Mrebo said:
Tell me what you hope to never do again on ot.com.
I'm going to pre-empt myself and try to not talk about religion. In lieu of responding to 2/4's sarcastic post (wait, doesn't 2/4 habitually criticize sarcasm as defensive and non-responsive? ah, oh well.) I'll respond with a cheerful song.
It can be defensive and non-responsive, if it is defensive and non-responsive.
I never claimed ALL sarcasm was this. Please quote me on saying that. I would never claim such insipid BULLSHIT.
Let me break this down for you:
1. Having a point = good.
2. Having no point, but arguing = bad.
1. Expressing your point through sarcasm, or adding sarcasm to your point = good. Poignant.
2. Trying to cover up your lack of point by sarcasm = bad. Over-defensive.
____
1. Having a valid point = good.
2. Having an invalid point = bad.
1. Expressing a valid point through sarcasm = good. Win.
2. Expressing an invalid point through sarcasm (which usually amounts to accidentally making an accurate statement, while meaning the opposite) = bad. Makes you a laughingstock.
Simple enough? Or do you need more Sensible Conversation 101?
All sarcasm is non-responsive... I can't believe this.