Now as you stoop to insult me, I'll tell you to get your mind out of the mental mud before you do so further. >.>
There was no insult "Don't be stupid" means just that. It is a request, if you do not appear to be an unintelligent person but you say something out of turn which seems trivial or silly I will tell you not to be Stupid.
If you took that as an insult, well then you ARE a Moron. And yes, that one...If it applies to you, was an insult. I feel fully justified in calling you stupid now if you took the harmless comment "Don't be Stupid" as anything more then what it is, grew defensive and felt the need to make such remarks over the last comment.
Those who result to insults usually have no other purpose than to try and dissuade a refutation of their argument.
What would one say about the participant whose refutation was met with dismissal upon fair and logical grounds, who upon this occasion chose not to further the debate with added insight but halt the process entirely? Who seeks to adopt a holier than thou attitude in attempt to escalate themselves to a false moral position from which they cannot be assailed. One who displays the utmost paradox in using the concept of their opponent clinging to baseless and unjustified insults as a venemous and sardonic weapon to plunge into their breast. Those showing themselves to be of the same nature of that they aim their scorn. Their means attempt to be more civil surely but such deeds and thoughts are both condoned and condemned on moral and social grounds is it not their intent and not the nature of their use that defines the extent of their worth? Do not seek to tell them that you are better, simply do it and ask for no recognition. Knowing itself is the prize, the man who seeks respect as a trophy and a cloak to be worn is not worth respecting at all.
In other words stop acting like a douche (Gosh yet more insults I stoop to I am so bad right????) and trying to tell me that I'm so bad and have no means to argue with you and your great MORAL FIBRE!!!11 and simply either discuss it with me or don't. I have no time for fanciful notions of self imposed chivalry from either of us. It's just the internet dude. I'm nobodys enemey, I'm a faceless young adult on the internet who speaks in a rather harsh and blunt fashion. It is not provocative, or slanderous, nor is it unjust.
Simple implicative process, your refute to my saying that pikmin didn't have mouths was by saying that not all animals have mouths.
This implies the following
Pikmin= doesn't need a mouth.
You then proceed to use an example "off the top of your head" which usually implies with most relevance.
doesn't need a mouth = Jellyfish.
Transitively, one could say that you therfore said that Pikmin=Jellyfish, but to leave that transitive statement as it is is a logical fallacy. So instead, one makes a parallel to it.
Pikmin, could be in a sense, like Jellyfish.
^ The above being a parallel.
I disagree most fully.
"
Perhaps John neither likes nor dislikes Marmite."
"
John cannot hold neutral feelings for Marmite. You either love it or you hate it."
"
Bob is neutral on the subject of Marmite..."
This does not show any Parallel between John or Bob (other then a possible feeling of apathy towards Marmite, emphasis on the word possible as this is a Hypothesis within an already Hypothetical argument. Blue is not saying that John actually feels Neutral towards Marmite but just that if Bob can be then it can't be impossible) It is not intended to.
John and Bob could be entirely different.
Bob might like Star Wars and Olives and Chess
While John likes Dragon Ball Z and Soccer and Dogging.
John could be Ginger, while Bob has 6 Toes.
There is no Parallel to be made.
Bob is simply mentioned as the existence of somebody who is neutral towards Marmite.
With Bobs existence proven Johns existence is no longer allowed to be called impossible on the grounds that everything in the universe must either Love or Hate Marmite.
I state again there needs be no parallel John and Bob could feel neutral on Marmite in entirely different ways for entirely different reasons.
One of them might like the taste but feel it too filling or simply think there are better things to go on his Toast.
While the other finds it too strong for him and he only likes very small amounts from time to time.
To clarify one thing "Off the top of my head" did not mean with most relevance. But simply "I do not wish to waste my time to research more animals without mouths and find one more similar to a system that could be used by the Pikmin myself when all I am saying is not how an Animal can exist without mouths but THAT Animals can exist without mouths."
