The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.

      Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.

---

Originally posted by Nailzzz
     The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.

      Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.

---

First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance.

Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away.

Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.

Originally posted by Foomerang

 

---

Originally posted by Nailzzz
     The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.

 

      Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.

 

---

 

First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance.

Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away.

Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.

     I'm all for respect. But to respect something or someone is an individual's decision. If they wish to respect others freely, or hold off until they find a reason to have respect for something is up to each person. You cannot force respect as an outlook on people. And people can of course lose your respect after it had been given. It sounds nice to talk about respect as an automatic, but people dont work that way. While i tend to give most people respect from the start, it isnt hard for me to lose respect for people. How should i then be corrected? Any rule in place that would seek to force my respect, i would not respect. That just isnt how respect works.

     As for humanization... seems like a pretty low bar.

---

Originally posted by Nailzzz

---

Originally posted by Foomerang  

---

Originally posted by Nailzzz      The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.         Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.  

---

  First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance. Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away. Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.

---

     I'm all for respect. But to respect something or someone is an individual's decision. If they wish to respect others freely, or hold off until they find a reason to have respect for something is up to each person. You cannot force respect as an outlook on people. And people can of course lose your respect after it had been given. It sounds nice to talk about respect as an automatic, but people dont work that way. While i tend to give most people respect from the start, it isnt hard for me to lose respect for people. How should i then be corrected? Any rule in place that would seek to force my respect, i would not respect. That just isnt how respect works.

     As for humanization... seems like a pretty low bar.

---

Originally posted by Foomerang

 

---

Originally posted by Nailzzz
     The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.

 

      Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.

---

 

First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance.

Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away.

Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.

Social control is social control.  Who defines what is acceptable as "mutual respect"?  Who decides what is "humane", and what isn't?

No matter the social controls, someone is always going to believe that their rights of free will and self-determination are being trampled upon.  You're just exchanging one authority for another, and some group somewhere will not be happy with it.

The advertising here is based on knowing your target audience to attract them, and entice them to buy, according to current societal norms.  It's as simple as that.

The supposed offensiveness in the culmination of decades worth of one-sided indoctrination by a socio-political theory based on dubious methodology.

Are most of the humanoid mobs slaughtered daily and in great numbers in RIFT or any game based on male or female models?  The overwhelming majority are male, of course.  Has this inspired dismay from anyone?  Nope, no one even notices.

---

Originally posted by Rohn

---

Originally posted by Foomerang  

---

Originally posted by Nailzzz      The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.         Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.

---

  First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance. Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away. Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.

---

 

Social control is social control.  Who defines what is acceptable as "mutual respect"?  Who decides what is "humane", and what isn't?

No matter the social controls, someone is always going to believe that their rights of free will and self-determination are being trampled upon.  You're just exchanging one authority for another, and some group somewhere will not be happy with it.

The advertising here is based on knowing your target audience to attract them, and entice them to buy, according to current societal norms.  It's as simple as that.

The supposed offensiveness in the culmination of decades worth of one-sided indoctrination by a socio-political theory based on dubious methodology.

Are most of the humanoid mobs slaughtered daily and in great numbers in RIFT or any game based on male or female models?  The overwhelming majority are male, of course.  Has this inspired dismay from anyone?  Nope, no one even notices.

---

Originally posted by Deivos

Well lets respond then.

 

1) that's an argument about a mindset that is not part of this conversation. Certainly there are people that percive a different scale of what is and isn't something. That fails to address the nature of any subject.

 

2) I find it's purpose to be a weak gambit. Same as anything else that uses the logic 'sex sells'. Not much else can be said on that matter because it's a preference difference.

 

3) Wong gender. I am well aware of the fantasy depiction of males and females and their illustrious history. That does not make the concept or purpose anything other than what it is in many cases. Especially in the case of both the bad movie night and pulp fantasy you mention they are both part of the problem in the sense of where many ill conceived mindsets have come from, grew up on, and take to the next level.

