MaxwellTheScribblenaut wrote:

Wait, woah, how did this go from Navy Seal Team 6's death rage to stealing popcorn?

Look at the URL and tell me what you see:

spyroforum.com

That explain it?

Oh yep, that eplains it all. Thank you :3

You're saying that one belief, which you aren't even completely sure he has, defines who he is as a person? And I'm not saying being argumentative makes someone an elitist; you missed the part where I mentioned using ad hominems to make oneself seem better than others.  And alright, yeah, I've seen more than one action from you. My post may not have given a very accurate definition of elitist, I'll admit, but regardless of any poor choice of words on my part, I believe the point still stands: you don't know this person enough to pass judgement on him, and I don't know you enough to pass judgement on you. You could have made the same point without saying "you're an elitist," is what I'm trying to say.

It would give evidence that could allow me to define one facet of a person. Elitists are allowed to be different. You make it sound like being an elitist is the be all and end all of a personality, when it's really not. It's just a philosophical belief. I'm not defining someone. I'm defining the tiniest fraction of someone.

I don't use ad hominems to make myself look better. I use them to show people that their arguments and beliefs have consequences that reflect on them. If you hold certain beliefs, then you can be defined as several things. That's an inescapable fact. If you believe that we have no free will and our lives are spelt out by some semi-sentient weaver of fate, you are a fatalist. That's not something you can really argue against.

Besides, I personally don't consider calling someone an elitist an insult. It's been twisted by politics to make elitists look like they want to step on everyone else to get unfair priviledges. That's called discrimination, and it's not the same thing. Elitism has been demonised, and it's not such a bad idea, when you think about it. Why shouldn't the clever kids get the best education. You'll create generations of genii who will cure cancer and stuff like that. People can read whatever they like, but when I write elitist, I write "a person who believes that people should be granted priviledges based on their merits".

Also, I want sugared popcorn.

Wait, woah, how did this go from Navy Seal Team 6's death rage to stealing popcorn?

Look at the URL and tell me what you see:

That explain it?

I said that holding that belief would make him an elitist. I wouldn't call that a stupid name. It's a definition of a part of someone's thought process, in my eyes. Furthermore, elitism has nothing to do with being argumentative. Absolutely nothing. You can agree with people and still believe that worth is greater in a perceived elite.

Besides it was an implication. I admit, I worded that second post with more certainty than I should have. I just thought the implication was interesting.

Also, just a thought, but I think you've seen more than one action of mine.

You're saying that one belief, which you aren't even completely sure he has, defines who he is as a person? And I'm not saying being argumentative makes someone an elitist; you missed the part where I mentioned using ad hominems to make oneself seem better than others.  And alright, yeah, I've seen more than one action from you. My post may not have given a very accurate definition of elitist, I'll admit, but regardless of any poor choice of words on my part, I believe the point still stands: you don't know this person enough to pass judgement on him, and I don't know you enough to pass judgement on you. You could have made the same point without saying "you're an elitist," is what I'm trying to say.

This is a pretty big assumption you're making here. For one thing you're saying "you care that these people died, but you don't care that other people died." You don't know that (all he said was he's angry that they were killed), or think of any other reasons he might be angry about it, or know anything else about him, but you're trying to tell everyone what he is. I could just as easily say you're an elitist for arguing with everyone and using ad hominems to make yourself look better than others, and while you may or may not be doing that (again, I don't know because I'm not you), it wouldn't be enough for me to tell you what you are, because I don't know you, just this one action of yours.

You really should learn how to argue without calling people stupid names; it's getting on my nerves. I probably would have ignored this post completely if you had left out that overused insult.

I said that holding that belief would make him an elitist. I wouldn't call that a stupid name. It's a definition of a part of someone's thought process, in my eyes. Furthermore, elitism has nothing to do with being argumentative. Absolutely nothing. You can agree with people and still believe that worth is greater in a perceived elite.

Besides it was an implication. I admit, I worded that second post with more certainty than I should have. I just thought the implication was interesting.

Also, just a thought, but I think you've seen more than one action of mine.

Their use of language, their body language, their tone when speaking to different kinds of people, their education, their political positions, their hobbies, their appearance, their choice of company, their answer to a number of philosophical conundrums, and their favourite colour.

Not all of them better than career performance, but ten, nonetheless.