I can see it in their eyes—THEY&#39;VE ALREADY DIED INSIDE.

How does that follow? He is mocking you. And I have seen no mockery towards me, except perhaps on your part! In fact, I see support!

From:

And I see a distinctly twisted and specific censored version of the above filtering through your descriptions. Y'only win by convincing the other person you already won, an argument is irrelevant. Devious.

Which, as a result, case. Is closed.

From:

STOP USING THAT ICON. IT'S A) BAD ENOUGH WHEN TANZ USES IT, AND B) YOU KEEP MAKING ME THINK YOU'RE HER.

Never mind that you're currently employing a very similar tactic and disguising it in jargon.

From:

With any luck she'll get here soon.

Only makes me all the more qualified to distinguish it. We're questioning your moral fortitude, not mine.

From:

Good thing for me it doesn't bother me as much as it used to, then.

Isn't that a case of the blind leading the blind? Pretty sure it therefore nullifies your argument. It stands to reason that someone of inferior moral fortitude would find their faults in others, as human nature is wont to do, and thus their judgement of other people's moral fortitude is biased and therefore not to be trusted.

From:

Not because of that, I just think it'd be hilarious to carry on, like, five posts with only it in the icon spot.

Only if we accept that arguing in this manner represents a moral failing. If we do, then you are equally representative of it, having already stated that I am using a very similar tactic, thus implying that you are using this tactic yourself, and as a result you prove that you are not a truly good person. If we don't, then it doesn't matter how much I employ the tactic myself, as it indicates nothing. While only one finds you culpable, claiming moral righteousness automatically disqualifies any criticism of my methods, and as a result you gain no ground.

Which then leads into the issue of whether or not it is morally right to launch a critical offensive in the first place, since a truly upright person should not need to, or for that matter should be avoiding it at all costs so as not to impugn on others in a manner that can only degrade the reputations of all those involved. Isn't this sort of defense inherently beneath a good person? Shouldn't the validity of your claims be self-evident and self-representing?

From:

Oh. Well, yeah. I'm almost tempted to snag it myself for those purposes.

That doesn't imply that I'm using the tactic at all, only that I can recognize it, which further reinforces Tanz's argument that I'm exhibiting self-control by not employing it. And I wasn't claiming moral righteousness so much as I was justification, which I believe are not the same thing.

The critical offensive was prompted in an attempt to clear my side! She was presenting her argument out of context and in an false and unfavourable light. You will note my unveiling of the truth in above comments, and her total inability to refute it. She condemned herself.

From:

unicorn

I'm inclined to agree with Adam due to my persistent impulse to disagree with people I know well for the sake of argument. I do believe that restraining oneself from doing evil is an act of similar or greater virtue than never conceiving of it in the first place; however, Kendra's exposure of evidence in a negative context represents a failure to resist temptation, not a victory.

MY LOVE OF THIS ICON SPREADS

From:

Man, no fair saying the exact same thing I was gonna say but quicker and more efficiently. Where's the gravitas!

IT WILL CONSUME ALL

From:

My exposure of evidence was in response to her claims of innocence and attempt to convince people that she was blameless and I had made a malicious and unprovoked attack! It's now considered negative context to prove that someone is lying and slandering your name?! Where has justice gone!

From:

unicorn

If you were a truly good person, you would not need to prove yourself!

From:

So it is now considered "truly good" to simply sit by and let other people slander and abuse you? The concept of "truly good" has changed since I last looked at it!

From:

Justification! A good person does not need justification. A good person's acts are good merely by the fact that they are always inherently good. They should shine forth clearly irregardless of context! And failure to do so automatically makes them not so. If anything, going to the extent you did, dragging out private conversations solely for the purpose of degrading the reputation of Miss Load, shows you do not exhibit the control you propose you possess! After all, control measured by who? Yourself? And you tried to undermine my arguement by citing bias! For shame.

She may have condemned herself, but you yourself are condemned merely by participating in all of this. All justifications are irrelevant before the final truth that you cannot prove you do all this out of the goodness of your heart, and disprove it by your own actions! You may have made her complicit, but you have by no means shown her to be incorrect in her character estimations. Let's say for shame again.

From:

This is not even remotely true and you know it! Good is almost always relative, and it's impossible to argue that there's such a thing as "true" altruism! You can only ever get an approximation of the ideal;; and if you decide that I am "evil" in your own estimation, I can technically only change this opinion by conforming to your particular standards of "good"! And as I cannot conform to everyone's concept of "good", as that would be ridiculous, I must simply settle for not being evil. I never once claimed to be good! Simply that I had reasonable reasons for doing what I did, as opposed to Brittany's claims that I did it out of maliciousness and perverse amusement!

And the private conversations were not solely for degrading her reputation, merely to show context and to prove that she was lying! It was used exactly in the same way that evidence is used in a court trial. So if you are claiming that my methods are corrupt, then arguably the justice system is as well! And it is control measured by her control, as her argument seems to involve implying that I am just as bad with such power as she would be, if not worse. Whereupon I simply cited that she has spammed me on numerous occasions with no provocation on my part, whereas on the few occasions that I have spammed her, it was either a) as discouragement to prevent her from spamming me again, and b) as impetus for her to take care of herself, and even then only after all other attempts at convinving her had failed! I have only had to use this technique on two other people, and only once each! If Brittany would simply go to bed at a sane hour (and I note that my idea of "sane hour" is extremely lenient, since I measure it against how late I and the rest of my friends tend to stay up, which is fairly late), these methods would not be necessary! I do not do it out of a perverse enjoyment, or simply to torment her--otherwise I would just do it all the time! I do it because I worry about her, and I do not wish for her to make herself sick, as I have seen others do!

From:

I will also note that on all the occasions I informed Brittany of the much worse things I could do, it was neither a promise nor a conventional threat. I was simply informing her of the consequences that would result if she continued on her current path. Had I been truly evil, I would simply have let her do it, then visit the consequences upon her, and then give her my justification for doing so. I have only politely informed her of my boundaries!

From:

Aha! I see your game. You are resting now on unclearly stated claims! I had assumed, up until this point, that were arguing for the statement made at the very beginning of all of this ("Does anyone think this is something a truly good person would say?"), but apparently you've been arguing for something else all along! And never bothered to clarify this! Changing the rules part way through the game, eh? Very devious.

I submit that you must now put forward the full, clear terms of what it is you are arguing for, and conform to their wording exactly, or admit that you have in fact not been arguing for anything other than your own self-preservation, willfully ignoring the true basis of the matter at hand.

From: