Is this the most compelling argument for chaotic evil?

Is this the most compelling argument for chaotic evil?

To play?

"Guys I promise I I won't betray and slaughter you guys just everyone who oppose the group"

That's what I said the one time I wanted to play a objectively evil character and it worked out just fine

Mind you that this character was clearly an unstable psychopath and genuinely did not seem to understand that his choices were aspect of his own agency in the world.
But from a role playing standpoint, yes, a CE character when asked why he should be compassionate or have rules for his own behavior impresses upon him would pretty much point out that if rules and morals don’t really do anything except limit yourself then why have them at all?

Which isn’t to say that all CE characters are incapable of functioning in civilized and rational societies. Plenty are, and understand that if they get caught breaking the law punishment will result and may toe the line in front of others to avoid said punishment. But in the end if they see a chance that they think following a law or moral compulsion will hold them back from, they’ll take it.

A reminder

Anton Chigurh is neutral evil at best. He's a force of nature.

Except he works by the rule of a coin flip, so he has his own rules.

>whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent

>Tfw I usually make LN characters because I want to play LE but never get a chance to "officially" play LE

What?

What is this representing? Is it Loss?

>”Do you have ANY idea how crazy you are?”
>”You mean the nature of this conversation?”
>”I mean the nature of YOU.”
It was an incredibly plain question without any confusing words, but Chigurh literally did not understand what he meant at first.
I suspect not only is his own reason completely alien to a sane personality, THEIR logic is as alien to him as his is to theirs, which just further highlights how fucked in the head he is.

Sounds very chaotic neutral to me.

If you're familiar with McCarthy's normiecore canon (i.e. his stuff that's not border trilogy and southern gothic) you know that Anton Chigurh is not human.

As in doesn’t think like a normal human or is literally not human?

I'd say they're more true neutral. They follow a logic, but it's not a logic that is in any way intuitive to a normal person. They hurt people but they also lack human malice. The suffering they inflict is simply the natural result of normal people interacting with them. Nothing more, nothing less.

Chaotic people do not necessarily act “randomly”.
>”A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules, other people's lives, or anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel. They set a high value on personal freedom, but do not have much regard for the lives or freedom of other people. Chaotic evil characters do not usually work well in groups because they resent being given orders and do not usually behave themselves unless there is no alternative.”
The word for word description of Chaotic Evil here. A random “I kill for lolz” character is indeed CE. He is also being poorly roleplayed, because there’s decent examples of the above description even in real life. Chigurh only ever follows laws in the film because the consequences to breaking them in public are more then he can handle, hence the “no alternative” part there at the end of CE.
Neutral Evil is a bit more...apathetic I should think. That’s more like a generally amoral person. Chigurh kills several people (or threatens to kill them) for literally no good goddamn reason at all.
>”A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals. A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves.”
Killing the store owner at the beginning if he failed his coin toss would be pointless as he really gained nothing by doing so except leaving a larger body trail, and killing the guy’s wife at the end when the guy was dead and he had the money was equally pointless and gained him nothing since she never even SAW Chigurh until he walked in.

>anything but their own desires, which are typically selfish and cruel.

this does not describe anton chigurh in any way

A good example of a CN guy would be s guy who does not go out of his way to hurt people but does not NOT do that either and really shows no respect for laws.
An example; a homeless person that is mostly harmless unless directly threatened but is homeless because he has no respect for taxes or property laws. The kind of person who basically you can completely safely ignore in life without any problems because ultimately if you don’t start shit with him then he won’t start shit back.

And Chigurh has rules. There's a reason he puts the store clerk up to a coin toss the moment he finds out about him marrying into the business. There's a reason he uses coin tosses to determine an outcome. There's a reason he goes and kills his employer after finding out he wasn't the only one sent after the cash. There's a reason he doesn't kill everyone he meets.

Think about that scene in the store again. He finds out about his method of acquiring the business and immediately becomes hostile. He wants to kill him, but he's bound by his coin flip option. When the guy wins, he doesn't kill the man he wants to kill despite this (showing he's following a rule), and also says "well done", almost happily. This scene shows clearly that Chigurh isn't chaotic, he's neutral.

