# How is it possible to have a T and F border line?



## jdmn (Feb 5, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> These are observations of Je and not Te in particular. Fe does all these things, it just does it according to a system of values as opposed to a system of thoughts.


 I thought these new traits were Extroverted Thinking traits based on this statements:

"At its most sophisticated, this process is about organizing and monitoring people and things to work efficiently and productively. " (1)

"In general, it allows us to compartmentalize many aspects of our lives so we can do what is necessary to accomplish our objectives." (1)

"Extraverted Thinking is the attitude of viewing the world through measurable criteria for choosing different responses. Both the criteria and the possible decisions are defined in advance of making the decision." (2)

(1) Extraverted Thinking
(2) Extraverted Thinking

While there are more traits of Extraverted Thinking, these quotes resume the ones I've developed. Is there more key information to difference the thought orientation of Te, the value orientation of Fe and the Judging function? I admit I'm not very well informed.


----------



## WildWinds (Mar 9, 2010)

I kinda think the whole percentage deal itself is kind of sketchy. Either you're an E or an I. A T or an F. 

I think these "border line" issues come up only when somebody has good control of the opposite function. You don't prefer F slightly more than T....You prefer F and are most compelled to make decisions with your heart, but you have developed T and understand the importance of using T when making a decision. OR, you prefer T and are most compelled to make decisions with your head, but have developed F and understand that in some decisions, using F is good.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

jdmn said:


> I thought these new traits were Extroverted Thinking traits based on this statements:
> 
> "At its most sophisticated, this process is about organizing and monitoring people and things to work efficiently and productively. " (1)
> 
> ...


 Well if those things are describing what you are going through, then yes - but if you notice, the statements you make in your first post are general. These articles from GLW explain _how_ and _why_ - originally you were only saying _what_.

Let me give example: Fe and Te both organise. Te organises through abstract measurable criteria; Fe organises through collective values and customs. So if what youre saying is that you've adopted what you have just posted, then I'm sorry, I misunderstood; we have a lot of people on this forum who think that Te = "organisation."

But you should think about it anyway; are you judging the external world by F that looks like T, or is it srsly T?


----------



## Raichan (Jul 15, 2010)

azrinsani said:


> I was looking at my friend's personality profile recently. It was an INFP, with 51% F and %49 T. This means that he can be an INTP too
> 
> But if we look at INTP's dominant function, it is Ti,
> Whereas if we look INFP's dominant function, it is Fi
> ...



MBTI is a reliable tool and a window to understanding, but it is not the ''be all'' and it only represents part of the system (to put it simply, I mean it's just a psychological theory lol).

Honestly I get pretty tired whenever I show Ti or Ni in over dosage, people will suddenly start wondering whether I'm INTP, ENTP, INFJ, sensor  I feel that I relate most to INFP, I feel connected to N and F, I definitely am introverted with perceiving tendencies. At the same time I am confident that in the future I can advance my Ti and Te further than average if I really put my mind into it, and I don't care how any MBTI relation would have to tell me otherwise.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Skum said:


> I always score borderline on that as well and I honestly don't see why not. It really seems like Ti and Fi are called "demon functions" to make the system look more neat and pretty. I've seen INTP cognitive functions results and many of them scored fairly high on Fi, some with it as their third highest function, even.


I've wondered that too, how Ti and Fi can both be high when the dominant of one is the demonic of the other. I'm not an F type but I do relate to alot of the INFP profile and I do score fairly high on Fi.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> You say that you don't ascribe the connection between MBTI and Jungian cognitive functions, but there you are, using them both together. So which is it? Because you can not take the Jungian functions and apply them to MBTI and then ignore the Jungian order, which is 1 of each Je/Pe/Ji/Pi in a given mindset, in an alternating order.


Perhaps you didn't see that I was criticizing only the connection between MBTI types and cognitive functions. You apparently didn't see it the first time, so I'll quote for you again: "I don't ascribe to the connection between MBTI types and cognitive functions." Never did I say that I didn't agree with the concept of cognitive functions themselves. I think they're a good tool for classifying certain types of thought. Using them in the same post does not mean that I support the connection, and I'm frankly baffled that you could come to that conclusion. If I mention Communism and Capitalism in the same paragraph, does that mean I agree with both? Ludicrous.

