Lobstrich
Prolific Member
Wow, Chimera. Haven't heard from you in forever. You must be all growed up now, haha. Was going over the names in this thread, seeing all the newbies (all with more posts than me--if only we counted words in this forum instead of posts! haha), and then I realized I should know you if from 2008--and even though your icon changed, your name rang a bell. It clicked. Weren't you like 15 back in the day?
Anyways: my pleasure to be liked.I do put my heart into what I write.
In regards to the argument: I have no idea if Zago is an idiot, I didn't read enough of what he wrote. His original post was fine, though he very well could have gotten emotional in responses that I didn't read far enough to see--it would be very human. I do know, however, that you, lobstrich, seem rather obnoxius, as someone arguing just in response to irritation can be. Your last response hardly justifies mine, but I'll do one more and be over with it... In the future, I'll just throw my weight behind whatever puffy says, that one seems to have the right idea.
In theory, yeah, that's what all INTPs say. That would make the most sense. But we're rarely so pure in our motivations. It takes a lot more maturity than most exhibit on this forum to really do that.
If I don't know what you're saying, it's your fault. I understand your English fine. If you feel you need to reexpress yourself from scratch, feel free. Your engaging in a silly tactic right now that you continue for some time saying "you didn't understand what I said, therefore your arguments don't apply." I understood fine. At best you can say 'I didn't say it right, let me try again'. As it is, you're saying (though casting blame) 'I didn't say it right, so there.' You're making your statements undebatable.
Yeah, I know reasonable excuses exist. But excuse in this use explicitly implies that I thought it was a bad excuse, and I still stand by that. Also, just because honesty is your holy cow doesn't mean your perfectly honest--a catholic priest may argue vigorously for his belief while molesting children in his spare time. Plenty of evangelicals preached vigorously and were sleeping with prostitutes in secret. I am just pointing out that you have an emotional hang up on this word.
I believe you, anyways. But it is lame. And it is a bad excuse. I honestly think that feeling of 'ugh, don't want to respond' had more to do with the fact that I was right and you knew it wouldn't be easy to counter what you had read.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can imagine a chance that you could admit being wrong. That is why I'm stopping the debate on my side after this response... There won't be an end with you.
It would be irrelevant if your first line was right, but I obviously disagree. You are saying 'to do the above would be desecration of internal honesty', and I am saying 'no, who you are has nothing to do with what is being talked about.' I look at those positions, and I see little to no room for synthesis. Either these social points are directly related to identity or they aren't.
America is a democratic republic. It is both. They don't have to agree (that's one option, though even in your example they aren't 'agreeing', just doing the same thing my example gave), but they can both make different, true statements that don't actually conflict--which, as was my point, is not the case in our argument, where we *do* have a real conflict, which I just clarified for you above since you seem to have not seen it.
I wasn't indicating it made me better--I stand on the merit of my arguments and words, not some title; I care for titles as little as the next INTP--rather, I was using it to indicate my disposition towards debates and potential propensity towards 'winning'. (*two)
Your Danish quote is comprehensible in English, but the idea sounds kind of misguided to me. Going against the flow for the sake of going against the flow is foolish and immature. Then you go and say 'disliking just to dislike' is moronic, but that sounds like it's exactly the idea behind 'if you are a living fish, you go against the current'. Why? Because you're alive, according to that quote.
Anyways, I know you *think* you are anti-conformist. But that's because you are young. Humans are conforming creatures. We're tribal. You have just chosen to conform to non-mainstream norms, but you are still conforming to something. And then you are baselessly attacking the mainstream.
And yes, I agree with you, it is silly. You are being silly. I know you don't think you're conforming--but if you think I didn't understand that, then you really weren't catching the point of my argument, which was to disagree with this point you were trying to make about yourself. Which means I'm having to repeat myself here, and just clarify, which is boring, detail work. And INTPs don't like details. Which is why, again, I'm exiting this debate after this response. This is not fun.
A hipster is someone who wears a certain style of clothing, does certain activities, and has a certain way of interacting with others. They happen to often be mocked because of their attraction to the idea of being really into 'indie' culture, but since 'indie' reached a tipping point of popularity, hipsters became mocked as all being the same. Which, as the linked article pointed out, is ridiculous. Social subgroups are all about intraconformity, and kids just want to be cool. That's nothing new, and shouldn't be mocked. Wanting to be cool is just wanting to be accepted, wanting love, wanting to be a part of a group that accepts them.
And, as the author points out, she likes that particular sense of style and those particular activities. Why should she be mocked for that? The mockers all have their own social group, and sometimes would even be described as hipsters themselves by others. Get it? It's a big dishonesty fest of everyone pointing fingers saying 'they're fake, I'm legit'. Which is why it applies to you. People who decide to join the mainstream clique are just conforming to something else--you are also conforming, though you wouldn't like to think so.
And that's all I have to say. You are incapable of accepting my position, either because of some logic that I 'just don't understand', as you say, or because you are dogmatic, as I say. Regardless, it is fruitless to continue. Feel free to respond with some closing remarks of your own, have a ball.
Like you said at multiple points in this post, you're ending it because "there's no end with me" so I will not bother replying when you're not going to respond.
No, there is no shame in admitting 'defeat' but when I do not think that I have lost how can I surrender? I think your tone was very condescending throughout your last post "You know I'm right""You think that you are not conforming" etc. You don't know what I think. You don't know wether or not I "think" I'm conforming. Who do you think you are?
But if you really want to claim victor, I guess you could now. As I'm 'surrendering' I 'lay down my arms' I let you 'strip me of my pride' After I've bowed to the crowd, of course.
If I had thought you to have "won" this. I would have told you. Again, the honesty. I've said to many people "You are right" So stop acting as if you know what's "going on in my life" It's simply quite annoying. And obnoxious (as you found me to be)
