• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

1,574 Superb

About Pulicat

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/01/1992
  • Portal profile Pulicat

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Portal profile Pulicat

Recent Profile Visitors

1,041 profile views
  1. Nuance isn't in your vocabulary I suppose.
  2. Yeah, you did well beating on conclusions you made that I do not hold. in simplest terms, if I were to say 'I like cats' you would accuse me of hating dogs. yes, you are an idiot. no, people calling you such doesn't mean you are right.
  3. I didn't say you were mentally defective because you disagreed with me. I said that to you because you continually attempt to put words in the mouths of others or attribute and action to someone that was not made. Like right now.
  4. And such a choice is subject to judgement.
  5. Lance said that your actions have consequences, and nothing prevents you from making those actions except how you feel about the consequences you receive. Nobody said you must do X because nobody thinks anyone should have to do anything, but just because you don't have to do anything doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
  6. Nobody said it was the only way so don't act like we did. You will enjoy your results more from achieving a higher level of success. If your stated goal is to have fun as a refute to people who try to do well as though the two do not correlate, we respond with "winning is more fun". In this frame, the people who are saying they don't need to win to have fun can do what they please, just as we are free to point out that if they set a higher goal for themselves, success in that will be more of what they want. Nobody said people can't be apathetic to higher levels of success, and nobody said you must conform to a desire to win.
  7. In review, your anecdote doesn't actually matter. You didn't win in your examples. The goal you set was not met. If what you wanted was to win only, and you won, you would have been satisfied. If anything, your example proves my point, because your failure did not bring you as much fun as the success you wanted would have.
  8. It's not wrong because of your anecdote.
  9. No, what I did was respond to what you said because it was something i fit into, and explained why you were wrong.
  10. He hasn't said anything against this nuance. He brought it up to show that yes, you can lose and say you had fun, but when you win then you will have more fun because you will essentially get a high from it. If your aim is to have fun, we have suggested winning will give you what you want.
  11. Nobody has said that you have to want to win. The point has been made that if your aim is to have fun, then you should try to win because it will result in more fun. The counter-point is that there is no correlation between winning and fun.
  12. And you would be pointing this out in order to achieve the same thing you just accused me of trying to achieve. I'm hope this irony is not lost on you.
  13. Which is why I said: "now we live where it's no longer a struggle to survive in the same way, but those instincts still exist and drive individuals to success. Whether it's for your work, a sport, a game, a bet between your friends, large scale or small, competition is a part of us." So congratulations on conceding your strawman and trying to save face in the same sentence yet again.
  14. See, you just don't seem to be able to understand. I'll try breaking it down into step by step for you. >humans had to be competitive against other creatures to survive >human succeeded, and now sit pretty much at the top >we no longer need to compete with other creatures, but the instinct still exists >we compete with ourselves instead. We are saying that this instinct has always existed and is just being expressed differently. You are trying to compare the way we compete today to how we used to compete. You are then projecting this comparison onto what we said, and using it to say we are wrong despite it not being a position we hold.