[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by stargroup100

Again, this is not the point. We are not generalizing about what is usually arrogant, we are trying to come up with a method to distinguish arrogance from non-arrogance.

okay, let me be very very clear... arrogance is determined by the biases of the observer. any one action may be arrogant or not arrogant, depending on who it is that sees the action. there is no way to distinguish arrogance from non arrogance without talking about the perspectives of the people who view actions. in any one situation a given action may be deemed arrogant or non arrogant, depending on the opinion of the person who views that action. what is viewed as arrogant is, to a large part, dependent on what is considered arrogant by the culture overall.

Suppose you've been falsely accused of a crime and you have to go to court. Because 99% of the people who are accused are guilty, we say "by definition" you are guilty and sentence you. This is not fair, and this is not how we distinguish the guilty from the innocent.

except that laws are absolute, and arrogance is dependent on opinion. this is where you are getting confused.

You clearly don't belong in this board if you think we don't need logical rules to form coherent arguments.

way to be an asshole. congratulations, you are an asshole.

Again, if you think that I don't it means you're grossly misinterpreting the discussion.

read the definition of arrogance. read it twice. read it three times. read it until you understand it. it clearly might take a while.

My feelings aren't hurt. If anything, I revel in this kind of discussion, and you're an easy target.

this is why you are missing everything. you cant see the forest for the trees. do you know what that means? i suspect you dont.

If the context is not a part of the argument then adding context to make it right is still intellectually dishonest. You don't get to just throw in context to your fundamentally flawed argument right.

you dont understand my argument, clearly.

Cashier: Sir, you bought this for $2 and that for $2 as well. You owe me $5, not $4.

You can't just attach context to this because the cashier is just flat out wrong.

i think this is what you would call a red herring. i'm at work talking to my boss and i say 2+2=5. he understands my point, and nods, meanwhile you jump in and call me an idiot, because 2+2 is obviously 4.

[b]Except I don't agree with you. Looking up can be obnoxious, looking down is not necessarily arrogant.

give me an example of the latter. you havent done that yet.

I gave you an example. Competitive games. I literally explained an example to you. If the player you can beat in skill uses a strategy you haven't considered, you can learn from the experience and anticipate it for future games.

you can look at his strategy and appreciate it without comparing. try again.

Are you not satisfied with this example?

nope! you havent demonstrated that a comparison is necessary, or even relevant. looking at a good strategy that you havent employed is, in a way, looking at someone better than you at something. all you get by comparing is which is better.

Your arguments are one-dimensional, incoherent, and flat out wrong. I've understood all of your points, and they're either off-topic, "obvious" or wrong.
- We already understand that arrogance is based on perception.
- We already understand that this is not a "purely logical" issue, no one is arguing using "pure logic".
- You refuse to be intellectually honest by redefining terms and applying fallacy after fallacy.
- When I try to address your claims and explain why you're wrong, you deliberately redirect the topic or shift the burden of proof.
- You don't even think logic is important for a rational discussion so you clearly don't belong here.

really? because if what you're saying is true, you're aruging semantics and being an asshole, so maybe you dont belong here...