He kills people for money and works with drug dealers and smugglers in addition to murdering his boss after becoming annoyed with him.
While certainly not emotional or Disney movie about his cruelty, he is totally apathetic to the well-being of other human beings, which when translated in to functional action is definitely cruel. He doesn’t torture people randomly mind you (you don’t need to torture people to be cruel), but he either doesn’t care or cannot understand that what he does is incredibly callous.

Again; he was going to kill at the wife at the end, even though he had no real reason to do so. He may SAY and THINK he’s not cruel, and he may have done the act as dispassionately as everything else in his life, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t an incredibly pointless and petty act of active apathy done for no other reason then he wanted to do it.

The wife’s point to him was that it was HIS CHOICE to come there and kill her, while Anton was simply too damaged to understand this.

I’m willing to buy into this logic except that he doesn’t strictly abide by the coin toss in every circumstance, and these circumstances where he does abide by it make no fucking sense to anyone at all.
Alignment HAS to partailly he determined by action and not just self-perception, because ultimately morals are all about a what you do, not what you think about yourself in your private thoughts that nobody hears and most people don’t give a flying fuck about.
If nobody gets his logic BUT him and that logic is strange and arbitrary (as in literally arbitrary, a 50/50 chance) and he refuses to either explain or give people a way to work within that form of logic, then he’s Chaotic regardless of whatever self-justifications he uses.

What you said was “he inherited it” and then it made him angry.
So basically the guy made him angry through something that was under no fault of his own and Chigurh considered murder as the logical response to that anger and what saved him was plain old dumb luck.

>Yeah, so he's not chaotic.

You still don't get it. It's a matter of the differing perceptions between Anton and the everyone else.

Anton is chaotic, he just doesn't think he is because he's fucking crazy. He thinks he's following rules and logic, but he's fucking crazy. Everyone who isn't crazy knows Anton is chaotic, but Anton is too fucking crazy to understand that or even perceive his chaotic nature.

>Anton is chaotic

No, he isn't. He has his own rules and he doesn't break them.

D&D alignment is a flawed system that can barely fit an unexceptional character, let alone one as bizarre and complex as Anton Chigurh. You all are just pissing into the wind

>So basically the guy made him angry through something that was under no fault of his own and Chigurh considered murder as the logical response to that anger and what saved him was plain old dumb luck

Yup, and despite his anger, he abides by the "decision" of the coin.

if i'm reading this correctly people who say they play chaotic good actually play Lawful good?
yeah no i'll call bulshit on that one

i've had multiple pseudoLG players start acting NE from the first session so i guess thats kinda accurate
you just gotta love those bright eyed wannabe villains who pretend they're going to betray you once you are of no more use
but deep down they know they actually like the party

Haa, but those very rules are inherently Chaotic. The reason why he follows them doesn't really figure into the matter at hand.

Yeah, what I said here; .
Morals and alignment aren’t made in the social vacuum of your own skull (otherwise nobody would ever care what anyone else does) but are at least in part operating based on how you interact with other human beings.
I’m not saying the whole world can be broken down into the D&D alignment system, because sometimes bad people do a lot of good things and Vice-versa, and a lot of times good people do bad things on accident of becayse they’re just too stupid to understand consequences.

I’m just saying that Chigurh is an extremely clear CE example for media.

>rules
>chaotic

Pick one.

CG in my experience tends to be the principled party leader type who keeps everyone from devolving into murderhobodom. They're not Deus Vult-y about it but tend to stick to their principles and society's rules for the most part

Go make up your own code and strictly follow it even though it runs counter to every law on planet earth.
See what results from that.
Yeah, if it only makes sense to you then it doesn’t actually make any sense.
That’s how logic works dude; if you cannot remotely describe or explain your train of thought because it’s to bizarre then you are basically non-functional in a society with actual logical rules.

You’re one of those “everything must be screaming as far in the direction as it possibly can go” persons, aren’t you.
I dunno what to call it but “Nerd Extremism”; in that a lot of nerdy types (myself often included) just have ZERO grasp of the concept of middle ground.

Chaotic is not synonymous with random. In the context of D&D alignments it has a fairly narrow definition.

It’s not that complex an idea and that fact that you aren’t getting it makes me wonder how frequently you come into contact with actual people and interact with them as regular human beings.

If at least somehow you can follow a rule or explain it to someone else, it matters because it can be implemented in a rational way.
If a rule cannot be followed by anyone EXCEPT you and it’s mostly based on what you want at any given time, it’s not a rule, just an excuse.

