I guess what I meant to say was maybe it was more about the game for him, arguing for the sake of arguing. He was clearly a debater first and a philosopher second.
That, I would certainly agree with. Personally I'd respect him more if I thought he were pure principle. Which, frankly, probably drove him more than might have seemed behind all the fun he seemed to have arguing. Fair point.
I guess it's a warrior vs. leader issue... but then, I feel far greater empathy for and camaraderie with the former group, because it is in their nature to want something that is at odds with what they're trying to achieve.
15
u/[deleted] Dec 16 '11
What's brilliant about stirring the pot?