1, it speaks to the idea that one person might find the depiciton of something to be acceptable as long as those involved are fine with it and another group that doesn' t think it's fine. So I'll ask you a question, at what point is it ok to add sexuality/nudity depcited? I believe you mentioned art correct? Yet a sculptor such as Rodin not only depcited sexuality in his pieces but he got paid for it. So does that revist the idea that Art can't have any sexuality because the artist/model gets paid for it? Is there ever a point that the artist can depict graphic acts of sexuality, possibly even brutal acts? Or does everything need to be like a Seargent painting? And then who decides that?

2, exactly it is preference.

3, and that's the thing, some deliciously over the top stuff would be lost if we were to get rid of our pulp fiction, our conan, our John Carter. This goes back to preference. It just sounds to me that some would prefer a more santized and white washed world. There is a difference between catagorically thinking of an entire part of the population as "less than" and allowing members of that population to express themselves as they want.

To the poster to asked about why this thread is not locked. It's because we aren't insulting each other and having a conversation. There is a fallacy on this site that anything that is a slight bit controversial will automatically be locked. Not so. You can say anyting you want on this site but you can't insult people, can't be inflammatory, can't "be a troll".

I don't see why people paint this issue with such a broad brush.

Just because they chose to portray one woman in a sexual light, does not mean that that is what they think of all women.

I think they have every right of displaying a fictional character in sexy clothing.

Originally posted by Sovrath

1, it speaks to the idea that one person might find the depiciton of something to be acceptable as long as those involved are fine with it and another group that doesn' t think it's fine. So I'll ask you a question, at what point is it ok to add sexuality/nudity depcited? I believe you mentioned art correct? Yet a sculptor such as Rodin not only depcited sexuality in his pieces but he got paid for it. So does that revist the idea that Art can't have any sexuality because the artist/model gets paid for it? Is there ever a point that the artist can depict graphic acts of sexuality, possibly even brutal acts? Or does everything need to be like a Seargent painting? And then who decides that?

2, exactly it is preference.

3, and that's the thing, some deliciously over the top stuff would be lost if we were to get rid of our pulp fiction, our conan, our John Carter. This goes back to preference. It just sounds to me that some would prefer a more santized and white washed world. There is a difference between catagorically thinking of an entire part of the population as "less than" and allowing members of that population to express themselves as they want.

 

To the poster to asked about why this thread is not locked. It's because we aren't insulting each other and having a conversation. There is a fallacy on this site that anything that is a slight bit controversial will automatically be locked. Not so. You can say anyting you want on this site but you can't insult people, can't be inflammatory, can't "be a troll".

Well first when you refer to Rodin you effectively answered it by never having to say it was artificial in it's ideals. Sure it's nude eople and some pieces can be seen as having some form of sexuality, but many are even while nude not done as sexualized pieces and Rodin was quite varied in the body types he would depict from young adults to old even in the nude.

Even his stylized depictions of female forms with angelic aspects weren't unnaturally lithe or lacking in detail like muscle tone that is often avoided in more sexual depictions.

It is like previously stated a very different intent and it is apparent in the way art is composed versus porn. The emphasis on detail in the form, motion, or scene rather than a focus on the assets.

So  to answer your question, I effectively repeat what I have said multiple times previously.

2) yay repeating things as if there's a point

And back with the third to address why I say that about the second, because I have at no point been out to address what people like. Like I have, again, said previously people can like what they want, but they need to acknowledge when something is what it is.

The purpose of some things are worn on the cuff, others are tucked in it's sleeve waiting for a reveal. Like the attempts you have made previously to justify things in different kinds of media they each have a recpective scale they address because of the differing intents and implementations behind them. Not once have I damned anyone for liking something, but I have been adamant that people need to be considerably more aware.

Even as you make your arguments there are rational and irrational aspects as an example. Like I already mentioned about the examples you have picked over time, you have taken a few that at face value I would certainly agree with your point, but when I consider the actual content I end up with these rebuttals. It's an awareness and an acceptance, but it's passive and it does not benefit anyone or anything.

Worse yet, the part that I have actually said in specific is bad is something that in repeat gets handwaved over time. Namely exacerbation of ideals and the fact that they have been and are still getting pushed to extremes in many ways that are damaging to people's health.

This is not a comment associated with the idea that medicine and modern science can support people and more lifestyles. it's that because our passive acceptance that these things exist and false notion that they will solve all problems that we ignore very real issues that not only linger, but get worse.