Not him, but what would you personally consider a stable and proper “set of rules” then.

>Go make up your own code and strictly follow it even though it runs counter to every law on planet earth.
>See what results from that.

Completely irrelevant to determining chaotic or neutral.

>Yeah, if it only makes sense to you then it doesn’t actually make any sense.

Except it can make sense to others, which is what Woody Harrelson's character is about.

>That’s how logic works dude; if you cannot remotely describe or explain your train of thought because it’s to bizarre then you are basically non-functional in a society with actual logical rules.

Again, irrelevant to chaotic or neutral.

No, I'm one of those "if they have rules, they aren't chaotic" persons.

Yup, chaotic is synonymous with random. But sure, let's use the definitions:

>A neutral evil character is typically selfish and has no qualms about turning on allies-of-the-moment, and usually makes allies primarily to further their own goals.[9] A neutral evil character has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves. Another valid interpretation of neutral evil holds up evil as an ideal, doing evil for evil's sake and trying to spread its influence.[9] Examples of the first type are an assassin who has little regard for formal laws but does not needlessly kill, a henchman who plots behind their superior's back, or a mercenary who switches sides if made a better offer. An example of the second type would be a masked killer who strikes only for the sake of causing fear and distrust in the community.

Sounds like Chigurh to me.

Irrelevant to chaotic or neutral. Also, ad hominem, so get fucked.

>He has his own rules and he doesn't break them.

No. He thinks he has his own rules and he thinks he doesn't break them. The truth is he has no rules.

You're so fixated on the coin flips that you're ignoring the other murders he commits. Show us the "rule" he follows when he "decides" to use the coin flip or not. Does he flip a coin when he decides to kill that driver and steals his car? Does he flip a coin when he decides not to kill the sheriff in the motel room at night? If he didn't flip a coin, why didn't he?

Anton is chaotic. McCarthy, the man who created Anton, says Anton is chaotic. Your opinion is not only wrong, it also doesn't matter.

>The truth is he has no rules.

Except he does.

Bushido (as in proper Hagakure Bushido and not anime Bushido) is a good example.
It has a clearly and relatively plainly defined set of rules that while certainly most people would honestly consider fairly warped in terms of priority values, the rules can still be made some sense of when explained and MOST IMPORTANTLY these rules can be worked within by other people to deal with a person in such a way that they can understand them. You also need to theoretically be able to build a society and stable culture off of them, though it does not need to be the exact culture you are in currently.

You can’t understand Chigurh’s rules because they’re too weird and no stable culture on earth can function off of the Coin Toss of Death.

Not him, but prove it then.
Use his dialogue IN THE MOVIE and only in the movie to point out where he has rules that don’t rely on your personal extrapolations.

Where does he say that in the movie?
Where does he demonstrate the logic of the coin toss?
You say he has rules, so that’s your claim, now convince me.

He kills the wife for no reason.
He had no reason to do that.
>but neither will they go out of their way to cause carnage or mayhem when they see no direct benefit for themselves.
He went out of his way to find her even though she never saw him.

More accurate

>Not him, but prove it then.

Coin toss.

>now convince me

Why?

>He kills the wife for no reason.

He kills the wife specifically because Moss doesn't accept the offer to hand over the money in exchange for sparing his wife. No carnage, no mayhem. He followed the rules.

He doesn't kill her for no reason. He promised Moss that he'd hurt her if Moss didn't cooperate. Moss wouldn't cooperate, so he had to kill her. He felt compelled to fulfill his promise because that's what he does

Chaotic is not synonymous with random, Chaotic is synonymous with freedom-loving. There is no D&D definition that says that Chaotic is incapable of following any rules whatsoever.

If the rules you follow are chaotically random to begin with, you're still chaotic in alignment.

>Chaotic is synonymous with freedom-loving.

And freedom is having no rules, i.e. random.

>"There is no D&D definition that says that Chaotic is incapable of following any rules whatsoever."
>A chaotic evil character tends to have no respect for rules

You know what's also said about chaotic evil? "They resent being given orders". Except he's a hitman, who gets given orders.

>rules
>chaotic

Pick one.

