Thread Closed
(04-23-2015, 04:31 PM)Verad Wrote:(04-23-2015, 04:26 PM)Black Hat Wrote:(04-23-2015, 04:24 PM)Edda Wrote:(04-23-2015, 04:19 PM)Verad Wrote: You don't be deliberately obtuse and realize that when people say "judge," they are using it as a synonym for "condemn" in these threads. That's how.This.
There is not a single human being on this earth that does not make judgements. Condemnation is an entirely different ballpark.
As it was written in the definition options that I provided, there is nothing obtuse about it.Â
9.
to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge:
The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
You will note in the definition, and not in the example chosen, that "To decide or settle authoritatively" does not indicate the quality of the decision beyond its authoritativeness. It does not include positive or negative categories.
You will also note the absurdity of presuming that when people say "You are free to roleplay what you want, but do not judge," that they are implying, "Do not positively judge the roleplay of others" or "Do not judge the roleplay of others regardless of whether the judgment is positive or negative."
The statement is used to advocate avoiding condemnation in general practice. The notion that people would use it to advocate avoiding the condoning of roleplay concepts, or the avoidance of condemnation or condoning roleplay concepts, is so bizarre that you are clearly arguing in bad faith.
If you wish to point out the linguistic contradiction between the two statements as written, congratulations. Give it 5-6 pages and some cites and your PHIL101 professor will give you a B.
![[Image: T8POXlh.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/T8POXlh.jpg)
It is not meant to qualify, it is a literal interpretation of text. Essentially, as stated above, a math problem using words. You are bringing conjecture into the discussion.Â
Also, your statement of presumption appears to be a restatement of your first paragraph. Would you expand on that?
What a colossal waste of time and energy.