Intergalactic Summit

I find nothing logical about a broad sweeping generalization. Logic dictates that individuals of a group are distributed across a wide spectrum of beliefs and political ideas. Therefore, by reason, your statement about Gallenteans is necessarily inaccurate.


Nonetheless, the girl stepped forward to defend herself.

Would it be logical for me to like her for it?

Unit, please be careful or Ms. Kim will challenge you to a Dual.

On second thought, please disregard my exhortation to caution. Proceed as you were, and when challenged, choose it in the form of a naked mud wrestling contest. Let me know when and where the dual will take place. I'll be your second.

I would like to remind, that originally it was about rogue drones, not gallenteans.
Even that it is purely and completely gallentean fault that rogue drones exist at all.
Of course, I can give you thorough explanation about gallenteans, however, I believe it would be incorrect place to do so, as I don't have urge to do this, I did it numerous times in different places.
If you insist on listening this, I recommend you starting a new discussion, where I will prove you that this generalization is correct.

Unfortunately, many peoples here use as insults their own faults. Let me show you how.
For example, this person claims, that

Implying me to be an ignorant, but on other hand, this person claims


Without running any expertise on the said operating system and providing detailed result, which is again used as nothing but a blatant insult.

I hope now you understand, why 'no u' in this case would be viable argument, and it would be absolutely correct to name Unit person an ignorant.

Im sorry for unrelated message, but I can't leave without contesting all the crap and lies some people start to talk about me, when they aren't agree with my point of view.

You see insult where there is none pilot Kim.
We simply state the appearance your own rhetoric gives.

If this is not your intent, perhaps you should change your methods of communication to address the problem.

Until such a time, we will no longer waste our time on you.

We Return.

When a person wishes to object a point, that he doesn't agree with, but lacks arguments and still wishes to object it, the person may attack his opponent instead of opponent idea, trying to invalidate this idea this way. This is called ad hominem or personal attack and usually shows poor ability to argue and prevalence of emotion over logic.

I most cases I consider such attacks as insults, when these attacks are built on lies about me. In most cases they are hypothesis that opponents think about me, based on some of my replies without thorough analysis and studying of facts, or even without just asking me if they are right or wrong. When they speak this hypothesis about me, that is not correct, I consider it an insult.

Lets take a closer look at one particular reply and form of it.
"You see insult where there is none pilot Kim."
When someone considers something you said as insult, you basically have two choices:
- when you didn't intend to insult someone, you bring apologies and explain what you wanted to say
- when you did intend to insult, you either admit or just reply with another insult
The notation of insult changes greatly. For example, if you tell someone: "You are like an oak"
Representative of culture 1 will think: "It is a compliment, and I am as strong as an oak"
While representative of culture 2 will think "It is an insult, I am not as dumb as an oak!!"
In this exact reply we can see neither attempt to explain, nor attempt to understand what was insulting.
Counterwise, it consists of ad hominem, pointings out "what pilot Kim sees", instead of discussion of nature and existing of the insult. This is rather irrational neglecting of other person views what is insult and what is not with definite statement of personal point of view "there is none" as a fact. Logically, everyone can understand that for different persons there are different things that are considered insults.