This is simply confrontational. I don't expect you to respond to me saying "fuck off" or "stop being an asshole".
And who was it that responded to me saying "stop being an asshole"?
This was quoted 100% accurately. Even the spelling of "neighbour".
That spelling is correct.
Yeah, he possibly could, but it is irrelevant to the counter-example in the original argument. Because it was irrelevant, I did not see a point in addressing it, or even including it just to be ignored.
To this excerpt, you say I am "mutilating" it.
In my personal opinion, trimming something doesn't count as "mutilating".
It counts, when you "trim" parts that are relevant to the meaning of the quote. Also, you saying something's irrelevant doesn't make it so.
If you're admitting to a mistake, then accepted.
However, you simply do not seem to be able to let it go that I didn't provide the "perfect example", and you bit my head off. I tell you to stop being an asshole, and what is your response? To continue being an asshole.
Not really, but I guess there's nothing I can do if you see it that way. Just a bit of advice: if someone doesn't say "Aye, sir" to your every word, that doesn't mean he's being an asshole.
You even eventually tell me to "man up"... good to know that everything on the internet has to cater to masculine more of confrontational argument. *beats chest à la King Kong*
Do you know what "figuratively speaking" means? Or what "man up" means?
I did not explicitly state that my hypothetical situation occurred on Earth. Yet this implicit element did not seem to offend you.
When a person is presenting a hypothetical situation, they must naturally use a finite amount of information to establish the situation. I was of the belief that when presenting my hypothetical that it would be understood that all parties were entirely aware of all the facts presented in the hypothetical. By saying he is a guest, thus everyone involved in the hypothetical situation, would thus know that he were a guest.
Guess I'll have to remind you that not even once have I said anything about the guest being a guest, but rather about the neighbour knowing that he was a guest. Really, are you even reading what I write? That's the second time you prove you aren't.
Anyway, specifically stating that the hypothesis happens on Earth is ridiculous. Specifically stating that the neighbour knows that the guest is a guest, and of whom is he a guest, is not only not ridiculous, but necessary, since there are other possibilities with the same or a simillar outcome (happening outside of Earth, one the other hand, not so much unless you happen to be Orson Scott Card).
Now, when you are presenting your own hypothetical situations, you are entirely free to follow your own personal tastes and opinions about how they should be presented.
You even make it clear that you're criticizing the presentation and not the substance of my argument:
[snip]
This is awesome news, because since you are insisting that there is no critic on substance of my hypothetical, all of your criticism is based on... opinion!
That's kind of why you should be couching your criticism in polite language... because you're relating your own opinion. (I thought they covered this in elementary school, however I might be wrong, you might be autistic, or you could just be anti-social.)
If I presented an argument that stated that I could charge you for destruction of property in my original hypothetical, then you would be right to say, "shut up, you're wrong." Even to perhaps coat it with liberal confrontational statements like "you're an idiot," or the like. And it would be warranted, because I would be factually wrong.
However, we're not arguing fact here... we're simply arguing over style and presentation.
I take your criticism that I could have presented the information to the audience more clearly, and I respectfully disagree.
Oh, so when someone's wrong it's OK to be an asshole (which I never was, it's clear to everyone reading this that you were the first and only to resort to insulting the other part). And the anti-social autistic is none other than me. Great.
I have nothing more to say to you, you've proved that you're unable to take criticism, much less understand it, and that you're barely able to be a part of any civilized society or community.