>Coin toss.
Not proof. You need to explain the logic of it
>Why?
Because you’re making a claim without explaining the reasoning behind it aside from evidence that isn’t supported by the actual material, AND in fact the creator himself disagrees with you.
So you have to provide some kind of reasonable train of thought into the logic of Chigurh’s coin toss so YOU can claim there’s a logic in the coin toss, or at least provide textual evidence that suggests his reasoning isn’t just irritation.
>He kills the wife specifically because Moss doesn't accept the offer to hand over the money in exchange for sparing his wife. No carnage, no mayhem. He followed the rules.
After getting the money, leaving the wife alone would cause him no pain, and he’d still have exactly what he wanted when he could have walked away with zero risk to himself.
He went out of his way to hurt someone, again based on this train of logic that you so far have provided really anecdotal evidence for.

I’m not unwilling to listen to reason here, you just have to actually provide some based on stuff that couldn’t equally be “he felt like it” because there’s no dialogue or context in his head to explain his rules. We know he ACTS like he has rules and can reasonably extrapolate from his dialogue that HE thinks he has them, but there’s not enough context in the movie to judge what these rules are beyond all of them involving killing people in some fashion because we are given no window to his thought process.

>And freedom is having no rules, i.e. random.
Yup, you’re this . Cannot comprehend freedom without randomness.

He's not really freedom-loving. He's a neutral man with an alien set of personal morals. He seems to have an internal logic and ruleset that he follows pretty dogmatically, it's just not one that makes any sense from an outside perspective and certainly not one that he's explained to anyone. He's chaotic evil from an outsider's perspective because he's an unpredictable terrifying force, but would probably be lawful neutral in his own mind because he just does what his own rules and other people tell him to do.

fair enough, you seem like you had a lucky draw when it comes to roleplayers.

in my experience chaotic good was always played by the typical dickass thief who doesnt want anyone to question his ways

>Not proof.

Except it is.

>Because you’re making a claim

No, why should I convince YOU?

>After getting the money, leaving the wife alone would cause him no pain, and he’d still have exactly what he wanted when he could have walked away with zero risk to himself.

He's following the rules. He said if the money was given to him, he'd let her go. The money wasn't given to him.

And you cannot comprehend chaotic doesn't involve rules.

This is a fair assessment, because Alignment in D&D is based largely off of outside perceptions otherwise morals like Good and Evil would never come into play, but in real-life we have no such hard barometer.
I accept that train of logic; to everyone else, CE, to himself, LN.

>McCarthy, the man who created Anton, says Anton is chaotic.
>>B-b-b-b-b-but he follows rules!

>And you cannot comprehend chaotic doesn't involve rules.
Ok. By your insane definiton of chaotic, name one chaotic person, and then I'll list the rules for them.

Our freedom of speech is protected by rules, user.

>Except it is.
How? You’ve given no evidence that it’s proof.
>No, why should I convince YOU?
Because you have provided the claim. You don’t need to convince me, just to couch your debate in a logical format that you can explain in actual words using textual evidence.
...admittedly this is not a debate class so you’re not really obligated to make any sense, so scratch all that and carry on.
>He's following the rules. He said if the money was given to him, he'd let her go. The money wasn't given to him.
See above for an answer to this I guess.
>And you cannot comprehend chaotic doesn't involve rules.
That’s a pretty out their viewpoint to take, and I admit I have difficulty following it. I would ask you to explain this too, but we just sort of wind back down to the part where you’re under no obligation to argue in a debate format, so again carry on.

I apologize for pressing you on something that you had no reason to be pressed on, it was rude.

Not him, but it’s no so much an insane definition of Chaotic so much as it is a very extreme and nonfunctional definition.

>And you cannot comprehend chaotic doesn't involve rules.
EVERYONE lives by rules. Some people's rules are crazy.

Look, someone with poor impulse control follows the rules pretty much the same as everyone else, "except when their emotions grow in size beyond their ability to reason and they act".

That's a rule. That describes how they act. Not a single person's actions cannot be described by rules.

You can, in fact, provide sufficient rules to deterministically decide whatever actions any person takes through their entire life.

By that logic, NO-ONE is chaotic.

McCarthy clearly isn't using D&D alignments.

>By your insane definiton of chaotic

It's neither insane nor mine. It's the D&D definition.

Which is why it isn't truly freedom of speech.

>How? You’ve given no evidence that it’s proof.

The act in and of itself demonstrates it.

>You don’t need to convince me

Exactly.

>See above for an answer to this I guess.

What answer?

>That’s a pretty out their viewpoint to take

It's in the definition of chaotic evil.