You also stated that I can't ignore the Jungian order. Why? Are the Jungian orders sent down by God and are therefore immutable and beyond criticism? I think not. Don't be so dogmatic. 



> The fact is that what you are doing by using terms like Ne and Fi is applying Jungian psychology. By using those terms you are using Jungian psychology. It is like taking a train and putting an automobile engine in it. You really can not say that you don't connect MBTI and Jungian psychology, and then reason against Jungian psychology *by use of its own terms.*


Again, never did I say that I have a problem with all of Jungian psychology. I would challenge you to quote for me where I said that. I clearly was only criticizing the link between MBTI types and the cognitive orders. (Spoiler Alert: I never said it, so you're not going to come up with anything.)



> If you prefer MBTI I'm not going to argue with it. Perhaps for some reason or another you get some value out of it despite it being useless as a typological system. But if you do prefer to use MBTI, you should not attempt to take Jungian terms and claim that they can be used in any way you want to _because youre using MBTI._ It not only doesn't make sense (unless you are openly admitting that you have an inbalanced and broken personality) it is also very intellectually dishonest.


If you want to talk about being "intellectually dishonest", you should look at how you're putting words in my mouth then criticizing me for something I never said. When did I ever say that I can use jungian functions because I'm using MBTI? Because I don't see that anywhere in my post. 

In fact, if you're going to call me "very intellectually dishonest", how about I go through my post line-by-line just to demonstrate how you're lying about what I said? Here we go...

_I don't ascribe to the connection between MBTI types and cognitive functions.
_

Did I say that I can use Jungian cognitive functions any way I want because I'm using MBTI? *Nope*.

_ I'm an INFP and our dominant function is supposedly Fi but I don't use that nearly as much as Ne. 
_

Did I say that I can use Jungian cognitive functions any way I want because I'm using MBTI? *Nope*.

_I actually don't feel particularly connected to Fi.
_
Did I say that I can use Jungian cognitive functions any way I want because I'm using MBTI? *Nope*.

_I consider myself to be in the grey area between T and F. I can flip between the two pretty easily but I think my main state is INFP.
_

Did I say that I can use Jungian cognitive functions any way I want because I'm using MBTI? *Nope*.

_However, I don't think the INTP dominant function is my primary function either. From my personal experiences, it seems that MBTI and cognitive functions are not strongly linked although they can often correlate._

Did I say that I can use Jungian cognitive functions any way I want because I'm using MBTI? *Nope*.

There we go. So in the future, don't lie about what I'm saying. I know you have the capacity to read, so I'm not sure what possessed you to spew these fabrications about what I was saying.



> Almost everyone worth listening to in the typology community uses Jungian psychology anyway


Your only on-topic argument in this entire post is merely an appeal to some unnamed authority. Bravo.


----------



## Munchies (Jun 22, 2009)

Munchies said:


> how do you differentiate thinking with feeling? you simply can't.How do you not know your thinking is as a result from your feeling, or your feeling is a result from your thinking, or that they are both the same, or that you go in a viscous cycle from feeling what you think of and then thinking as a result from that produced feeling. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT


from another thread, didnt see the point of assembly new thoughts and the same subject


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Cognitive functions etc.. aren't even scientifically proven, but pseudo-scientific *THEORY*, so its really ridiculous to try to be all hardline about the "facts" when there really are none to begin with. 

Could there be things that these theories are missing? Yes. Could there be exceptions to the 'rules'? Yes. So rather than rehash what everyone has _already read about cognitive functions_, lets perhaps think outside the box a little and speculate on possibilities beyond the imposed limitations. If Jung were still alive today, I wonder how much he would have revised his own theories, in light of new information.. because there is always new information.

