[Chefelf]

Hey, I'm not exactly losing sleep over this, Chyld. Im mainly arguing on ideological grounds.

This sums up Rory's life perfectly. He doesn't lose sleep. In fact, he sleeps until 7:00 PM some days. However, during his waking hours his greatest joy is to argue ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that he can, whether he agrees with it or not. Whether his motives are simply the joy of argument or the goal of driving everyone around him completely mad is unclear.

He once took the unpopular side of the argument that Hitler had no intentions of creating an Empire to take over Europe and eventually the world.

Ahhh, Rory.

I'm about to bump up everyone's post count JUST to shut Rory up. The only reason I do not do that is because I know it would be ultimately ineffective. He'd certainly find something new to argue about.

Perhaps I should open a separate forum for Rory to argue in. We could call it: The Rory Argument Company.

[Rory]

Actually that argument was based off a misconception I had about Hitler's motives in World War 2. A person can still be a big asshole, a genocidal asshole mind you, and have semi realistic goals. For example, if Hitler had decided he would be happy with just, say, 75% of Europe, that wouldn't make him any less evil; it would just make him more realistic. It just so happens I was wrong in that particular debate. People make mistakes; history, in particular, was never my strong suit. Though, if I recall correctly, Caolan supported me in my view, so I wasn't completely insane. We probably both just had a similar misconception about the scope of Hitler's true motives.

With that out of the way, I'm not going to lie to you, I do enjoy a good argument. But I enjoy my more or less firmly grounded principles just as much. I wouldn't reneg on them for the sake of arguing, and I certainly don't desire to drive anyone insane. It just so happens that I happen to have a lot of opinions, and I'm not often willing to let a point I disagree with slip by, even if its "not a big deal." Now I ask you, whats so wrong with that philosophy? Shouldn't people make it known when they actually disagree with something, especially when its on a message board, where you need something to talk about anyway?

I've never understood people's objections to a productive argument. Debate is essential towards the moulding of a better society, free of lies, injustice, and tyranny. Or would any of you disagree? The very fact that you are more than willing to say something when you disagree with my argument seems to indicate that our views are not dissimilar on this issue.

[Chefelf]

Actually that argument was based off a misconception I had about Hitler's motives in World War 2. A person can still be a big asshole, a genocidal asshole mind you, and have semi realistic goals. For example, if Hitler had decided he would be happy with just, say, 75% of Europe, that wouldn't make him any less evil;

Yes. THAT is true. However, this was not the case with Hitler. What conqueror in the history of the world would have been happy with 75% of anything?

With that out of the way, I'm not going to lie to you, I do enjoy a good argument. But I enjoy my more or less firmly grounded principles just as much. I wouldn't reneg on them for the sake of arguing, and I certainly don't desire to drive anyone insane.

Not to argue, but I disagree.

[Laura]

Rory isn't trying to drive anyone nuts, he just doesn't seem to understand that other people get more emotionally invested in arguing than he does. He is able to keep his internal cool and argue his points zealously until the cows come home, and while his beliefs are certainly strong, his emotions are not tied up in the debate.

Most people seem to become increasingly frustrated as the argument wears on. (I do, anyway.) That's why, to many, it's not worth it to seriously and continuously debate insignificant things. After awhile, they try to talk their opponent down, to compromise, to end the argument by "agreeing to disagree," or any other number of tactics. Basically, they feel bad about the conflict, and they assume the other person does too. This is not so with Rory.

Rory's high capacity for conflict will certainly benefit him in hobby or career debates, but most people don't know what they're getting into when they start arguing with him.

That's my analysis, anyway.

[Heccubus]

I don't see why its such a far fetched analogy at all. It hits on the essential point that people deserve public credit for their work.

This is not work.

I'm about to bump up everyone's post count JUST to shut Rory up. The only reason I do not do that is because I know it would be ultimately ineffective. He'd certainly find something new to argue about.

Hopefully, it works.

[Chefelf]

Rory's high capacity for conflict will certainly benefit him in hobby or career debates, but most people don't know what they're getting into when they start arguing with him.

Perhaps. However, if he travels outside of certain circles it may just get him an ass-kicking.

[Laura]

Awww, but he's so lovable, once you get to know him.

[Rory]

I guess it sort of depends on what you mean by "conquerer" and "satisfied." I don't know if William the Conquerer was satisfied with Britain, but he didn't exactly complain either. In the same sense, a conqueror might really want to take over the world, but he might be just smart enough to realize that its just not a realizable goal in his lifetime. So, sure, he might be looking out for a chance to take over, but probably realize its not going to work out.

Take Napolean, for example. He had a big plan to take over America for a while. There was some native unrest, it didn't work out, and he focussed on Europe. Considering he didnt keep trying to beat a dead horse, it seems fair enough to say he gave up on seriously attempting to take over America. I'm willing to bet that, if he had taken over all of Europe in his lifetime, he might have been satisfied with his accomplishments. I might be wrong. As I've said, I'm not expert on history, but I hope I've at least established some credibility for my previous viewpoint.

