BrianWhatever,
Now you've just pissed me off. You're not arguing with me; you're insulting me. So I suppose that two can play that game. Your arguing technique is so incredibly whimsical that, when it does make statement that has any sort of coherency, it's never supported. Then you make some completely meaningless attack on my case regarding the source and style of my debate. I don't "make up" arguments; they stand to real logic. And since I'm sure that you will never read Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, let alone comprehend it, I suppose throwing out a universally acknowledged philosopher means nothing. Whatever. I don't need to debate you any more. I'll just let you make a fool of yourself by arguing badly for your views. You've done much more to invalidate your claims than I have.
And I'm not THAT upset with you debating me. What I AM upset about is you're comment about Ray.
Quote:
I hope this one isn't imaginary too. Making things up just isn't your style.
That's not funny. That's not even fair play. That actually hurts me. So here's rule number two in academic debate: upsetting your opponent doesn't win you the round; it usually just makes you look like an dick.
General:
The disability Autism causes people to have difficulty with social cues and repetitive movement. The disability of wilful ignorance causes people to hurt others for their own narcissistic gains.
Repetitive movement vs. social harm.
I wonder which one is worse.