Those "language games" (I assume you're referring to my having to twice clarify the definition of description) were necessary a) because you were putting words in my mouth; and b) half of your argument centred around attacking me like I was pushing some agenda: I was describing reality.
> But the guy I was talking to didn't seem to be interested in discussing the issues
I made a clear point with a clear example and well defined boundaries. Some of what's been said here - a lot by you - has been so wrong/irrelevant/flawed that I wasn't willing to entertain it, on this point you are correct. I'm 2 weeks in to a new keyboard layout you see, and the thought of the amount I'd have to type to address them all properly was too much to bear.
This would have to take the form of me having claimed you said something you didn't, not the form of me claiming an implication of your statements that you don't agree with.
> (I assume you're referring to my having to twice clarify the definition of description)
Now thrice, and it's irrelevant because you are also "pushing an agenda," as you put it. You can't really do one without the other. Every fact about reality has implications for human action.
> Some of what's been said here - a lot by you - has been so wrong/irrelevant/flawed that I wasn't willing to entertain it,
I think this is an example of not pursuing intellectual discussion, like I was talking about.
Another reason I brought up astroturfing is because you have a new account.
> But the guy I was talking to didn't seem to be interested in discussing the issues
I made a clear point with a clear example and well defined boundaries. Some of what's been said here - a lot by you - has been so wrong/irrelevant/flawed that I wasn't willing to entertain it, on this point you are correct. I'm 2 weeks in to a new keyboard layout you see, and the thought of the amount I'd have to type to address them all properly was too much to bear.
> astroturfing
For the record, I had to google that.