I happened to be wrong with hitler. It hardly follows, however, that my arguments are baseless.

I'm surprised you insist on trying to undermine my most basic principles, Chef Elf. I would have thought such personal attacks were below you. How would you like it if I seriously argued that you are a complete and utter lier? That you like nothing more than to hurt people and undermine them? I'd imagine that would make you feel pretty crappy. Yet, this is exactly what you are doing to me, undermining everything i stand for by saying I argue for the sake of arguing, and nothing else.

[Chyld]

How would you like it if I seriously argued that you are a complete and utter lier?

That's what he's doing. It's lying for dramatic effect. Sarcasm, irony, lowlife, vagabond, call me what you will.

</Metallica impersonations>

[Rory]

wait, whose lying?

[Chefelf]

I guess it sort of depends on what you mean by "conquerer" and "satisfied." I don't know if William the Conquerer was satisfied with Britain, but he didn't exactly complain either.

True. However, I have found after careful research that William the Conqueror was not Hitler. They were two different men!

In the same sense, a conqueror might really want to take over the world, but he might be just smart enough to realize that its just not a realizable goal in his lifetime. So, sure, he might be looking out for a chance to take over, but probably realize its not going to work out.

You just love to argue! This, again, has nothing to do with Hitler and his well known intentions.

Take Napolean, for example. He had a big plan to take over America for a while. There was some native unrest, it didn't work out, and he focussed on Europe. Considering he didnt keep trying to beat a dead horse, it seems fair enough to say he gave up on seriously attempting to take over America. I'm willing to bet that, if he had taken over all of Europe in his lifetime, he might have been satisfied with his accomplishments. I might be wrong. As I've said, I'm not expert on history, but I hope I've at least established some credibility for my previous viewpoint.

Since Napoleon didn't successfully conquer Russia this point is sorta moot. I doubt that a military conqueror such as Napoleon would have simply said: "Ahhh, Europe. Good enough for me!!" But that doesn't really matter. Again, Napoleon is not Hitler even if he made some of the same stupid mistakes in his war efforts.

I happened to be wrong with hitler. It hardly follows, however, that my arguments are baseless.

Your arguments aren't baseless... they're unnecessary. You created this argument. You said Hitler didn't have intentions to conquer the world, you were proven wrong then you created an argument out of thin air about how a conqueror doesn't necessarily have to want to conquer the world. True. Irrelevant, but true.

I'm surprised you insist on trying to undermine my most basic principles, Chef Elf. I would have thought such personal attacks were below you. How would you like it if I seriously argued that you are a complete and utter lier? That you like nothing more than to hurt people and undermine them? I'd imagine that would make you feel pretty crappy. Yet, this is exactly what you are doing to me, undermining everything i stand for by saying I argue for the sake of arguing, and nothing else.

Only YOU, Rory, would argue that you don't argue just for the sake of arguing.

NOTE: To anyone that doesn't know Rory and I personally, don't worry. We do this all the time. We are still the best of friends!

[Chyld]

Well, I'm just arguing because I'm not in a pub, and there's nothing else to do but watch my brother play Commander Keen...

[Rory]

Logical Fucking Falacy Chefelf. You said it was ridiculous to imagine that any conquerer could ever being satisfied with 75% of anything. I gave you two examples, where a conqueror might be satisfied with 75% of, say, the world, if only because he knew the entire world was simply not a realistic goal. How is that not relevant to the discussion?

We already know hitlers goals. My point was, that, because of a misconception, i had grounds for saying Hitler might have been satisfied with, say, all, or most of europe. It turns out he wasn't, but he might have been. Who says a conqueror, even if he is pure evil, has to be a complete and utter idiot? I was under the impression that Hitler was initially looking to establish Germany as a world power, and not as say, THE ONLY WORLD POWER. I agree, it was a counter intuitive claim, considering all we know about hitler. But there are a lot of counter intuitive claims that turn out to be true.

My main evidence for my view in this particular argument was a documentary's claim that Hitler's invasion of Poland (or something) might not have necessarily provoked world war 2; it just turns out that the rest of the world said "enough is enough!" I took this to mean that Hitler might have merely been testing the denizens of europe to see how much they were willing to lose. So, maybe he might have been satisfied with say, 75% of europe, and he realized that, hey, the world isn't going to let him have that much. Then maybe he thought, okay lets go for it all!!!!

So, this isnt really what happened. Big deal. It might have happened that way; it just turns out hitlers intentions were a lot grander. So, less like Napolean and William the Conqueror, and more like... the totally insane crazy COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL asshole he turned out to be.

"Only YOU, Rory, would argue that you don't argue just for the sake of arguing"
This is completely false. My good friend Laura has also argued this very point.

[Rory]

I also feel it important to note that I initially raised the point rather casually that Hitler wasnt looking to conquer all of the world, and YOU, CHEF ELF, immediatly jumped on it! So, this is actually the worst possible example to use.

[Heccubus]

Take it to an IM, people.