[stargroup100]

The fun never ends.

So you do know what logical fallacies are right? I pointed out that your arguments and positions are just full of them and you don't seem to be aware. Let me help you here.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

how about someone who is better than you, maybe better than everyone in the room, objectively, at something delcaring that they are better? is that okay? if i beat you at counter strike repeatedly, and i say to your face that i am better than you, how is that not a dickish thing to do? it may be true, it may be relevant to the topic at hand, but it's still an arrogant thing to do.

Cherry Picking
You agreed that in order to be arrogant, one must come across as insulting. You also said flat out that a high opinion of oneself "by definition" guarantees that it will come off as insulting.

You picked one example which is in fact insulting, and somehow you believe this proves your point that all high opinions of self are insulting.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

i am assuming that all cultures have a baseline perspective on what counts as arrogance,

Unsupported assumption

Originally Posted by FoJaR

and that a solid majority of persons in a culture have the same feelings about what is considered arrogance, yes. there's gonna be a distribution, but it's going to be a well defined one.

Vague/meaningless terms
What is this "well defined" distribution?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

yeah, but if you were to take a survey of your entire family and neighbors etc, you would have a pretty solid idea of what your culture as a whole thinks, and generally it would agree.

Hasty generalizations
Just because a small sample of people feel a certain way, it doesn't mean that's the case with the larger group. In fact, if opinions on arrogance was more influenced by local factors rather than wider cultural factors, your claim is both false and useless.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

too bad?

i mean this isnt totally uncommon. when you mix two groups, a lot of the time actions that go without notice in one group are a big deal for the other group. one group of people might not consider something arrogant while the other does, and guess what? that's okay. i mean, sometimes it causes problems, but there's nothing to stop two groups of people from seeing things differently.

Red herring
You asserted that culture pretty much determines how people view arrogance. I'm trying to argue that tying one's opinion of arrogance automatically to what a culture as a whole feels (if the culture even holds such a view) is ridiculous and is in no way relevant to the context of the situation. When someone does something possibly arrogant, only the opinions of the people interacting in that situation are relevant. You just went off on a tangent completely by stating something "obviously" true as if it proves your point.

In any case, if that's your point, why is it then that having a high opinion of oneself automatically correlates to insulting someone? If group A thought the high opinion was insulting, but group B did not, and the context only involves people within group B, doesn't that negate your point that high opinion of oneself "by definition" is insulting?

Originally Posted by FoJaR

well first of all, the honesty comment is directed toward archowl who has in the past used his need to be honest as rationalization for arrogance etc.

More red herrings
I tried to ask you about why you make a dichotomy between honesty and arrogance. Why can't a skilled person be honest and not arrogant? You were addressing my point by quoting me, and then you deflect the argument by saying you were talking to Arch. No you weren't.

Even if you were, you're not understanding what he's asking. He's asking what conditions could classify self opinion as arrogant, and you still haven't addressed your false dichotomy of honesty and arrogance.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

well, this is a tough situation. in job interviews, it's expected that you will try to sell yourself. you could say that the culture of job interviews is more lenient when it comes to high self opinion. how you say what you say may very well come off as arrogant even in a job interview though, so it's something to be careful of.

So you're proving my point then? Or is this another cherry pick?
You either just agreed that one can be justified in having a high opinion of oneself without being arrogant, or you just gave another example where it is possible one could still be arrogant.

Again, I'm trying to address your point that a high opinion of oneself necessarily "by definition" is arrogance.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

again, arrogance is all about how people perceive the way you talk about yourself. because of cultural norms, most people generally have a good idea of where the line is in a given situation. some people cross the line because they are oblivious or lack social grace, some cross it because they have disorders, and some cross it because they're assholes or because they like feeling better than the people around them.

Still red herring
We are trying to discuss what makes one's expression of self opinion arrogant or not. We are not at the moment discussing what causes a person to act arrogantly or not. In other words, we are discussing how to classify and distinguish arrogance from non-arrogance, not what makes a person predisposed to coming off as arrogant.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

and good taste dictates that when the game is over you are polite to the person that you beat. going over to the person you just beat and saying "i beat you because i'm better than you" may be true, but it's also pretty arrogant and rude.

More red herrings jesus (and technically also more cherry picking)
Your point was that there is no reason to make comparisons of your skill with other people. I gave you a reason. In order to improve one's skill at a competitive game, one must understand what kinds of strategies the opponent will make, and the only way to adapt to opponents is to study them, and this is the comparison.

What you said is indeed arrogant, but it is not the only way in which one compares oneself to others. Just because this particular behavior is arrogant and needless does not justify the notion that all comparisons with people are needless.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

again, this is to archowl, not you. this is in reference to his need to talk about how he's better than people and how he feels that not doing so is dishonest. you arent part of this conversation.

I don't even know
I'm clearly part of this conversation because I'm calling you out on how what you're saying has major flaws. It's irrelevant who is in the conversation because from an outside perspective anyone can point these out. All of my points are valid and do not need to call upon any information or opinions of Arch personally.

Originally Posted by FoJaR

like it or not, in western culture most of the time when someone tells the people around them that they are better than them, that person is being arrogant, according to the definition. it is generally perceived as being in bad taste.

Hasty generalizations
Again, one more time. My point is that you automatically link high opinion of self with insulting others, "by definition" of arrogance. But clearly, you already admitted that this may not always be the case, and there could exist exceptions. My point is that by asserting high opinion of self necessarily implies arrogance ignores these exceptions.


Like, with all due respect, I don't want to insult your intelligence by thinking you can't see the flaws in your argument when I've outlined them this clearly.