See this is where your arguments all fall apart. You fail to actually substantiate any of them beyond just saying "more to it than face value", or "the presentation of your argument was bad to me", and more. You fail to actually compare and contrast why it was bad, and establish a behavioral baseline as to what would make a good impression.
True, and real.
Well, I'm not good at making cases period. I know I lost that argument, so I'll not contest that.
In this specific context, you first attributed your suspicion to feelings and the notion of my proposals to something scummy. Yet, later when you backtracked out of it to present a viewpoint where you said it's not based on sentiment, but more so on presentation, you again fail to substantiate further what sort of presentation you were expecting.
You then go further to state that Muugen was taking up a burgeoning space of discussion, which you yourself admitted to it being unhealthy, but fail to reconcile why I made such arguments to end it quickly, and instead, defaulted back to "presentation". Now you claim that from a pure argument perspective, you don't disagree with my proposal. You even go on to say that this could all be "circumstantial" and you now outright say that you don't want to clarify further because "I don't get it".
Now this is something I completely disagree with.
Because I mentioned that in our original back and forth, I was onboard with the sentiment, but the presentation pinged me.
I gave you the benefit of doubt but you became really defensive about it.
And me saying that I am not going to clarify it because you don't get it is because I've already explained myself almost every post I made.
Like I've been clear about it time and time again but you just say you don't get it, well then what am I gonna say then?
I made a scenario that made full sense in my mind, and you acted just as I'd expect if the scenario I made was true. So of course I'm gonna think you're partners with Muu in that case.
My PoV comes entirely from how I interpreted the situation, I made a scenario that made sense in my head, and I acted accordingly.
Just because I agreed with your sentiments doesn't mean I agree with your solutions and conclutions.
I'm not backpeddaling, I simply didn't have enough on you to substansiate further.
You claiming "I want you to be town because I don't want to sus you" or "You're a good player and you've fooled you before" are simply not good arguments to present. The factuality of those statements are brought into question since no one knows the truth of it, and two, those statements merely serve the purpose of just keeping your suspicion going, or reasoning out to others that your suspicion is based on somewhat subjective grounds. Yes, subjective again, because, like feelings and tone, the objective nature of those statements are again brought into question simply because they can only be proven, once again, after the fact. This behavior is also simply posturing.
Again, your perspective can be the same, or different. It doesn't matter to me simply because I consider the grounds you actually base your assumptions on to wrong and not substantiated enough. As for your assumptions about me, the bulletproof theory and more. There's a simple argument that is - No supposition is axiomatic.
This itself is a blatant contradiction here because you don't disagree with the argument per se, but you disagree with the presentation of it. So how would the presentation discredit the argument on a slot which you yourself claim that you want to see sorted out quickly? See, it comes off more so on the fact that you don't want to resolve Muugen quickly enough, that the presentation of the argument should distract you from the argument itself. Which again, you don't disagree with.
Say what you will about that, I am merely stating what I think.
Even if they don't make for good arguments it doesn't change the way I view the situation as a whole. If I had more dirt on you I'd present it, at best it's a hard read that's not substansiated by a lot of evidence per se.
So I understand you're appealing to logic here, which would make sense, but I think you're beeing TOO logical.
Maybe my read on you isn't the most logical thing all things considered, but who cares.
You're only repeating yourself, and I've only reiterated what I've said in the past.
So yes, I admit that I'm reading you based off a scenario I find likely.
Don't come here telling me I can't do that
Too big of a coincidence is again not a good argument. The validity of it falls completely on the two events not being mutually exclusive to one another, to which, we have no proof of again.
Calling it hyper-defensive, when I've been accused so wrongly isn't how it's done. I'm defending my viewpoint and you actually fail to see it is why I'm not on board to you being town here.
I really fail to see why it's not a good argument to make, I am totally aware that it might be a coincidence like no other, but I'm sure you realize how it looks for you right?
You can't seriously be telling me that something that's too good to be true can't be a good argument.
