zI Maleficent

Objectivity: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. Given that objectivity is based on factual information, for an objective standard to be formed in regards to anything, it has to to be clearly defined and identifiable, based entirely on said facts, and be utterly free from subjectivity. Now, 'what matters' has no clearly defined overall criteria which governs the standards for whether is is objective or not, (or whether it is even objectively quantifiable at all) and 'what matters' is an abstract concept subject to personal interpretations, influenced by personal feelings, and inherently has a basis in subjectivity. While there can be objective reasoning used to formulate opinions, ultimately, our opinions are subjective in nature, and what we see as mattering as different individuals is no different. This is akin to the distinction between 'What you like best' and 'What is best'. The former is focused on a subjective viewpoint of an object, without objectively analysing the object itself (subjective), while the latter focuses on the object and, at the expense of personal opinions, is intent on discovering factual information about the object itself (objective). Thus, baring in mind that what matters is subjective, in acknowledging that fact, I am not collating objectivity with subjectivity. So because something has no objective importance then it cannot have subjective importance? What kind of logic is that? Regardless, you need to re-read this point, because you are asserting that if the traffic cone doesn't matter objectively, then it disproves the notion that not everything which matters is subjective, which is your point, resulting in a self-defeating argument. (At least, I'm gathering that it wasn't your intent to potentially screw your own argument over.) By definition, what matters is based on subjectivity, and thus in posting either way on a topic based on subjectivity, I am not admitting or adhering to any objective truth which does not exist within the specified subject matter. The nature of the subject is based on personal viewpoints, and as such if I make an argument on the subject, regardless of which side I take, the only thing I am asserting outside of whatever points hypothetically crop up, is that what matters to me is different to you, and entirely subjective. Objective judgements are absolutely true, whereas the truth of subjective judgements is relative to the person making the judgement. Attempting to apply some perceived objective standard onto a matter of subjectivity is simply a waste of time, due to the fact that subjectivity and objectivity are at odds; trying to apply any standard from one to the other and expecting it to hold water is foolish. You can say someone is objectively 'wrong' for a certain subjective viewpoint, but that is unfairly applying out of place and irrelevant standards, and even then doesn't necessarily unveil them as being 'wrong'. I think I will choose this moment to bug out. Other than the fact that there is yet more off-topic posts in this topic, this debate is no longer engaging or entertaining. At this point, I'm simply repeating myself and have grown so weary of witnessing straw-men and the same arguments time and time again that I lack the will to call them out and read through any more posts from you.

These were the things we were 'disagreeing' on? Really?

All those arguments? In case you haven't been paying attention, multiple avenues of discussion within this debate have been lost because you have simply ignored them. To turn around and directly imply that my entire argument was focused on a single point demonstrates such sheer ignorance I seriously have to question either your intellectual capacity, or whether you are trolling or not at this point. Your lack of clarification, your problem, your fault. I'm not being butt-hurt, but in terms of an argument, if you make a vague post that by default asserts a position you didn't intend or is faulty, I'm practically obliged to take advantage of that, and demonstrate the error. Dozens of straw-men, shifts in focus and retreats from points of contention, several of my counterpoints have been ignored, and yet, I make a perceived error (And even then, I find it amusing that you still misunderstood the intent.), and you are winning this argument? I specified myself because I didn't want to say 'Is forgiveable' and give the impression that I was arrogant in speaking for everyone; ironic, considering you interpreted it somewhat that way, anyway. Regardless of what you believe, that was not the intent, I was merely drawing attention to the fact that a subjective post can be forgiven for its lack of objectivity. I wasn't using that to attack any position; real or not. I was genuinely asking a question, because, in case you haven't noticed, I've made attempts to get this argument back on track multiple times. Nice of you to finally notice, or at least, finally aim to resolve the situation. And actually, if you'll recall, it is you who started this whole tirade off. You have been drawing this debate further and further from the point of contention. (Which I mentioned multiple times; but as seems habitual of you, you either ignored it or decided it wasn't worth doing anything useful.) You'll have to jog my memory on that one. As I recall, my comment was in relation to the notion of 'what matters' being subject to personal interpretation. Just pointing out that distinctions like this would have made your efforts to make a convincing case much less troublesome. Would have saved me a lot of trouble, too. Strip away the straw-men, the unnecessary back-and-forths, and the continual moving of things from the original topic; what are we actually disagreeing on?

