Board Thread:Site Discussions/@comment-1272757-20131112003859/@comment-115265-20131122093953

~Flare wrote: First of all why do I have to explain my reasons for opposing when they've been explained for me? I read Bullet's comments and was convinced to oppose by them. Why say what's been said again. That just starts more flame wars and arguments that I don't want to be involved in. I just wanted to give my two cents on the thread without getting involved in a giant debate..

Second while I don't speak for Bullet I read Kagi's comemnts and I find Bullet's logic to be the best

Third you basically just said that you find Bullet's logic sound and you are failing to say why you are opposing. He just countered your arguments from earlier.

Fourth how is oppositon negative, you said that we have negative reaction to change, and I'm offended by that. This isn't even the status quo. This rule has only been here for a few months.

Still You missed my point, Flare. "Per X" only explains so much about your position, and while your reasoning may be the same, or nearly the same, it also has a consequence of being extremely vague on what about the other reasoning you may agree with, let alone the why. Also, argument is not this evil thing you think it is. Flame wars, I can understand, but genuine argument and debate is something that should be respected, with good reason.

I initially found Bullet's logic valid. On the strictly logical grounds, he makes the most sense. But his arguments almost overlook the fact that we humans are not always the most logical bunch... A few hours among the history books would tell you as much.

His logic is indeed sound, as I have had time to think about it. Maybe I'm the illogical one who's fooled himself. Nevertheless, I'm sticking to my guns: I do believe Kagimizu's proposal has some merit, even if others don't. That, and I don't think jumping a few hoops in the name of statistics is necessary, but I guess that's just me.

To respond to your fourth point: Whether you're offended or not, it is true that many cultures have a negative reaction to change. I've known for a long time that truth sometimes hurts like fire. I should clarify that opposition specifically is not always negative; some of the greatest milestones in societal history have come from strong opposition to some ideas. That said, that opposition had its own opposition in the name of preserving tradition. But we're not taking history class, so I'm going no farther on this point.