I'm going to try to avoid escalating this discussion further and focus on attempting to make less harsh comments in hopes for further discussion. I hope you will do the same I also want to invite you to try and view our conversation from my perspective.
Sure. I am good with that train of thought.
From my perspective, my immediate response to you challenging my use of clear as not being colorless was to say
-Missing quote-
Please ask yourself if that quote lines up with your characterization of my posts. Please also give me some insight into why you never direclty responded to this comment because from my perspective, if you had responded to this particular comment the discussion would have went forward and we both would have avoided a good deal of frustration regarding this particular side topic.
To my mind, my answer already covered that. with this post.
Then you would have a more accurate depiction of the case of having or not having a subclass (which is finite and specific in that a character has a subclass or it does not) and it would in fact be a correct depiction. You use of a visual property in the pretense that a clear marble does not get measured as if a color is false because if you give me a bag of colored marbles and asked me to sort by color, I would define clear as a color and separate them into their own pile. If you asked me to count the colored marbles I would say 100 total and if you asked me to count the marbles that have an Opaque color I answer with 4 total because that would be a finite answer.
You said, "Also to anyone that cares: Colorless marbles are referred to as Clear." which means your not saying with color and without color, your defining colorless = clear. That is asserting the use of color and "colorless" as if colorless actually exists and defining it as clear which is not a color. As I pointed out later Clear Blue water is blue but your switching that to say colorless defies that. So your asking me to agree to an apples to oranges argument. Since you have set visual property of opacity and equated to color it in a way that is not true your division of color is not an accurate example of your point...Its like saying whats your favorite subclass? Answer: Rogue... but rogue is not subclass its a class.
Why is this important? If I say I agree that clear is colorless but would divide it by its color as not being red or blue then I am defining it as color and calling it colorless at the same time. That is the contradiction of apples and oranges. A correct statement is that it is clear but of a hue despite it being of very light do to a high-level of transparency. So I would divide a 96 "clear white marbles", 3 "clear red marbles", and 1 "clear blue marbles" into 3 groups by color
because all 3 have color despite the clarity level being so much more that on white that people don't call it white.
That is not the same as the absolute of having a subclass or not having a subclass. For example: I would also divide 96 "clear white marbles", 3 "opaque red marbles", and 1 "opaque blue marbles" by "opaque color distribution" then I would only count 4. 3 Red (75%) 1 Blue (25%).
This is a false comparison with a loophole that if I except a concretion forces me to except a contradiction in your argument on subclass that does not exist.
From my perspective, It was only after I made that comment above in an attempt to move the discussion forward that I made a comment trying to explain why I didn't have a problem substituting colorless in for clear. That comment is below.
But your choosing to ignore that I don't except your example as valid and keep arguing it when my point is its not a valid comparison so why do keep going back to it? It fails to maintain the absolute nature of having a subclass or not having a subclass because of the apples to oranges nature of the argument.
So if you want to continue with your point you need to use an absolute example or skip the example how it is that your able to argue that "Subclass distribution" should cover classes without subclass destitution. I already said I would include lack of subclassing by dividing it at the class level "Class Distribution broken down by subclass when applicable (Active Characters)"
From my perspective, you attempted to challenge my use of clear again when from my persepctive it no longer really mattered because I had already changed the relevant example from clear to colorless.
From my perspective I answered that challenge by trying to explain again that I mean a particular thing when I use the term "clear marble". I also give a picture showing exactly the kind of marble I refer to as clear.
From my perspective, you still weren't addressing the updated example which would have allowed the conversation to move past "clear marbles" but instead you commented yet again just to tell me yet again that clear marbles aren't necessarily colorless.
My point is its an apples to oranges argument forcing me to separate apples (Red), Apples(green) and orange so you can say I separated oranges due to "Apple distribution" then claim they are part of the same group as fruit but while orange are fruit they are not apples. Its not "Fruit Distribution" any more than a subclass is "class Distribution" and if a class is not using a subclass, it is just a class like an orange is fruit but not an apple.
So, that's how the events unfolded from my perspective. Can you at least try to view this discussion from my perspective before you start harshly accusing me of behaviors that are clearly not present when you view the conversation from my perspective.
I don't intend any harshness. If it comes across that way I apologize. I hope explained better here. My complaint is your tangent argument is not comparable because its apples and oranges and presents a loophole by that forces and agreement to a false concept. If you are not doing it on purpose then its just a bad example and I have done as much. So why stick to your guns. Answer my bold point above and trying a new example that doesn't use to visual aesthetics and claim they are the same thing. We don't need to argue clear vs color vs colorless to continue the discussion and my only real point is that is not valid comparison, but you don't have to agree with that ether way, we just need to find one we agree on. I literally used apples and oranges above. Its a bit of satire but understand I mean it as bit of joke. If you don't like that example we don't have to stick with it. Like your marbles, that is not the point of the discussion.
