Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
But if you put yourself in the judge's chair to decide when you're in an argument with someone that you feel is beneath you (my words, you say deficiencies and lack of faculties), it doesn't hold much validity.
Like above when you say break from homerism ... right there you're labeling someone less angry about things as a homer. Not you're right to decide where that line is, and it's another ad hominem attack.
|
I’m not a judge and CP isn’t a court. I’m not trying to win over anyone’s opinion, favour or rally support in any way, I couldn’t care less. Maybe others need internet points for validation, but that’s not how I want to live my life. I have also never said anyone was beneath me, that’s probably something you’re reading into from my tone, but that’s your choice to do so, and once again I’m not trying to win over your opinion. No one is beneath me, we’re all people here, however not all of us have equal strengths and weaknesses. For example I’m not always the strongest communicator, it’s a flaw and something I’m working on. Others think points in the NHL don’t matter, and that’s stupid.
About the homerism thing, it is actually my right to decide where the line is drawn for calling something homerism…to me. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with it but I am absolutely in the right to decide where I define a nebulous concept like homerism.