Forum Overview :: We Love Katamari :: Re: The act of deconstruction is completely at odds with the act of judging a po

[quote name="Zsenitan"][quote name="o"]Some things are impossible to to deconstruct due to the method of their construction, which includes both examples you gave.[/quote] This game is getting stupider every second. You can't deconstruct a jar?! From your crazy definition of the term, it was deconstructed the moment you took the lid off. Why is this not deconstruction? [quote] But if it were possible to deconstruct a jar or mayo it follows that you know how to construct it, as the only other way to deconstruct something is by luck.[/quote] GOD DAMN SO STUPID. You have a molecule of oil, a molecule of vinegar, and a molecule of egg. Can you construct a very small amount of mayo from them? [quote] I'm not trying to have "deconstruct" mean anything other than the reversal of the method of construction. So far I haven't seen any argument that can't be deconstructed.[/quote] First: That is STILL not what deconstruction means. Second: You think this Because you are pretending that all arguments are a car made out of legos such that you can take it apart and name the legos. We can take this directly to text! You can take apart a book, separating it into binding and pages. Let's say it is a ring-bound book so you don't even "damage" anything. The pages are numbered! You take the book apart and put it back together exactly as it was. You have deconstructed the book. Do you understand it? Was it correctly built? We can take this directly to cars! You can take a car door apart with hand tools. You can lay all the pieces out in the sun, look at them, check their part numbers, and satisfy yourself about how thoroughly you have "deconstructed" the car door. Do you know, once you see the pieces, whether the car door was built correctly or not? Do you know how the car door was constructed? Can you even tell whether a robot put it together? Take the engine apart - this is a little trickier, but we're pretending that magic deconstruction can take apart cars. Look at the pieces, check part #s etc. How was the engine block made? How does the engine work? Is it correctly built? I am trying to tell you: deconstructionism is about turning cars into mayonnaise, but I don't even have to do that. Cars being cars is enough to crush your whole line of thought. [quote]Perhaps I will rephrase that question I asked: "If you understand something, you are in a position to say whether it's right, wrong, or subjective: yes or no?" [/quote] I understand why the sun rises in the east. Is it right or wrong or subjective? [quote]But then I didn't think to phrase it like that as I was thinking of arguments over objective facts. Consider that the people in the forum you linked to were describing or implying that icycalm's articles are objectively wrong..[/quote] Right, they are saying that because to them it looks like an objective fact, just like their wrongness looks like an objective fact to you. You have not "deconstructed" their arguments any more than they are deconstructing his, because each audience looks at the other and sees something equivalent to "oranges are black" - the obviously false statement. You're trying to play junior lawyer and insist that Fair Argument Rules Are In Effect, so The Burden Of Proof Is On Them, but instead of a junior lawyer session in a controlled environment where a moderator calls fair or unfair, you are in a much less controlled environment when you just have people making conversation. In this environment, you can't just scream "unfair" and dismiss them. Not if you ever want to talk to them again. Conversation is not about technicalities. When you come back - <i>if</i> you come back - please make this more fun. Right now this is, for me, an incredibly dull discussion with a very unreflective conversationalist.[/quote]