[004]
KingZeal
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN'T relevant. For example, i can't nitpick every single semantic argument about
to:
The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN\'T relevant. For example, i can\'t nitpick every single semantic argument about \"rational\" \"unsound\" or \"impartial\" you make. I can\'t explain to you how the two best friends of characters acting irrationally are not \"impartial\" members of the dispute. Even if i tried, at some point, thus debate will have stretched on to long and if we still disagree, then the argument either dies or goes to a mediator.
That being said, I\'m not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve \" did everything they could\" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a FalseDichotomy, or a PerfectSolutionFallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That\'s not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn\'t the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn\'t.
The reason i linked to the video as i did is because I\'m on a mobile device. Thus another reason why i can\'t debate 101 different points of contention. My point was simply to show that there ARE reviewers and fans who are saying this. To me, that at least qualifies it as YMMV.
That being said, I\'m not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve \" did everything they could\" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a FalseDichotomy, or a PerfectSolutionFallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That\'s not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn\'t the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn\'t.
The reason i linked to the video as i did is because I\'m on a mobile device. Thus another reason why i can\'t debate 101 different points of contention. My point was simply to show that there ARE reviewers and fans who are saying this. To me, that at least qualifies it as YMMV.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN'T relevant. For example, i can't nitpick every single semantic argument about
to:
The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN\'T relevant. For example, i can\'t nitpick every single semantic argument about \"rational\" \"unsound\" or \"impartial\" you make. I can\'t explain to you how the two best friends of characters acting irrationally are not \"impartial\" members of the dispute. Even if i tried, at some point, thus debate will have stretched on to long and if we still disagree, then the argument either dies or goes to a mediator.
That being said, I\'m not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve \" did everything they could\" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a FalseDichotomy, or a PerfectSolutionFallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That\'s not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn\'t the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn\'t.
The reason i linked to the video as i did is because I\'m on a mobile device. Thus another reason why i can\'t debate 101 different points of contention. My point was simply to show that there ARE reviewers and fans who are saying this. To me, that at least qualifies it as YMMV.
That being said, I\'m not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve \" did everything they could\" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a FalseDichotomy, or a PerfectSolutionFallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That\'s not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn\'t the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn\'t.
The reason i linked to the video as i did is because I\'m on a mobile device. Thus another reason why i can\'t debate 101 different points of contention. My point was simply to show that there ARE reviewers and fans who are saying this. To me, that at least qualifies it as YMMV.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN'T relevant. For example, i can't nitpick every single semantic argument about
to:
The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN\'T relevant. For example, i can\'t nitpick every single semantic argument about \"rational\" \"unsound\" or \"impartial\" you make. I can\'t explain to you how the two best friends of characters acting irrationally are not \"impartial\" members of the dispute. Even if i tried, at some point, thus debate will have stretched on to long and if we still disagree, then the argument either dies or goes to a mediator.
That being said, I\'m not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve \" did everything they could\" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a FalseDichotomy, or a PerfectSolutionFallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That\'s not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn\'t the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn\'t.
The reason i linked to the video as i did is because I\'m on a mobile device. Thus another reason why i can\'t debate 101 different points of contention. My point was simply to show that there ARE reviewers and fans who are staying this. To me, that at least qualifies it as YMMV.
That being said, I\'m not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve \" did everything they could\" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a FalseDichotomy, or a PerfectSolutionFallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That\'s not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn\'t the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn\'t.
The reason i linked to the video as i did is because I\'m on a mobile device. Thus another reason why i can\'t debate 101 different points of contention. My point was simply to show that there ARE reviewers and fans who are staying this. To me, that at least qualifies it as YMMV.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN'T relevant. For example, i can't nitpick every single semantic argument about
to:
The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN\'T relevant. For example, i can\'t nitpick every single semantic argument about \"rational\" \"unsound\" or \"impartial\" you make. I can\'t explain to you how the two best friends of characters acting irrationally are not \"impartial\" members of the dispute. Even if i tried, at some point, thus debate will have stretched on to long and if we still disagree, then the argument either dies or goes to a mediator.
That being said, I\'m not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve \" did everything they could\" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a FalseDichotomy, or a PerfectSolutionFallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That\'s not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn\'t the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn\'t.
That being said, I\'m not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve \" did everything they could\" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a FalseDichotomy, or a PerfectSolutionFallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That\'s not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn\'t the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn\'t.
