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.
This was directed at zago. But I see what you're saying. And personally I do debate for the truth. But I've never claimed that I do not always debate because I want to be right. That's why debates begin. We have opinions, we share them. But I also hope that I can learn something.
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.
I'm not really sure what to say to this, we have two different opinions on what your intention was. But either way, your version of what you said is just as bad in my opinion. You don't know what I'm saying, what I'm trying to say or what I think. And you don't know if I'm being honest. Unless I'm pointing at a stick that's measured to 1 meter, and then going "It's 2 meters" That would be a lie, and you would be able to say "I know that you're not being honest"
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.
It is an excuse. But that doesn't make it a bad one. I honestly (and seeing that you've realised that my 'holy cow' is honesty. You know I'm telling the truth now) just looked at your response and went ".....Ugh" I was not in the mood for typing a wall. I dislike debating in text to be honest.
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.
True. And I realise that. But in terms of this whole "social success" deal, there is a possibility for synthesis. So what you're saying is basically irrelevant to this discussion.
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.
Both parts can only be correct if they are agreeing. "A stereo makes sound" - "No it's an electronic device!" They are both right, but they are also agreeing, they just do not know it.
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.
You being a captain is irrelevant. That doesn't make you any 'better' at debating. It takes to people to debate. It's a cooperation between both parts.
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)
I think you misunderstood me. I'm all for going 'against the flow' We have this saying in Denmark that "Only the dead fish follow the current" Not sure if it makes sense in English. And if you think that I'm pro-conforming then you've basically misunderstood me, my entire personality. And also overlooked the fact that I encourage disagreement (getting a synthesis)
What I meant was that I think "disliking just to dislike" is moronic. You should dislike to achieve something or because you actually disagree. Not just to do it, since that is, in my opinion. Just as 'drone'ish' as "going with the flow"
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.
Again.. You've misunderstood me. And I think you've misunderstood the definition of the word "hipster" a hipster is not a person who just openly enjoy what it is he/she enjoys. They enjoy it JUST because everyone else doesn't. Which is just as dishonest as disliking it JUST because everyone else is disliking it.
n honest person. Would, like you, and me. Wear the clothes they like, listen to they music they like and do what they want. Hipsters don't do what they want. They do it just because everyone else doesn't.
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.
P.S.--Learning to admit surrender can get you a great deal of respect. It's a skill worth learning. Try not to base such a large argument on an emotional response. Always beware arguing out of annoyance at the other party's character/personality... All truths I learned the hard way, and all ones that would have saved you from being stuck in the awkward corner you now find yourself in.
) unless certain circumstances require us to speak up, or we thoroughly analyze the situation until we feel the need to "take charge". Social success is of secondary or tertiary nature to us, because we simply don't care what other people think of us.
(jk, I'll take your word for it. I'm not about to read through this again). I can really see the value of finally having someone here who is thinking like I am. You've done a good job of explaining some insights that I missed, despite my feeling like I was being comprehensive. People have responded well to you. When it is just one person making an argument, he's a lunatic. So thank you.
