I agree, the thing is, the person who introduced the idea into this conversation that power was a boolean quantity and that it meant you either could do anything or were limited in some way - was you. I don't mean this as a personal attack or anything, it's just the facts; we weren't talking in those terms until you introduced them. You wouldn't need to disagree with this point if you hadn't brought it up yourself.

Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?

Sure.

I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.

Such is life on the forums sometimes.

> I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.

So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously?

I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it.

That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.

"So what you're saying is..." arguments are typically fantasies about the opponents flawed inner thoughts, and not worth responding to.

And yet, here you are, responding with a vague observation, which you don't attempt to justify applies to this particular situation. On a website without notifications, you checked your threads in order to see if I had responded, in order to tell me how my fantasies weren't worth your time.

I think it's quite telling that you described us as "opponents." You aren't actually here to discuss anything, you're here to "win." That's why you're throwing out opinions you don't hold, and why you can't admit you're wrong without wrapping it in an insinuation that I am more wrong. That's why you keep responding, even if it's only to assert I'm not worth responding to.

To put my cards on the table, I care about this conversation, I care about what the truth of this matter is, and I want to either change your mind or have my mind changed. I think you care too. I think you're cloaking your ideas in a veneer of detachment to protect yourself from taking my criticism seriously. And I think that's deeply unfortunate.

Upon reflection, I acknowledge this comment was too far, and I apologize for making it.