Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8569757" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I find that you are not particularly taking my arguments seriously, and that in various places (particularly the quoted bit) you are simply restating your case without actually defending it, despite my efforts to actually engage and show a serious problem. Responding to &quot;well...can't we make the same form of argument but against what you've claimed?&quot; with &quot;No, that is incorrect&quot; is just not conducive to having a discussion, which is why I bowed out previously and why I am going to do so again. My criticism appears to have simply been ignored rather than responded to, so there is no further point in saying anything.I still maintain that a hardcore, exclusive &quot;Law is group, Chaos is individual&quot; suffers exactly the same problems as a hardcore, exclusive &quot;Law is reliable, Chaos is free&quot; dichotomy, and that it is simply superior to use the metric I've proposed. I have not seen any evidence that meaningfully suggests that Chaos cannot have a very group-centric identity or structure, and I find your &quot;Law can be a group of one&quot; response to be not only woefully inadequate, but completely gutting the very idea of what &quot;group identity&quot; means. When groups are allowed to be as small as individuals and still count as groups, your proposed distinction evaporates, as all Chaotic folks are simply Lawful ones whose group identity is a set that contains only themselves.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8569757, member: 6790260"] I find that you are not particularly taking my arguments seriously, and that in various places (particularly the quoted bit) you are simply restating your case without actually defending it, despite my efforts to actually engage and show a serious problem. Responding to "well...can't we make the same form of argument but [I]against[/I] what you've claimed?" with "No, that is incorrect" is just not conducive to having a discussion, which is why I bowed out previously and why I am going to do so again. My criticism appears to have simply been [I]ignored[/I] rather than responded to, so there is no further point in saying anything. I still maintain that a hardcore, exclusive "Law is group, Chaos is individual" suffers [I]exactly[/I] the same problems as a hardcore, exclusive "Law is reliable, Chaos is free" dichotomy, and that it is simply superior to use the metric I've proposed. I have not seen any evidence that meaningfully suggests that Chaos cannot have a very group-centric identity or structure, and I find your "Law can be a group of one" response to be not only woefully inadequate, but completely [I]gutting[/I] the very idea of what "group identity" means. When groups are allowed to be as small as individuals and still count as groups, your proposed distinction evaporates, as all Chaotic folks are simply Lawful ones whose group identity is a set that contains only themselves. [/QUOTE]

Verification