Or fuck, a few people can just keep reiterating lineups of cognitive functions and shut down anyone who can actually think for their self.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

Some points;

Theoretically and pragmatically I guess, mbti isn't a sliding scale. Personality trait theories usually work in sliding scales, personality typologies do not. A preference is a preference, not a percentage of a preference. Mbti isn't a sliding scale, but Jungian functions can be. 

55% thinking in a test doesn't = use of 55% thinking and 45% feeling. Looking at the difference between percentages (55-45) is more important than looking at percentages as individual numbers. A 10 percent preference is still a preference. Statistically, it doesn't seem very profound, but it is in typology (i'm not going to get into the abuse of psychometrics here). If you have a preference for something, that means you use it more or prefer it. How does that in any way, equate to being borderline? 

If there were borderlines (I will define this as being equally split between two preferences) we would have to assume you use both means of juding or percieving or whatever, concurrently and as strongly as each other. Would that theoretically be possible? if typology, functions and mbti hold any worth, it would be in the premise that the psych/ego/conscious mind, has preferences for certain ways of judging and perceiving, and that it is because of their very mechanisms (the core of mbti and jung) that lead to preferences. It is my understanding that theoretically we have preferences because certain ways of perceiving and judging are opposite sides of the same coin and a distinct preference results in the psych being oriented in a certain way, because of the very premise that the mind has active processes that work together and work against each other. That there is a system of organisation in the mind; a certain homeostasis, balance, gesalt. 

Is a balanced mind then, equal strength in all processes? or would that lead to a tumultuous psych that infact deters balance? 

No doubt processes come in different strengths and usages as there are many (internal and external) factors to take into account. I don't think we could talk in terms of percentage usages and such. There are many possibilities, other than 'borderline'.

I highly doubt Jung intended to create a whole portfolio of human cognition. There are many active processes in the brain, many things Jung does not touch on. That's beyond this theory.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

I think the problem is considering typology as a skillset, instead of a mindset.

Just because you can think rationally, doesn't mean it is your preference. You can have a thinking type who prefers judging with thinking, but it doesn't mean they are adept at being logical. You can have a feeling type who can think logically even more than a thinker, but still not naturally prefer it. Or use it in a way a dominant or aux thinker might. 

IT IS MERELY A SYSTEM OF PREFERENCE. 



> Jung wrote, "In attempting to answer this question, I came across the problem of types; for it is one's psychological type which from the outset determines and limits a person's judgment." (Jung, [1961] 1989:207) He concluded that Freud's theory was extraverted and Adler's introverted. (Jung, [1921] 1971: par. 91) Jung became convinced that acrimony between the Adlerian and Freudian camps was due to this unrecognized existence of different fundamental psychological attitudes, which led Jung "to conceive the two controversial theories of neurosis as manifestations of a type-antagonism." (Jung, 1966: par. 64





> All four functions are used at different times depending on the circumstances. However, one of these four functions is generally used more dominantly and proficiently than the other three, in a more conscious and confident way.





> As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense, "think better" than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.





> Jung theorized that the dominant function characterizes consciousness, while its opposite is repressed and characterizes unconscious behavior. Generally, we tend to favor our most developed, dominant function, while we can broaden our personality by developing the others. Related to this, Jung noted that the unconscious often tends to reveal itself most easily through a person's least developed, inferior function. The encounter with the unconscious and development of the underdeveloped functions thus tend to progress together.





> When the unconscious, inferior functions fail to develop, imbalance results. In Psychological Types, Jung describes in detail the effects of tensions between the complexes associated with the dominant and inferior differentiating functions in highly one-sided individuals.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

azrinsani said:


> I was looking at my friend's personality profile recently. It was an INFP, with 51% F and %49 T. This means that he can be an INTP too
> 
> But if we look at INTP's dominant function, it is Ti,
> Whereas if we look INFP's dominant function, it is Fi
> ...


i doubt your friend is either then. if you talk to true INFPs you can see very clearly that their thinking function is almost non-existant on the surface. the opposite is true for INTPs.

