Absolutely Unacceptable!

[Carts]

I always thought that the Heretics from Halo 2 were a more fun ennemie then the elites. So I believe they could easily make a better substitute.

[VivaLebowski]

If you've been apart of something; a cause for more than eight years, I don't think switching is that easy. People, sensible people, can see mine and others frustration with this. It will be a hard and pressing change, I just hope that 343 Industries can see sense. If not, look out Halo 3, or even Reach.

 

All I'm saying is, these "Sensible people" your talking about should stop using such high minded language as "Oh Ive been part of something for 8 years!" or "Well its a cause!" for something which matters about as much as Chicken **** in the grand scheme of things.

[Killer K34]

All I'm saying is, these "Sensible people" your talking about should stop using such high minded language as "Oh Ive been part of something for 8 years!" or "Well its a cause!" for something which matters about as much as Chicken **** in the grand scheme of things.

and soon your going to tell me to join the westboro babtist church right???

[CandiBunni]

and soon your going to tell me to join the westboro babtist church right???

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with what he's saying.

 

I can understand being let down that Elites might not be a choice for your multiplayer avatar, but there isn't any need to be so melodramatic and acting as if it's the end of the world. There's no need to act like the entire game won't be worth your time because they decided not to allow you to play as an Elite in multiplayer. Whether or not they are playable doesn't have very much of an impact on myself and a lot of other players, however I can understand that those who enjoyed playing as them in Halo 2, Halo 3, and occasionally in Halo: Reach might be let down that they're not a choice in Halo 4.

 

If you were one who preferred playing as an Elite in multiplayer, being let down is perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with being disappointed with that decision. However you should try to look past this and just focus on what really matters. What really matters is how well the music, atmosphere, characters, etc. all draw you into this new campaign and experience. How much you enjoy the new additions and the changes they've made to the multiplayer. How many different crazy game variants you can come up with in custom games with your friends. Stuff like that is what I find more important than just what race I can choose for my appearance.

[Drizzy_Dan]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what he's saying.

 

I can understand being let down that Elites might not be a choice for your multiplayer avatar, but there isn't any need to be so melodramatic and acting as if it's the end of the world. There's no need to act like the entire game won't be worth your time because they decided not to allow you to play as an Elite in multiplayer. Whether or not they are playable doesn't have very much of an impact on myself and a lot of other players, however I can understand that those who enjoyed playing as them in Halo 2, Halo 3, and occasionally in Halo: Reach might be let down that they're not a choice in Halo 4.

 

If you were one who preferred playing as an Elite in multiplayer, being let down is perfectly fine. There's nothing wrong with being disappointed with that decision. However you should try to look past this and just focus on what really matters. What really matters is how well the music, atmosphere, characters, etc. all draw you into this new campaign and experience. How much you enjoy the new additions and the changes they've made to the multiplayer. How many different crazy game variants you can come up with in custom games with your friends. Stuff like that is what I find more important than just what race I can choose for my appearance.

 

This is off topic but Mystic you're back!!

[zI Maleficent]

However you should try to look past this and just focus on what really matters.

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.

All I'm saying is, these "Sensible people" your talking about should stop using such high minded language as "Oh Ive been part of something for 8 years!" or "Well its a cause!" for something which matters about as much as Chicken **** in the grand scheme of things.

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.

[VivaLebowski]

and soon your going to tell me to join the westboro babtist church right???

 

Correct, sir! It was on the tip of my tongue.

 

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.

 

What WE THINK is subjective. The truth of the matter is something else entirely. 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. He might not think he is...but he is. If he's not, that means I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong, that just proves that not everythings subjective, just as me being right and him being wrong shows that things arent subjective.

 

And its not as if we can both be right. Our "opinions" are exclusive and contradictory. We both have a right to them, but one of us has to be wrong.

 

We are getting into deep territory here.

[zI Maleficent]

What WE THINK is subjective.

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.

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.

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.

If he's not, that means I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong, that just proves that not everythings subjective, just as me being right and him being wrong shows that things arent subjective.

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.

And its not as if we can both be right. Our "opinions" are exclusive and contradictory. We both have a right to them, but one of us has to be wrong.

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.

[VivaLebowski]

@zLMalificent

 

When I said the truth of the matter, I meant reality. Not what he thinks matters. Of course people's priorities are subjective...That's because our thought processes are f'd up.

