90sAce

If it were just about the views, why wouldn't I be saying this to anyone else?

The problem is that you're trying to defend the idea of arguing, not your actual arguments. The idea of arguing can be enlightening and insightful, but that bears little resemblance to what you do. You post opinions on topics you clearly know very little about, and as far as I can tell you never admit fault, even when it's painfully obvious you're wrong (take the animation/stimulation discussion). And you bail when your own logic corners you, returning only to repeat the same broken claims.

That's not the high-minded Roman tradition of the forum, guy. That's just trying to save face and seem smart without having the wisdom and humility necessary to take advantage of the process of arguing.

"What's the difference then between pathological arguing and... just arguing then?"

Uh, the part where it's done pathologically. Hence the word. The part where it's done because the person needs to do it, and needs to force it into places (and with methods) where it's not fruitful or enlightening, the way argument can (and should) be.

Have you seriously not noticed that the response you've received is different even from other people arguing? I would think that would be a big red flag that would prompt a little self-reflection, but I suppose it's a lot easier to concoct some silly straw man about how nobody here likes to argue, and that's why people are responding this way.

I didn't say arguing was a bad thing, nor do I think it. And I think that's probably the tenth time I've seen you argue with what you think someone "sounds" like they think, only to be completely wrong.

"just don't like arguing to occur on this site at all."

This is so wrong it's almost impressive. Have you noticed that in a lot of these resurrected threads, I'm the one who started them and kept replying to them?

Yes, I'm sure they do "back down." In the same way I would back down if I made a joke about someone's shirt and they threatened to slit my throat. It's not a question of effectiveness, and the fact that you think this is the only concern is telling.

Also, I said "pathological arguing"--not that arguing was pathological by its very nature. Serious question: do you skim things and then reply immediately? Because it would explain the high frequency with which you respond with confusing non-sequiturs. And it would also support the idea that this is being done pathologically, for that matter.