Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5812037" data-attributes="member: 54877">If it seems so, it is because it is difficult to do anything else with the circular arguments that you and Mark are making. They are nothing but semantic attempts to sharply narrow the definition of &quot;roleplaying&quot; to be &quot;first person characterization&quot;. &nbsp;This is parallel to Chesterton's example of the man in the insane asylum who thinks he is the King of England. You can't assail his position because it is perfectly logical within the constraints of his premise. It's logical, but emprically foolish. All you can do is show a broader world, and suggest that there is more on heaven and earth than what is dreamed of in his philosophy.&nbsp;Mark disagreed violently with Hobo's couple of suggestions as to why someone would so want to narrow the definition. Meanwhile, postings in good faith to show a broader world have been met with semantic arguments and what appears from this end to to have no good purpose. So show a good purpose why &quot;roleplaying&quot; should be limited to first person characterization. Then we can discuss that intelligently. Otherwise, there will always remain the suspicion of a hidden agenda that can't be discussed. I think &quot;rollplaying versus roleplaying&quot; as a concept is emprically foolish. Show us otherwise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5812037, member: 54877"] If it seems so, it is because it is difficult to do anything else with the circular arguments that you and Mark are making. They are nothing but semantic attempts to sharply narrow the definition of "roleplaying" to be "first person characterization". This is parallel to Chesterton's example of the man in the insane asylum who thinks he is the King of England. You can't assail his position because it is perfectly logical within the constraints of his premise. It's logical, but emprically foolish. All you can do is show a broader world, and suggest that there is more on heaven and earth than what is dreamed of in his philosophy. Mark disagreed violently with Hobo's couple of suggestions as to why someone would so want to narrow the definition. Meanwhile, postings in good faith to show a broader world have been met with semantic arguments and what appears from this end to to have no good purpose. So show a good purpose [I]why[/I] "roleplaying" should be limited to first person characterization. Then we can discuss that intelligently. Otherwise, there will always remain the suspicion of a hidden agenda that can't be discussed. I think "rollplaying versus roleplaying" as a concept is emprically foolish. Show us otherwise. [/QUOTE]

Verification