Makaze

What if it tries to kill me first? Are you going to side with a murderer?

Let us consult the book of armaments!

Whew. Glad that is over. It had better be over.

Did you not read the question or do you just love food that much?

Once again, I did not suggest that they had been raped or directly abused by men in the past. The pain most of them face is the consistent, life-long intimidation, reminding of, and fear of these things happening. I even offered you a parallel. You are coming across as if you think that they have to have been physically assaulted for their pain to matter. Can you see how that is offensive?

Two problems. 1. It is extremely likely they are not trying to find offense. Offense is involuntary. People do not choose to have emotions. 2. Even if they are looking to be offended intentionally, nothing changes. In a world where no one can speak without causing more good than bad, no one should speak! You are still charged with not causing harm. Causing more good than harm ought to be your first priority. If you gallivant around saying things that happen to be true to please yourself despite knowing that the world would be a better place if you stayed silent, you are an asshole. Don't speak up if you can't do good.

Actually, it doesn't. You are missing a key possibility. It is possible that you suck at dealing with these people. It is possible that dealing with them in a way that does not offend them is easier for others than you. It is also possible it would be easy for you if you were open to changing your behavior. If you do suck at it, it is best to be mute when you will not help. People who cannot speak without causing harm should not speak. Carefully analyze when speaking will be helpful and only speak at those times. If you can speak without offending, you should do it. Speak bluntly when necessary; speak carefully when necessary. Minimize damage. Consider these possibilities.

Ah, I see. I'm sorry I overlooked that. Can you explain why you believe Chiki's actions in this thread are not elitist? Do you believe yourself to be an elitist or not? The following are rhetorical, to give you food for thought about your behavior in practice. When was the last time you came at a topic unsure of your position? When was the last time you came at a topic sure of your position and came out less sure? What was your intention in this discussion with me? Why do you believe that the 'lowest common denomitator' is not worth your respect or change in approach? Why are you so concerned with turning peoples' accusations back on them? It's getting late. Can someone else take over?

So you go back to being entitled and disregarding people who are not like you. I rest my case.

You haven't explained your intent...? I've been watching pretty carefully for it and all I have seen is that you feel you have a right to speak the truth. You didn't say what you hoped you accomplish by speaking the truth. Summarily, you said that I didn't have proof of your intent, but didn't directly counter it. Also, I'm talking about Chiki in particular here. Their intent is clear to see. Are you the same person?

Are you serious? You are free to actively deny what I said if you believe it is untrue. Otherwise, you are making the same mistake Chiki was. I am not debating. I am not here to "prove" that your behavior is bad for the sake of argument. I am here to get you to personally make better decisions in the future. I am not operating on that premise. In reality, it doesn't matter how you feel. If you know you may do harm and do the action anyway, the statement stops being neutral. That's what the knowledge adds. Not caring that it causes the harm is an assholeish thing to do even if you do not feel the emotion called malice. The italic part is simply false. To deny that people who cannot take the blunt truth exist is both naïve and delusional. You have seen, first hand, that many do not take it well. Even so, you continue to address the very same individuals with the same approach. To not learn from these mistakes is a sign of some kind of flaw on your end.

The bold is incorrect. The problem is not general. Not everyone who confidently confronts others is risking the moniker. I don't know how many times I've said this; I'm not sure why you still don't get it. It is the intent behind the confrontation that makes it elitist. You cannot equate two confident confrontations if they have different intents. They will come across in different ways no matter how objective you think you are.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. Chiki was the one who tunneled that thread by focusing on what he perceived as mistakes. When it got into semantics about something as petty as the meaning of soft determinism it was clearly only going to spiral further. I could tell I was the only one who actually cared about resolving the main issue. That is all the more clear now that he is bringing it up in other threads. Simply put, I disagree with his definition. Even if his definition can make sense, he is not able to explain it well enough, and trying to understand will be a waste of time. His only goal in the whole thing was to take me down a peg. It's a fruitless line of discussion. It was your thread. Do you not remember how much it derailed? The topic was "Hatred is also a choice, and I will leave it at that." I'm really confused by the threat comment. That makes me think you are talking about Chiki. He threatened me? I didn't believe it was possible anyone could not get my point after this display. You have shown me that Chiki is not one of a kind. Wow.

Yes. They exist. You can print various objects in three dimensions the same way you print words on paper. The layers of "ink" stack. By that time they will be extremely awesome.

but I don't believe in patents i'll 3d print it genius

dondon, are you seeing this? I can see you are because you are in the users viewing this thread. This is what elitism looks like.

It is your problem because of why you speak. If you do not speak to get them to truly understand your point, then you must be doing it for the sake of correction. Correcting when you know it will cause harm makes you an asshole. If you do speak to help them, then you can only control how you speak, not how they take it. You have to do this because if you don't get what you want, that's exactly what happened: you failed to get what you wanted. You and you alone are responsible for refusing to change. You have a responsibility to your own wish to succeed to do anything necessary to get the result you want. Blaming others because the method you like didn't have the results you wanted is not going to make it happen any faster. You cannot argue that because caring does not equate to overlooking their flaws or pretending they don't exist. If you care, you have to cater to those flaws until you can fix them. You have a responsibility to find out what they are so that you can start this process, too.

Senpai... Remember me. This is the end. Chiki is threatening me.

Do you care enough to change your approach? How could you better take their pain into account? What is the best way to show them that they are wrong? What is the best time? If you find yourself blurting out a correction as soon as someone says something stupid, you are probably being too trigger happy to help them.

Actually, it is your problem if you don't care about other people being intimidated into that mindset over a lifetime.

Hahahaha. You still don't get it. You did not educate me (as I believe the definition you offered does not solve the problem but equates the concepts anyway; equivocation), but I don't want to indulge that point because it's a tangent of my real problem with you. I left that debate because it was straying way too far from the discussion I wanted to have and I could tell you were set on getting that admission of defeat and that's it, no matter how far we strayed from the topic. It is why you post that makes your posts shit. I've addressed it with you directly before. You seem to have forgotten. Your posts will be shit for as long as you post to make others feel inferior.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my posts here. They are not debate posts. They are discussion posts meant to prod people into empathy. If you have a particular problem with what I said or the intent behind it, please address them. Empirical evidence is not needed for what I intended to do.

Pffft. You are reading me completely wrong. That's all I have to say on that.