>EVERYONE lives by rules

Hyperbole.

Agreed. A definition of chaotic that fits only some truly random phenomenon of physics (like isotope decay) is useless when talking about characters and literature.

A thought out pessimistic nihilism with the interest in convincing others of your view.

Oh come on, if Chaotic meant random then there would be no discernible difference between CG, CN, and CE. You're using a nonfunctional definition of the word.

>What answer?
The “provide detailed evidence” answer, but also “you actually don’t need to bother” answer. It’s honestly not really that fun arguing when your partner won’t agree to terms because it just becomes “no u” over and over, and you’ve basically stopped typing sentences and are using one-word answers without explaining your logic.
So you’re either trying to “win” an arguement (which even a debate team can tell you is impossible, the object is merely to make your argument convincing) or merely trying to get people so mad they’ll stop arguing so you can gain some kind of satisfaction from the deed, whereas I was debating because I genuinely wanted to hear your detailed evidence behind your logic.
The fact that you haven’t explained it at all is a bit disappointing to me because your views are still valid and I want to understand them in detail, but we have also come to the conclusion that you are not really obligated to entertain me by debating in a specific format, so it’s all good.

I think this gets at the crux of the problem: Are alignments based on how others perceive you or are they based on how you perceive yourself and your intents?

>The fact that you haven’t explained it at all

This is why I'm not bothering with you. Regardless of what I say, you won't understand it because if you have already seen the film, you would already know why without needing an explanation.

I would argue that intent is important but external perception is also important for this really basic fact; when you’e dead, nobody cares about your private thoughts, only what they remember about you.
In D&D this admittedly does not apply nearly as strictly, but in most D&D settings it still sort of applies because regular everyday people can’g visit the afterlife on a whim most days, so perception of who you were based on your actions is still relatively important mixed with intent.
The conflict part comes where when that perception is flawed or the person perceiving’s own intent is selfish or runs counter to your own actions I should think.

>Hyperbole.
>this person acts according to the impulses generated from their internal and external influences

I've just described everyone's rules.

>D&D definition
Per 3.5E
>"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Nothing about "follows no rules".

You're kind of full of shit, aren't you?

Yeah, that’s not how viewpoints work.
Especially in relatively minimalistic pieces of entertainment.
But you know that already. It sounds (at least to me) that though you understand subjective viewpoints you would rather prefer your viewpoint in this particular instance to be the absolute one instead of just another opinion.

>Because it is the correct opinion.
Yeah, I know, type the basics of your answer out for you because it saves us both some time.

>I've just described everyone's rules.

Keep on pushing and eventually you'll get to "no one has free will", which neither interests me nor matters right now.

>freedom, adaptability, and flexibility
>arbitrary actions
>"Nothing about "follows no rules""

Sure thing, friendo.

>You're kind of full of shit, aren't you?

Ironic.

But the film supports my argument that he is Chaotic Evil. That's why your claim that he is Neutral raises the questions for explanation to begin with.

>You're kind of full of shit, aren't you?
He mostly sounds obstinate to me, not really full of shit. Like, he debates to “be right”. Convincing other people or even other people’s opinions mattering doesn’t seem to occur to him, because he wants to be right so everyone else has to be wrong for him to be right. I mean he knows he’s being stubborn for the sake of stubbornness, he’s clearly self-observant enough to know it, so he’s doing this not just out of bullshit opinions but because he wants to be right.

>Yeah, that’s not how viewpoints work.

Incredible, the arrogance of it to decide how viewpoints can and can't work.

>you would rather prefer your viewpoint in this particular instance to be the absolute one instead of just another opinion

I prefer viewpoints that match the subject, regardless of whether they are my own. Understanding an opinion does not require acceptance of it, though. Right now, you're failing on the former but assuming I demand the later.

Except it doesn't. The scene with the store clerk, the scene with the accountant, and the scene with Moss' wife all demonstrate is chaotic neutral.

>Keep on pushing and eventually you'll get to "no one has free will", which neither interests me nor matters right now.
Not him, but that is a pretty big leap.
How did you make it there?
>Ironic.
You brought up ad hominem before, justly so. Why backslide and be aggressive yourself? Especially since you basically just said “no, you are”?

Name a person who you can define as chaotic, then. What's the point of a definition if you can't use it?

>How did you make it there?

