Quote Originally Posted by Vero
See you're doing it. You're building up to a manner of speaking that is directed in an aggressive (and heading towards an offensive) manner. And now I feel obliged to try and put it on track to where we're objectively discussing our observations. Unfortunately I don't think you're willing to accept my argument in this case regardless of how I word it. So I'll simply say this: I dealt with the issue of Merky's negative and aggressive behaviour towards me in the manner which I felt best undermined him an his attempts to offend me. So, I chose not to respond while he went on and on because there really wasn't much point. I had people defending me anyways. A response on my behalf would simply feed into him. But throughout the night I mocked him in jest alongside Justin and Maria for his attempt at hurting me, because it has become pretty pathetic. Attacking him directly is a waste of my energy. It's more enjoyable and productive for me to return his favour by undermining him indirectly.
No, I'm not trying to be offensive or offset you at all. Stop being such an alpha NT, lol. It's not a coincidence this counter-phobic aversion to any form of direct confrontation has been most prominent among ENTps and INTjs, ime, and frankly, I'm tired of it. Maybe your Fi polr makes you overly-paranoid about others' motives, and you're weak Se makes you vulnerable to direct attacks from Se types, I don't know. Just stop presuming to know what I'm doing just because you're scared of a little intensity. And lol @ ur rationalization about how you reacted to merk. I don't particularly care about the details; every time I have observed the comical interaction, he has seemed in control. This is a matter of opinion, and I won't be convinced otherwise. And the fact that you tried to justify it continuously only reaffirms my belief.

And in what way is my desire to keep a discussion neutral emotionally charged either?
It's the fact that you can't handle it when it gets charged. Anyone can and should desire a neutral, rational discussion; it's just that some people know how to handle it when things get intense, and others don't.

That's the way I look at it. I wonder which of us is putting in the most energy, lol.
Judging from this thread, I'd say you are. Merk has made one post which addressed the issues concisely. You have made multiple posts which, for the most part, consist of rambling rationalizations and justifications. Again, he's not expending energy - or extra energy at least. You are expending a lot energy defending yourself, lol, so it's obvious who's "losing" here.

That's how I feel about it too, and how I feel about acts of aggression in argumentation. We're taught how to do it and how to recognize it in competitive debate, and it's a tool for emotionally manipulating the argument. While that's fun to do in competition, when I'm discussing things with people regularly I want to keep it on a very neutral playing field in order to keep the discussion pure. I want it to be about the logic and about the argument and about intellectual discovery. It's like a dirty taint to me when my the purity of my discussion is ruined by someone using emotionally manipulative tacks in argument. Aggression (whether backed by emotional intent or not) is an emotional tool.
This I interpret as a rationalized cop out for your inability to deal with direct confrontation in a competent manner. Debating takes skill, right? Well, guess what? There's an art to aggression and confrontation, too. It's not all about emotional insults; self-control, perceptiveness and other tactics come into play heavily. So stop dismissing it as if you're to good for it on your high pedestal of reason and objectivity. It's similar to people who say that fighting/war is bad, classless or immoral, when in reality, it is sometimes a necessity and more often than not, simply can't be avoided.