debate that has fallen to emotional tactics. I've had my fair share of that in the past. When I'm having fun and arguing for shits and giggles, then sometimes I'll even do it just to get my hands dirty again. But when someone disturbs an interesting discussion (or what could be an interesting discussion) with that kind of nonsense then I lose respect for them.
lol @ you rationalizing it as emotional tactics when you have nothing left to say. And read my posts. They were thorough and logical. Don't try to blame me cause you have no counter-argument. Alpha NT copouts galore *CLAPS*
As to my interactions with Merky, the only reason I gave it attention was because you brought it up. Wow, surprise surprise, matters get attention when people clinch an argument on them. So yes, I was describing my manner of dealing with things to you in this thread, and thus giving it more of my energy. Merky didn't need to give it his attention because he was not involved in the debate and thus his actions regarding me were totally irrelevant. He is obviously my psychological superior for having no investment in this conversation. Nope, instead he just gave you extra firing power to try and undermine my argument in this discussion and once again stepping in to attack me. As usual.
Yeah, lol, keep rationalizing.
And now, surprise! I'm emotionally invested because you turned it into a personal attack. Bravo sir. Exactly why I dislike emotional tactics in a discussion. Now excuse me while I cower in the corner in anticipation of your response.
I never have had a personal stake in this. You simply cannot understand that I respond with intensity without being emotionally attached.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by mune
