
Originally Posted by
Burger King
The reasoning is literally already provided in the LW. I will try to spell it out for you since you seem to be having trouble.
---Summary of the conversation thus far---
PH's LW: "behaviors A and B are scummy because X and Y"
Me: "I agree. Behaviors A and B ARE scummy, and X and Y are good reasons why"
You (#1027): "It's not scummy just because you said so. I'll make a case that it was town behavior. git gud"
Me: But I didn't say it was scummy "because I said so", I said I agree with reasons X and Y
You: But you didn't say WHY you agree with reasons X and Y. You're just making ME provide all the evidence without providing any yourself.
---End Summary---
---Summary of the Summary---
1. Argument is made, complete with reasoning behind it
2. I agree because the argument is sound, and the reasoning supports it.
3. You disagree, providing no reasoning/evidence as to why. Accuse me of making an assertion with no reasoning behind it
4. I reiterate that I agree with the initial reasoning provided
5. You deflect back on me as if I'm making a claim with no evidence (ignoring the fact that I agreed with the evidence presented in the initial argument) and you continue not to make a counter argument or provide any reasoning/evidence to justify your disagreement
---End Summary of Summary---
My reasons are already embedded in the argument. The argument cannot continue until you provide counterpoints for me to either accept or refute.
And it's pretty scummy of you to try to paint me in a negative light for not explaining myself when it's currently YOUR turn to actually justify for your stance.
1. I did not say that. If you are going to put words in my mouth, I don't have more to say to you.
2. Uh huh.