>>58247112It seems to me like there's some fundamental miscommunication that hasn't been addressed. I gave a genuine attempt at reconciling it, but you gave a vague and confusing quip which made me believe that the entire duration of this thread you have been trolling. The main crux of the situation is this:
>Point A (>>58245769) is that one should trust their gut instincts instead of listening to peer pressureNo confusion here, right? To be clear, this was not me, and I only posted responding to you because I felt like I understood this and felt that you did not.
>Point B (>>58246173) is that someone can change their opinion organically but still be unable to change their base nature(mirroring my previous analysis of your post, which was "Tolerance != immunity. If something is bad for you inherently, you won't be able to stomach it for long, even if you like it, genuinely." I rewrote it hear without reading my previous analysis in an attempt to ensure I understood your point, restating it in a different way.)
>Point C (>>58246233) is that I don't believe the two are congruent or even related; "Don't change based on peer pressure" being "refuted" by "You can change your opinion, but you can't change your innate preferences/stance/whatever"I find it a self-defeating point. It seems strange to say "No no, don't trust your gut over public opinion, you can change your opinion over time but also something might be innately incompatible with your status." It seems incompatible. Again, like you didn't understand the statement.
>Point D (>>58246260) is that your default will guide you regardless of peer pressure.I've said this several times now: This makes no sense based on your previous post.
>You have not even attempted to resolve this basal imbalance, instead resorting to the same "witty replies" you accuse me of relying on. You are not conveying your point in an articulate and critical fashion, and that is not conducive to being taken seriously.