 

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.

 

I can't follow your arguments here. I don't know what something is, I don't know what single situation your talking about. I don't know what specific assertion your referring to. Ditto with the previous counterpoint. I don't know what your point is. I might think myself smart but even I can't follow your arguments when your using all these big words.

 

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.

 

Do you think that's the case with this argument? Are we both neither wrong or right here? Is this entire argument your making subjective?

 

Your probably thinking "well, obviously, I didn't mean to include this argument in that statement" since the statement need not necessarily include means it can still include...but I never meant to apply what I was saying to all arguments either.

 

Here's my basis thesis: In arguments where you have two people putting forth two opinions which cannot both be right at the same time (I say, 2 + 2 = 5, he says 2 + 2 = 4), there are two possibilities...both people are wrong, or one person is right and one person is wrong. Sure, you might say, well that depends on what values we apply to the number two, or the equals sign, or 5 and 4, but in the end, in mathematics, completely independent of flawed human perception and reasoning, if you have 2 of a thing, and it meets another two, you have four. Even if no one says so...even if no one labels it as such, where once you had .. and .. you now have ....

 

So yeah, some arguments are not necessarily exclusive...we don't have to be contradictory. But this particlar argument has two perceptions of reality which cannot both be correct at the same time. I percieve and argue that he overreacted, he perceives that he is completely justified in what hes saying and is not overreacting. These two "subjective" opinions cannot both be right because for one to be right excludes the other. Either he overreacted or he didn't.

 

 

I mean, really, what are you criticizing here? You don't seem to think that all disagreements are completely subjective and neither right nor wrong...and here, we definitely have an argument which is objective in the respect that one persons position reflects objective reality (even if they hold that position for the wrong reason). Yet, your going after me because it seems to you unreasonable to even suggest "hey, you shouldn't dismiss an entire game just because of a cosmetic thing" ... I do not understand this one bit.

[zI Maleficent]

When I said the truth of the matter, I meant reality. Not what he thinks matters. Of course people's priorities are subjective...That's because our thought processes are f'd up.

I'm aware of what you meant; hence my counterpoint that what matters is subject to personal interpretation.

I don't know what something is, I don't know what single situation your talking about

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."

 

I don't know what your point is.

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.

(I say, 2 + 2 = 5, he says 2 + 2 = 4)

Applying a hypothetical subjective stance to an objective concept is hardly indicative that subjectivity doesn't exist at all.

there are two possibilities...both people are wrong, or one person is right and one person is wrong. Sure, you might say, well that depends on what values we apply to the number two, or the equals sign, or 5 and 4, but in the end, in mathematics, completely independent of flawed human perception and reasoning, if you have 2 of a thing, and it meets another two, you have four.

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.

So yeah, some arguments are not necessarily exclusive...we don't have to be contradictory.

At this point you seem to be pretty much agreeing with my own points, as well as your argument laking cohesion.

I mean, really, what are you criticizing here?

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.

You don't seem to think that all disagreements are completely subjective and neither right nor wrong

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.

Yet, your going after me because it seems to you unreasonable to even suggest "hey, you shouldn't dismiss an entire game just because of a cosmetic thing" ...

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.

I do not understand this one bit.

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?

[VivaLebowski]

@Zl Malificient

 

Where did I ever say that "subjectivity" does not exist? Where did I specifically say that? I just reread my arguments, so I want a ******* quote! I said "things aren't subjective" because "things" (meaning tangible reality) are exactly what they are. I never said that arguments and opinions aren't subjective. Subjectivity simply refers to how we view reality. Maybe if you want to include arguments and opinions as "things" in themselves (which they sorta, kinda are) you can say that a very very small caveat of "things" are subjective, but I was not thinking in those terms, and if you thought I wasn't you are the one who "misunderstood".

 

Only an idiot would say that arguments and opinions are not subjective, because, as said before our perception is subjective. Subjectivity is not a real world phenomenon like gravity to be observed in nature...as I said, things are exactly what they are, quite independent of our silly perceptions of them. Saying subjectivity does not exist would be as stupid as saying disagreements do not exist...of course disagreements do not exist in nature in the respect that, for example, Transformers 2 was both a good and a bad movie. The movie might be good, it might be bad, or maybe its neither, but it cannot be two contradictory things at the same time..BUT people HAVE disagreements. Likewise Subjectivity exists.

