No, I didn't infer anything but asked if hawk/dove type of interaction was what you were getting at. No inference. I was trying to understand you position. If I had used something irrelevant to the discusion as an argument, then claimed I had won the argument, that is straw man. Asking for clarification is not.
To clarify I was NEVER "upset". You're a disagreeable jerk and that's why your good and viable points are often lost on those you're trying speak to. You can continue using whatever debate style you choose. I don't care.
Immaterial. -- You've proven that you can't back up your positions.
Sometimes I CANNOT believe how dense you are. I never presented the dove/hawk simulation as an argument against you, but rather if this particular scenario was the point you were trying to make. In a nutshell, the scenario entails animals don't fight, even amoungst themselves, unless necessary because to fight to is risk death yourself. I mere was wondering if this was what you were getting at. I gues it isn't.
You've shown yourself to be cantankerous and UNable to follow a simple question without taking offense - Thanks
No, I didn't infer anything but asked if hawk/dove type of interaction was what you were getting at. No inference. I was trying to understand you position.
Repeating your inane hawk/dove concept doesn't establish it as relevent. You made no attempt to reply to the issue I raised, of the golden rules origin as a survival tactic.
If I had used something irrelevant to the discusion as an argument, then claimed I had won the argument, that is straw man. Asking for clarification is not.
I asked for clarification of your hawk/dove straw man. You did not answer, and instead made personal attacks. -- Now, far too late, you attempt to rationalize your position. No sale.
To clarify I was NEVER "upset". You're a disagreeable jerk and that's why your good and viable points are often lost on those you're trying speak to. You can continue using whatever debate style you choose. I don't care.
Thank you, once again you make my point, not your own.
_____________________________
Immaterial. -- You've proven that you can't back up your positions.
Sometimes I CANNOT believe how dense you are. I never presented the dove/hawk simulation as an argument against you, but rather if this particular scenario was the point you were trying to make.
You can't 'believe', -- you can't 'understand'. -- These are YOUR 'density' problems my boy, not mine.
In a nutshell, the scenario entails animals don't fight, even amoungst themselves, unless necessary because to fight to is risk death yourself. I mere was wondering if this was what you were getting at. I gues it isn't.
You guess wrong. -- As I said, -- if you had explained this point initially, [which obviously, I agreed with in my first post, thus making it inane], we could have continued the discussion.
You've shown yourself to be cantankerous and UNable to follow a simple question without taking offense - Thanks
You are projecting your own communication failures here onto me. So be it. - Our posts words stand for themselves.