Good, then you are paying attention, and as expected, you leapt at the opportunity to respond to this at the expense of the rest of my arguments. Do you intend to respond to those? Or promptly ignore them as has become habitual? Anything can be classified as a 'thing', thus, how is your opponent supposed to know what you mean by 'thing' when you make a comment that implies the non-existense of things, without specifying any exceptions? If you speak of an entire collective holding / lacking a certain trait without stating any exceptions to your written rule, you are effectively stating, and at least implying, that every part of that collective holds / lacks that trait. The lack of cohesion between your thoughts and what you post is not my fault. Inevitably, all I am able to do is combat your points as you write them; I cannot bear in mind contextual factors I have not been aware of. If you intend something in a specific way, then say so. It is useless to pop up later and specify how you meant something, because for all intents and purposes, the point has already been nullified. Once you submit your post and are done with it, responding to what has actually been written is fair game, and it does not suddenly alleviate your argument or validate your point if you are to elucidate after it has been countered, because the specified and elucidated position is treated as a new point of contention in light of losing out on the previous one. I find this particularly ironic in the context of your posts On multiple occasions throughout this debate, you have shown a large capacity to misunderstand your opponents arguments, and the ability to erect straw-men at an astonishing rate. I am in no position to condescend to, so your attempt at perpetuating an illusion of superiority is utterly transparent. Besides, a misunderstanding on my part because you have neglected to share vital information until after points have been made, is acceptable. While the exact wording wasn’t entirely correct, the sentiment was. It is once again ironic of you to mention this. Do elucidate. It is off-topic, though it was entertaining for a while.

I'm aware of what you meant; hence my counterpoint that what matters is subject to personal interpretation. Your point asserted that subjectivity does not exist. You preceded your assertion of subjectivity not existing by offering the following (hypothetical) situation: "If Mr.Elite whats-his-face decides he cant play Halo beacuse the pixels on a tree don't quite meet his specifications. he's wrong to do so." Person A asserts X, person B uses Y to counter. You asserted that subjectivity doesn't exist, I'm pointing out that it does and the ways it manifests. That is all there is to it at this point. Applying a hypothetical subjective stance to an objective concept is hardly indicative that subjectivity doesn't exist at all. Here's the problem with your point; your assertions contradict one another. You have on separate occassions refuted and akcnowledged the existence of subjectivity. I'll state once again that listing an example of a scenario where subjectivity doesn't manifest isn't countering my argument. At this point you seem to be pretty much agreeing with my own points, as well as your argument laking cohesion. The poorly-executed argument made in defence of some ill-thought stances. Granted, at this point your argument is actually less adversarial than it was when this discussion began, due primarily to the fact that there have been key changes in the focus of your argument. At this point, you are acknowledging that subjectivity can exist and can manifest in discussion, which satisfies the criteria for my argument regardless. Whatever you seem to think, what I think (or more accurately, know.), is that discussions need not necessarily yield one correct, and at least one incorrect point of view, and I acknowledge that there are objective and subjective components which can manifest in discussion. Is my argument really that hard to follow? You seem to be misinterpreting at every turn. Firstly, we can't be sure that the presence of Elites would have resulted in a purely cosmetic difference. Second, I singled your argument out for reasons that I shall elucidate on with my next point. You were aiming to be objective, and made an objective-focused case based on an objectively flawed pursuit, that is why I singled out this argument. Not so much for the opportunity to prove you wrong or instil ire, but simply to demonstrate where you went wrong. The other person made a subjective decision, as such I forgive the lack of objectivity he might possess. At his point, you hardly seem to know what you're taking about. I'm not being insulting, though you have demonstrated a lack of comprehension seemingly over what both of us are and were arguing about. I'll simply ask outright; have you accepted that subjectivity exists and that what matters is subject to personal interpretation?

What matters and what someone thinks are not adversarial; an overlap exists. Both are subjective and are used in conjunction with one another during the process of decision-making. To use an example from this topic, one user has expressed disappointment, and seems to have decided that Halo 4 will not deliver what is expected on the basis that Elites will not be playable. From this, we can clearly deduce that said user has used the presence of playable Elites or lack therefore as a means of determining the potential worth of the game, and that it is something important to him/her, meaning that what matters, and that user's thoughts were subjectively used together to arrive at a conclusion. Our thoughts are indeed subjective, however, what matters is subject to the individual's personal tastes, and thus, also subjective. Excusing your questionable logic and sub-par analogy, your counterpoint is still inherently flawed, as I didn't comment on how right or wrong any hypothetical person was for their decision. Straw-man. Attempting to prove that not everything is subjective is somewhat useless, given that I never claimed otherwise. Also, asserting that something doesn't exist at all because it does not seem to manifest in a single situation is incredibly faulty reasoning. Debates between opposing members need not necessarily include at least one who is incorrect. Hell, even if you win a given debate, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person who lost the argument is wrong. You honestly seem to be grasping at straws here.

Barriers to purchasing the title will manifest differently, for different reasons to different people. Focusing on what really matters is somewhat difficult if the issue they supposedly need to look past is that same issue which compromises exactly what matters to them. Ultimately, 'What really matters' is entirely subjective, this thread and many others like it demonstrate that just fine. There is insufficient reasoning to single out a collective or consensus on the sole basis that their issue is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, given that almost everything here is entirely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.