 

A cannot Contradict B, and both A and B be true at the same time, that's not possible. But obviously, I can think A and someone else can think B, so the "subjectivity" exists in the same sense that our "disagreement" exists. I would never say "subjectivity" does not exist, and I never did!

 

 

Perhaps you misunderstand what I've been saying because you don't realize that there's a difference between what WE THINK and what ACTUALLY IS. You misunderstood what I was saying, not the other way round, so don't start patting yourself on the back over concessions which I never made. Asking me if I've accepted "Subjectivity" exists is like me asking you if you have accepted "Hitler" was bad. You never said Hitler was good, and I never said subjectivity does not exist.

 

 

 

And to think you accused me of using a straw man argument! Your entire last post was one colossal straw man argument!

Ps. Though in all seriousness, isn't this truthfully a more interesting and rewarding discussion than any one we could be having about video games. Keep the philosophy coming my friend!

[shado12 lol]

i don't personally care that the Sangheili will not be in halo 4's multiplayer.

[zI Maleficent]

Where did I ever say that "subjectivity" does not exist?

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?

I said "things aren't subjective" because "things" (meaning tangible reality) are exactly what they are. I never said that arguments and opinions aren't subjective.

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.

but I was not thinking in those terms

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.

you are the one who "misunderstood".

I find this particularly ironic in the context of your posts

Perhaps you misunderstand what I've been saying because you don't realize that there's a difference between what WE THINK and what ACTUALLY IS.

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.

You misunderstood what I was saying, not the other way round,

While the exact wording wasn’t entirely correct, the sentiment was. It is once again ironic of you to mention this.

Your entire last post was one colossal straw man argument!

Do elucidate.

Though in all seriousness, isn't this truthfully a more interesting and rewarding discussion than any one we could be having about video games. Keep the philosophy coming my friend!

It is off-topic, though it was entertaining for a while.

[x Alduin x]

Halo would be nothing without elites and if they are not playable its like taking out locust from gears of war...

[xx odahviing xx]

I agree elites should be kept in halo 4 because a lot of halo fan will get angry and not buy the game

 

[x Alduin x]

oh yeah and lets make things a little fair say if spartans got taken out how would you feel huh?.. it makes you feel empty sad and let down, Elites have to be a playable character in halo 4 because without them machinima would not work and why would you have a halo game with an energy sword and covenant weapons and no ELITE! its like taking predators out of aliens vs predator, they are going to lose all the halo players if they do this, we are not looking for another reach like slayer game, elites made halo a game to get away from all the games like cod battlefield or any normal game, its more than a game its halo so please 343 make the community proud to call it the best halo yet.. theres a covenant army that has 12 or so elite clans holding 1000 membres each and change their gamer tags to elite names like ripa vadumee, what spartan clans do any of you know that change their names to spartan names and service tags?! ,':\ i just wanna be an elite just like good old times..

[Drizzy_Dan]

oh yeah and lets make things a little fair say if spartans got taken out how would you feel huh?.. it makes you feel empty sad and let down, Elites have to be a playable character in halo 4 because without them machinima would not work and why would you have a halo game with an energy sword and covenant weapons and no ELITE! its like taking predators out of aliens vs predator, they are going to lose all the halo players if they do this, we are not looking for another reach like slayer game, elites made halo a game to get away from all the games like cod battlefield or any normal game, its more than a game its halo so please 343 make the community proud to call it the best halo yet.. theres a covenant army that has 12 or so elite clans holding 1000 membres each and change their gamer tags to elite names like ripa vadumee, what spartan clans do any of you know that change their names to spartan names and service tags?! ,':\ i just wanna be an elite just like good old times..

 

Your problem with Elites being taken out is very well understood but the thing is is that the multiplayer, Infinity, is loosely tied to the campaign where as it takes places on a giant holodeck that simulates all the maps for the Spartans to train on. There is no room for Elites to be there because it takes place on a UNSC ship. Elites being taken out is a very sad thing and I hope they at least give the players the option to use them for custom games and forge but they simply just do not tie in with the story of Infinity.

[Baby Boo]

Besides, you couldn't take out Spartans, or else there would be no game. Spartans are the game. It's your main character. You can't really compare spartans to elites in this senario.

[VivaLebowski]

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?

