/lit/ - Literature

Continuing from >>1679651
>And what determines what these superior properties are is DERP A DERP SOCIAL PRESCRIPTIONS, BUT GEE WHIZ I GUESS WE CAN'T SAY ONE SOCIAL PRESCRIPTION IS BETTER THAN ANOTHER BECAUSE WE'RE SPINELESS, CLUELESS FUCKING RETARDS, RIGHT?
It's not so much whether it's better or worse, but whether we have a way to quantify "human flourishing" from books to see if it improves humans as a whole (which you seem to be implying). If you can't provide evidence for such human flourishing and the benefits of it other than CAP-LOCK CRUISE CONTROL yammering, then I'm afraid you're just asserting factless opinions.

And all of this is peripheral to the body of the argument. Honestly I still have no idea who or what you were arguing against with that mess. Idealism? Monadism?

>What the fuck does that even? Is that retard-speak for saying what makes one game better than another?
IDUNNO, DERP

>I like how you quoted yourself because that has nothing to do with anything I've said, shithead
I was saying your qualifications are completely arbitrary and made up by you based on your narrow definitions on what a "game" can and should be. I used lines in the sand as an analogy. Whether you agree the analogy is proper or not depends entirely on how you view my points beforehand. The analogy won't make sense unless you realize your errors.