Imean I've commented on some of this a few times and all that happens is a little nod, some barely related remark, and then moving on. And back to what? To retread the attempts at saying 'Porn in every facet of life is alright!' And to that I can only say 'Whatever floats your boat.'

The things I have been aiming to address multiple times has nothing to do with seuality being a part of us. It has everything  to do with the fact that it is only a 'part' of us. I don't say don't accept it. I say spend some time thinking about other things, finding other things to value, and looking for ways to be better.

EDIT: And Birdy that would be a fair comment if they didn't put the same kinda thing on their other ads as well as in their game. :p

Originally posted by Foomerang

 

---

Originally posted by Rohn

---

Originally posted by Foomerang  

---

Originally posted by Nailzzz      The problem with feminists complaining about patriarchy isnt that thier complaints are baseless, its that they dont offer any real world practical alternatives. They either espouse a failed ideology, or they fail to consider that controls on behaviour need to be put in place to balance the competing interests of men and women. You will of course need a give and take between both sides to give each a reason to invest that they feel will make it worth it to them to continue whatever society you wish to have. But you cant just assume that both sides will commit to perfect behaviour even if such reasons to invest for positive outcome are given. Penalties will also have to be established and they must be fair for both sides.         Of course Feminists also still believe we still live in a patriarchy in the first place rather than a civilization merely based on patriarchy.

---

  First, I think we need to either reclaim the word "equality" or just use a new term altogether. Too often these days, the word equality is used to encompass equal shares of power, oppression , even intolerance. Examples- You hurt me? Equal rights deems I reciprocate that pain. Sure you have the right to be gay, just like I have the right to call you a faggot. You have the freedom to exploit yourself, I have the freedom to look away. Equality has become this twisted term to excuse us of any social responsibility. I think a better term to convey equality is mutual respect. Practice humanization.

---

 

 

Social control is social control.  Who defines what is acceptable as "mutual respect"?  Who decides what is "humane", and what isn't?

No matter the social controls, someone is always going to believe that their rights of free will and self-determination are being trampled upon.  You're just exchanging one authority for another, and some group somewhere will not be happy with it.

The advertising here is based on knowing your target audience to attract them, and entice them to buy, according to current societal norms.  It's as simple as that.

The supposed offensiveness in the culmination of decades worth of one-sided indoctrination by a socio-political theory based on dubious methodology.

Are most of the humanoid mobs slaughtered daily and in great numbers in RIFT or any game based on male or female models?  The overwhelming majority are male, of course.  Has this inspired dismay from anyone?  Nope, no one even notices.

 

---

This takes place on an individual level. Not an umbrella of social control, or a sweeping array of social change put upon us by governing bodies. We, onour own, must decide to forgive ourselves and those around us and stop the reciprocation of oppression.

 

  Some people are just evil. I didnt always believe this but as ive grown older i have had to come to grips with this fact. There are many people who lack any sense of empathy to whom others are either fodder for thier own whims or as undeserving of consideration. Dealing with them on an individual level would eventually either lead to the evil individual's taking advantage of all those around them with nothing to stop them aside from disaproving stares(which mean less than nothing to evil/selfish individuals) or a certain degree of babarism and anarchy while people deal with them accordingly on an individual level meting out personal justice.

     This is why civilized people tend to put thier faith in a system of governance that handles social control. Usually such controls are well established and understood by those living under them. While individuals may not agree with many of the rules, they are at least aware of them and the potential punishments to keep people in line. Social control on an individual level is more or less ineffective as it only applies to the offenders relationship to the victimized. The only remedy would be the victimized seeking personal retribution, leading to a hatfield and mccoy type anarchic situation.

Originally posted by Deivos

 

Well first when you refer to Rodin you effectively answered it by never having to say it was artificial in it's ideals. Sure it's nude eople and some pieces can be seen as having some form of sexuality, but many are even while nude not done as sexualized pieces and Rodin was quite varied in the body types he would depict from young adults to old even in the nude.

Even his stylized depictions of female forms with angelic aspects weren't unnaturally lithe or lacking in detail like muscle tone that is often avoided in more sexual depictions.