 

 

You mean all those arguments in your previous post dependent on the assumption that I was rejecting the existence of subjectivity?

 

Anything can be classified as a 'thing',

 

 

Saying anything can be classified as a thing is a bit like saying any Human can be classified as a Human. Thanks for the obvious.

Safe to say, a thing is a thing no matter how when and why we classify or do not classify it as such.

 

Things are Things are either 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.

 

 

How was I supposed to know that you are going to interpret "thing", in the context of a point about tangible external objective reality, as including an intangible internal phenomenon.

 

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.

 

 

Your argument in a nutshell: Your thoughts are jumbled, don't blame me if your stupid. Your just trying to make up for something stupid you said previously because its making you lose this argument. Truly, an objective argument if ever I've heard one.

 

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.

 

I'm not the one who is talking about forgiving others...*ahem* lack of objectivity. Oh, God forbid, I said you didn't know something! Oh man, I might actually suggest that I think your wrong next. What a proud @sshole I must be, huh? But, if, hypothetically, if I was to talk down about someone who I intervened in an argument on the behalf of, and start talking about how "I'm going to forgive your lack of objectivity". Oh no, that's not condescending at all. And this totally isnt sarcasm.

 

Do elucidate.

 

Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponents positions and trying to make points against those misrepresented positions.

You: Have you accepted that subjectivity exists?

 

 

 

But, heres the bottom line: This argument is going nowhere and spiraling off into incoherency. I'll blame both of us hows that? So I;; try to get it on track:

 

My basic point is that our opinions are subjective but objective reality is not. You pointed out that arguing against this guy is pointless because everything on here is subjective. I disagree with that because this guy is defying any objective standard. He's going against more than common sense. And there's nothing wrong with point that out, and also that he/she/it is being rather melodramatic. Our respective opinions are subjective BUT because they are contradictory, either we are both wrong or one of us is right and one of is wrong. There are arguments which do not necessarily have that feature but this is not that argument.

 

Opinions can be and usually are either right or wrong. There is such a thing as undeniable, rock solid, reality...the OP either overreacted or he did not. He cannot have both overreacted and not at the same time. He either did or he didn't. There is nothing subjective about that tangible reality.

 

If you disagree with any of that, than please, argue with that instead of us getting tied down in semantics. Otherwise, we really don't disagree and one of us has misunderstood the other.

[Killer K34]

Your problem with Elites being taken out is very well understood but the thing is is that the multiplayer, Infinity, is loosely tied to the campaign where as it takes places on a giant holodeck that simulates all the maps for the Spartans to train on. There is no room for Elites to be there because it takes place on a UNSC ship. Elites being taken out is a very sad thing and I hope they at least give the players the option to use them for custom games and forge but they simply just do not tie in with the story of Infinity.

read adams updates on halo 4 news, there will be elite ops, which means playable elites

[VivaLebowski]

read adams updates on halo 4 news, there will be elite ops, which means playable elites

 

Can I haz a link?

[Agent Kansas]

Atleast We see them; could be worse

[Drizzy_Dan]

ATTENTION ALL ANGRY SANGHEILI:

 

http://www.343indust...soon-hopefully/

 

IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY DOWN THE LIST FRANK DOES MENTION THE LIKELINESS OF "ELITE OPS"

 

LET THE FEUD END HERE.

 

EDIT: DIRECT LINK: http://postimage.org/image/5keldgd6n/

[Son Of Anarchy]

OK, they're going to be in it. So everybody just calm down. And even if they weren't, there would probably be a really good explanation for it.

[zI Maleficent]

You mean all those arguments in your previous post dependent on the assumption that I was rejecting the existence of subjectivity?

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.

How was I supposed to know that you are going to interpret "thing", in the context of a point about tangible external objective reality, as including an intangible internal phenomenon.

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.

Your argument in a nutshell: Your thoughts are jumbled, don't blame me if your stupid. Your just trying to make up for something stupid you said previously because its making you lose this argument. Truly, an objective argument if ever I've heard one.

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'm going to forgive your lack of objectivity".

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.

Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponents positions and trying to make points against those misrepresented positions.

You: Have you accepted that subjectivity exists?

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.

This argument is going nowhere and spiraling off into incoherency.

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 pointed out that arguing against this guy is pointless because everything on here is subjective.

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.

but this is not that argument.

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?