Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25266931-20161128203912/@comment-27082610-20161202165335

Prefacing a counterargument with "that's fucking stupid" is not resorting to name calling.

And you really don't defend your arguments, you just restate them over and over ignoring all significant counters before changing the subject whenever it's obvious that you've lost said argument. And I'm not going to lie, I can't even understand what you're saying in the last half of that paragraph.

My biggest problem with your statements is the fact that you have repeatedly shown a complete inablity to understand that people have different moral foundations than you. When you say you try to put yourself in the character's shoes, what you really seem to do is apply your life experiences, prejudices, morals, values, and thought process to the character. This is wrong. That's not putting yourself in their shoes, it's just you pushing your world view on them.

And another is said world view. Your views on morality are extermely rigid, shallow, and quite frankly childish in some cases. You have displayed a black and white view of morality, when in reality, it's not even shades of gray, it's this giant mass of colors constantly changing shape, size, and shade, because morality is entirley subjective.

My third problem is the aformentioned poorly constructed strawman analogies you tend to bring up when discussing character moralities. These analogies rarely relate to the discussion and essentially just act as confusing filler for anyone reading what you're saying. Communication is the art of sending a message in such a way that the receiver can understand and interpret it in in the manner it was meant to be recieved, and if you shove a bunch of pointless fluff like that into your statements you fail at communicating.