It is like previously stated a very different intent and it is apparent in the way art is composed versus porn. The emphasis on detail in the form, motion, or scene rather than a focus on the assets.

 

So  to answer your question, I effectively repeat what I have said multiple times previously.

 

2) yay repeating things as if there's a point

 

So then some of his pieces are acceptable and some aren't? You seem to have this idea that art is some sort of "pure" thing and that if it only depicts the subject matter within a rather narrow parameter.

You have this idea that all art is "ART". There is quite a lot of art out there that is meant to be erotic for the sake of being erotic. That does depict very stylized subjects.

Getting back to Rodin , what about the Eros Paintings? Sure they deptict a fleshier model but they are about the model. They are about depicting women in a certain way. They are about "being erotic".

What about his sclupture "Iris"?

But as far as art goes, it's not unheard of any artist to sytlize their models.

So if an artist was to stylize his model in any way other than a certain parameter that is bad? So sure, you say that depicting a person in a certain way that isn't "naturally healthy" is bad but that puts a huge damper on what a a subject can be.

Also, there is this western idea that art is something that is hung in a museum or has a special place in a park with a fountain coming out of its belly. But art can be a part of the every day as well.

It can be utilitarian. And if the artist wants to depict his subject in a way taht he/she deems fitting then thats' the right of the artist.

As I've said, I've seen paintings in MoMA that could be construed as a type of porn.

You already answered a large chunk of your own questions with your first sentence.

And artists may stylize a very large degree. Even those somethimes bizarre cartoon characters, looney toons, etc, use a fundamental in understanding real anatomy that is then played with, bent, and in some cases intentionally broken. The problem again is with intent. Not sure how frequently that must be said. If someone only draws a finite number of bodytypes then they are either a bad artist or catering to a very specific ideal.

Take the fact that many cater to a single body type and it rather deconstructs your stance that rejecting that bodytype narrows choice. It's the fact that that option is too focused on that is the problem, that so many things strive for it that it's capable of causing people to harm themselves to fulfill that ideal.

You can babble about your opinion of art all you want. It does not change what my original comment was. When intent is apparent there is a knowable difference. 'It is what it is.' If the main purpose of the art piece is to objectify the body, then it is porn. If the main purpose is to respect that's a very different mindset, one not bent on hammering everything in the need to procreate.

Whether you build it to be a fountain or something else does not change that fact.

Originally posted by Deivos

You already answered a large chunk of your own questions with your first sentence.

 

And artists may stylize a very large degree. Even those somethimes bizarre cartoon characters, looney toons, etc, use a fundamental in understanding real anatomy that is then played with, bent, and in some cases intentionally broken. The problem again is with intent. Not sure how frequently that must be said. If someone only draws a finite number of bodytypes then they are either a bad artist or catering to a very specific ideal.

Take the fact that many cater to a single body type and it rather deconstructs your stance that rejecting that bodytype narrows choice. It's the fact that that option is too focused on that is the problem, that so many things strive for it that it's capable of causing people to harm themselves to fulfill that ideal.

 

You can babble about your opinion of art all you want. It does not change what my original comment was. When intent is apparent there is a knowable difference. 'It is what it is.' If the main purpose of the art piece is to objectify the body, then it is porn. If the main purpose is to respect that's a very different mindset, one not bent on hammering everything in the need to procreate.

 

Whether you build it to be a fountain or something else does not change that fact.

Except the real answer to my first sentence was "they all are acceptable". that is where we are at an impasse.

And you can babble all you want about your opinion of "intent" and how it harms people and I wil say the same thing as i've been saying: It's up to people to take their own bodies/health into their own hands and it's up to parents and educators to make sure that children are educated on "being healthy" both emotionally and physically. It's up to ourselves to be make decisions on how we view content.

but any attempt to alter how any artist, whether they are using their work commercially or not (though I don't know of any artist who doesn't want their work to make them at least some money)  presents his work/subjects just comes down to censorship in my book. Regardless of its intent.

It's not he responsibility of any person or organization to toe some party line as far as how their products or how their "art" is presented. It is only the responsibility of the viewer to say "yay or nay" and that's about it.