His current argument being everyone's rules are merely impulses right now. Not far from the implication that free will is an illusion as choice is merely a collection of impulses that we have no control over.

>Why backslide and be aggressive yourself?

I see no aggression in pointing out hypocrisy.

He constantly breaks the laws for personal gain or on a whim. That's Chaotic behavior.
He is murderous, that is Evil.
To me this is a very clear cut situation.

Woah there, now you’re accusing me of both arrogance (ad hominem again) and assuming that my assumption is hostile.
All I know of you is that I tried to engage you in debate and you shut down and when I asked why, you decided not to answer why, so my assumptions are just that; assumptions about you.
They are not fact, merely guesses based off what very little evidence I have. I will not claim that they are absolute truth, only that from my standpoint this is what I observe of the very little I know about you, so unless you give clarification I don’t really know why you’re so committed here I suppose or what you acted in certain ways.

>His current argument being everyone's rules are merely impulses right now. Not far from the implication that free will is an illusion as choice is merely a collection of impulses that we have no control over.
Accurate, but still saying he’ll say that next is you basically saying that the next “logical step for him” is that, when all you are really doing is saying that the next logical step you personally think is for him is that, to be precise.
>I see no aggression in pointing out hypocrisy.
He insulted you and then your return statement implied that he is the one full of shit, which is itself an aggressive argument even if it only uses his own insult against him in a passive manner. Sorry for not elaborating that earlier.

>He is murderous, that is Evil

He kills because of either payment or principles. He doesn't kill unnecessarily. That's neutral.

>now you’re accusing me

You did just try to dictate how viewpoints work.

> I tried to engage you in debate

One in which it was clear you wouldn't understand from the start.

>assumptions about you.

Entirely irrelevant, and you keep trying to make this about me.

Fine, then.

"Everyone's actions are decided from their knowledge of the world (often imperfect), their ethics, desires, and their emotional states. Actions done by them will depend on which of those is influencing their behaviour at the moment."

Another generalised definiton of everyone's rules.

>but still saying he’ll say that next

I didn't. Re-read to see the words "pushing" and "eventually".

>he is the one full of shit

Is this not the case?

>He kills because of either payment or principles. He doesn't kill unnecessarily. That's neutral
Killing innocent people for money is an evil act.

Or are you just referring to chaotic/neutral, not evil/neutral?

See? He is getting closer to the freewill illusion.

>You did just try to dictate how viewpoints work.
Not an accusation technically.
And I was speaking of subjective evaluations of pieces of entertainment, which by definition have subjective value based purely on the ultimately transitory nature of them over time and how eventually they are completely forgotten given enough time and thus opinions of them cease to exist.
I didn’t mean to sound accusatory in other ways, sorry.
>One in which it was clear you wouldn't understand from the start.
You are being aggressive linguistically again. Also, where do you think my start is here because I think you might think I’m a different user. I came in here sorta midway through.
>Entirely irrelevant, and you keep trying to make this about me.
No, I am not.
I made assumptions, but I do not consider them fact. If they are in fact incorrect you are welcome to clarify and I will in fact take you at your word as I have no other more solid metric with which to judge you here, seeing as we are both anons.

>I didn't. Re-read to see the words "pushing" and "eventually".
Okay, but you seem to think it’s inevitable when we have no evidence beyond your feelings, which are not an very reliable external measurement system here.
>Is this not the case?
I mean if you call a gay guy a faggot it’s still rude and aggressive. I wasn’t saying you are wrong because I haven’t been given a train of logic you are following yet. I was just saying you were being aggressive.
Ad hominem is just about debate behavior of attacking a person instead of his argument itself after all.
I see mostly that he’s talking about differing points of view actually.
Nothing about free will yet.

>You are being aggressive linguistically again.

You're also reading what I'm writing as aggressive, despite my previous implication that I'm not.

> Also, where do you think my start is here

Here >"No, I am not."
>All I know of you
>assumptions about you
>the very little I know about you
>why you’re so committed
>what you acted in certain ways
>with which to judge you here

Seems that way.

>I made assumptions

Why even make them in the first place? I am irrelevant to the character.

>no evidence beyond your feelings

Feelings have nothing to do with this. It's simply logical thought processes followed to the end.

>I was just saying you were being aggressive

And I told you I wasn't.

>Nothing about free will yet.

They should be glaring, considering his most recent post.