Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8451703" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sorry, but this is sophistic.&nbsp; You've clearly built a strawman of how I was using deferential to make it seem like it's being polite or engaging with arguments rather than the clear point that 5e cannot be criticized without an appropriately statement that it is a great game and so forth.&nbsp; One must be deferential to the subject of the criticism is not at all the same as saying that it could be considered deferential to actually engage with an argument made by another.&nbsp; A use I struggle to actually parse, by the way, as it's stretched to the breaking point.The opening statement is mush.&nbsp; It's a bunch of big words strung together to say that there being other people put limits on how you can engage in order to have a conversation.&nbsp; This is attempts to create a space were agreement that there are &quot;some&quot; limits to discussion like not screaming in faces or using vile insults or punching people is the same as the limit you're trying to enforce - that terminology be acceptable to everyone prior to the commencement of criticism.&nbsp; It's a bunk concept, regardless of the morass of large words used to disguise it.And your use of [USER=18626]@Snarf[/USER]'s quote goes equally well towards not following someone around at a party continually asking them to justify their use of a term in their criticism.&nbsp; In other words, it's not doing the work here you expect it to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8451703, member: 16814"] Sorry, but this is sophistic. You've clearly built a strawman of how I was using deferential to make it seem like it's being polite or engaging with arguments rather than the clear point that 5e cannot be criticized without an appropriately statement that it is a great game and so forth. One must be deferential to the subject of the criticism is not at all the same as saying that it could be considered deferential to actually engage with an argument made by another. A use I struggle to actually parse, by the way, as it's stretched to the breaking point. The opening statement is mush. It's a bunch of big words strung together to say that there being other people put limits on how you can engage in order to have a conversation. This is attempts to create a space were agreement that there are "some" limits to discussion like not screaming in faces or using vile insults or punching people is the same as the limit you're trying to enforce - that terminology be acceptable to everyone prior to the commencement of criticism. It's a bunk concept, regardless of the morass of large words used to disguise it. And your use of [USER=18626]@Snarf[/USER]'s quote goes equally well towards not following someone around at a party continually asking them to justify their use of a term in their criticism. In other words, it's not doing the work here you expect it to. [/QUOTE]

Verification