But this is a slow evolution but it is an evolution. As I believe you have pointed out, some magazines have made a stance and will show people of varying body types. But that was their own decision. Just like any company has a decision on what they should be portraying.

Oh ye gods.  You are again railing on something I never even took issue with.

Do I have to repeat myself on the same exact matters again?

EDIT: Really. How many times can I say the same thing you just said and you somehow come up with an argument for it just to turn around and say that?

I've said before People are to think what they will or do what they will. I've never once said that anything should stop existing. I don't even get why you keep writing things like I have.

What I have said, multiple times, is effectively what yuou just said with the addendum that it's valuable to press people on taking action after considering tha value of an activity rather than just accepting that "it's in their nature".

It's like I already said in a previous comment again, you certainly are an intelligent person, but at this point I don't even know what the hell it is you keep debating on because your last post for the most part outright agrees with my previous posts.

Regarding the OP.....

is that supposed to be armor or is it a plate bikini?  I can't tell.  I mean....wearing plate in the water seems kind of counterintuitive.  On the other hand, there's not near enough covered to consider that to be armor......

Originally posted by Deivos

Oh ye gods.  You are again railing on something I never even took issue with.

 

Do I have to repeat myself on the same exact matters again?

I'm just adding to my point, I'm not saying you took issue with it, you can relax.

Then what the bloody hell is your point if you aren't even making an argument?

EDIT: I really do want to know. Because I look back at the first few posts I made and I look at the things they were associated with as well as one's you previously responded to and I see the same trend.

Like with Foomerang, he even goes so far as to have to clarify.

Originally posted by Foomerang

I'm not telling you how to think. I never said Trion was evil. I never said I was speaking for anyone. In fact, most of the things I'm talking about doesn't have anything to do with you, personally, or anyone in specific for that matter. Im commenting on our social structure. It is something to think about, not indoctrinate.

And similarly the core tenant I have been advocating since my first post in this thread with topic context (second post).

Originally posted by Deivos

You want freedom of choice for people to make and play games they want. Fine. Not one person has argued against that.

 

But don't try and pretend it's more or less than what it is.

Did I say for someone to stop doing something? No.

Later commentary I made was either a correction or expansion of information and more advocacy of that initial remark of 'admitting things for what they are' and owning up to these aspects and bettering ourselves.

Did I say people need to stop making any particular kind of media? No.

Did I say people need to be much more aware of what and how things both internal and external influences them and make decisions more independent from impulse, so they spend less time justifying an action and more time considering them? Yes.

Originally posted by Deivos
Then what the bloody hell is your point if you aren't even making an argument?

Deivos, calm down.

We are having a nice internet discussion.

We are trying to have a discussion over multiple posts over a span of time that would be unnatural for a regular conversation and trying to juggle strains of thought that make sense through the entire discussion. I have a tendency to address a post but then think over the myriad other posts and trains of thought and sort of come up with a sort of mega argument/position, sometimes adding things that I feel might make a supporting argument or that hopefully adds to the post.

To me this is a disscussion not an argument. There are no winner or losers but just friendly discourse. I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" or put words in your mouth or assert that ultimately I"m right as I can always learn something from another. Sometimes I think I'm right but all the time I know that I can also be wrong. With this type of discourse it tests what I know and beleive and forces me to think and rethink it.

If I "added' extra to my post it was because it popped into my head as I was writing it and I was having an internal debate during the writing, all the time juggling the entire thread.

Thnk no more of it than that.

So this is a discourse.

Read my edit.

t's not a nice discussion when everything I say id handwaved only to later be turned around and used as if I myself hadn't said tha same damn stuff in a different context. It's an insult to my intelligence.

At this point is is an argument for me because it lost any chance of merit. It feels like very little account for the whole or even original purpose of the discussion because what you've done isn't even a shifting mark, but a roundabout loop that ended up just parroting words that not only I but Foomerang, another you had 'debated with' had previously stated and has been present as part of most our comments.

As I said, by intent or not, it's become somewhat insulting as a result. We aren't learning anything from this, we aren't gaining insight, we are just getting an amalgam of text.

EDIT: Point in case. The addendum you making effectively being a repeat of Foomerang and mine own early posts.