|Jiggy RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32|
|5 people marked this as a favorite.|
Jiggy wrote:Technically, no, but there has to be a level that can be declared "good enough for any reasonable person to accept/good enough that it would be perverse by this point to say otherwise" otherwise you're just testing and testing and testing forever, and then you have no functional life. Are you saying I'm arguing with a whole temple's worth of ascetic monks whose existences are devoted to endlessly verifying their every thought? If so, I must admit that's a bit hardcore for me.I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:How many times must I test my own assertions before I no longer need to prove anything any further?That's not a state a person can reach.
Thread's moving faster than I can really keep up with, but I wanted to go back to this one.
IHIYC, how in the world did you manage to interpret my post like that?
I wrote that a person can't reach a point where one's own assertions/beliefs no longer need to be subject to review/proving/scrutiny/whatever.
Somehow, you interpreted this statement as meaning that I'm in favor of constant testing of one's every thought, day in and day out.
Normally when someone responds to such a straightforward statement with a reply as unfoundedly extreme as yours, it's taken as deliberate hyperbole used in an effort to turn the original statement into something more easily refuted so that they don't have to face an inconvenient observation.
But since you've been so big on how honest you are and how you always "fight fair", I guess we have to rule out hyperbole and conclude that you honestly believed that "you never reach a point where your ideas are beyond contestation" somehow meant "you must test your every thought constantly, even to the neglect of other life activities". If you were honest about being honest, then we have to conclude that your interpretation was genuine, despite its gross wrongness.
So, you've understood my statement to mean something vastly different than what I said. Why could this be? Well, according to you (earlier in this thread), it is fully the responsibility of the listener to make sure they understand the speaker's ideas. Since you have not understood the speaker's message, you have failed in the very responsibility you had proclaimed to the rest of us.
If you've been honest this whole time, then you have a self-elected responsibility to go back to my post and figure out where you went wrong and what I really meant.
Do you intend to do so? Or would you like me to explain it further, in spite of the values you've proclaimed thus far?