Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7417541" data-attributes="member: 5142">Then this is absolutely hypocritical to expect others to do the same about their own beliefs, because the reality is that people clearly have different &quot;basic facts about what they believe world building means.&quot; I hardly think that &quot;some of the definitions being proposed&quot; veer any, if at all, from &quot;how it generally means in the hobby,&quot; and it may be your own preconceptions and biases in place that prevent you from seeing that rather than any failures, shortcomings, or radicalism of the &quot;proposed definitions&quot; themselves. Cut it out with the false equivalence, Max. We are discussing of abstract ideas and not the classification of fruits. &quot;New definition&quot; implies the establishment of an &quot;old definition,&quot; yet the argument transpiring is about establishing what that &quot;old definition&quot; entails. You referring to your opponents' definition as a &quot;new definition&quot; is a pretty sleezy rhetorical way to position your own idiomatic definition as the &quot;old definition&quot; when you have not made a convincing case for that at all yet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7417541, member: 5142"] Then this is absolutely hypocritical to expect others to do the same about their own beliefs, because the reality is that people clearly have different "basic facts about what they believe world building means." I hardly think that "some of the definitions being proposed" veer any, if at all, from "how it generally means in the hobby," and it may be your own preconceptions and biases in place that prevent you from seeing that rather than any failures, shortcomings, or radicalism of the "proposed definitions" themselves. Cut it out with the false equivalence, Max. We are discussing of abstract ideas and not the classification of fruits. "New definition" implies the establishment of an "old definition," yet the argument transpiring is about establishing what that "old definition" entails. You referring to your opponents' definition as a "new definition" is a pretty sleezy rhetorical way to position your own idiomatic definition as the "old definition" when you have not made a convincing case for that at all yet. [/QUOTE]

Verification