much more likely they are a shy ENFP/ENTP or INFJ/INTJ.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

timeless said:


> I don't ascribe to the connection between MBTI types and cognitive functions. I'm an INFP and our dominant function is supposedly Fi but I don't use that nearly as much as Ne. I actually don't feel particularly connected to Fi.
> 
> I consider myself to be in the grey area between T and F. I can flip between the two pretty easily but I think my main state is INFP. However, I don't think the INTP dominant function is my primary function either. From my personal experiences, it seems that MBTI and cognitive functions are not strongly linked although they can often correlate.


erm.. you aren't an INFP. an INFP should read an Fi description and think "that's me in a nutshell". and like my post above says an INFP shouldn't be conflicted between T and F.

much more likely you are one of the countless ENFPs who think they are INFPs that i am sure are sprayed about this forum who read the ENFP description and think "that surely can't be me!". people seem to think incredible social skills and appetite for excitement is innate for ENFPs, and yeah to an extent it does come naturally- but think about it- social skills are learnt not born with and ENFPs are very quirky and don't completely fit in the majority of the time in a sensor world + we place high stakes on receiving affirmation and praise. it's no surprise for an ENFP to withdraw into an INFP way. i know i've had times when i doubted i was an extrovert, for a few years as a teen you would have bet your house on me being an introvert and i'd withdraw from going out, but those times are always replaced by times where it's pretty goddamn clear i'm an extrovert.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

Tridentus said:


> erm.. you aren't an INFP. an INFP should read an Fi description and think "that's me in a nutshell". and like my post above says an INFP shouldn't be conflicted between T and F.
> 
> much more likely you are one of the countless ENFPs who think they are INFPs that i am sure are sprayed about this forum who read the ENFP description and think "that surely can't be me!". people seem to think incredible social skills and appetite for excitement is innate for ENFPs, and yeah to an extent it does come naturally- but think about it- social skills are learnt not born with and ENFPs are very quirky and don't completely fit in the majority of the time in a sensor world + we place high stakes on receiving affirmation and praise. it's no surprise for an ENFP to withdraw into an INFP way. i know i've had times when i doubted i was an extrovert, for a few years as a teen you would have bet your house on me being an introvert and i'd withdraw from going out, but those times are always replaced by times where it's pretty goddamn clear i'm an extrovert.


I see more infj in timeless than enfp. If someone has trouble with seeing which they prefer out of their thinking and feeling judgments, I automatically think they are probably a dominant perciever. I.e. there's the notion that the two judgments are the aux and tert (i.e right next to each other), and also the idea of dom-tert loops. I.e. in infj it would be ni+ti. 

I don't know whether I really hold any merit in dom-tert loops though.

edit: I just want to say that clearly enfp and infj are both dominant percievers, but for some reason I think infj over enfp. Enfp is still a relevant choice on the 'dominant perceiver' theory.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

Nova said:


> I see more infj in timeless than enfp. If someone has trouble with seeing which they prefer out of their thinking and feeling judgments, I automatically think they are probably a dominant perciever. I.e. there's the notion that the two judgments are the aux and tert (i.e right next to each other), and also the idea of dom-tert loops. I.e. in infj it would be ni+ti.
> 
> I don't know whether I really hold any merit in dom-tert loops though.


i suppose that could be true.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Tridentus said:


> erm.. you aren't an INFP. an INFP should read an Fi description and think "that's me in a nutshell". and like my post above says an INFP shouldn't be conflicted between T and F.
> 
> much more likely you are one of the countless ENFPs who think they are INFPs that i am sure are sprayed about this forum who read the ENFP description and think "that surely can't be me!". people seem to think incredible social skills and appetite for excitement is innate for ENFPs, and yeah to an extent it does come naturally- but think about it- social skills are learnt not born with and ENFPs are very quirky and don't completely fit in the majority of the time in a sensor world + we place high stakes on receiving affirmation and praise. it's no surprise for an ENFP to withdraw into an INFP way. i know i've had times when i doubted i was an extrovert, for a few years as a teen you would have bet your house on me being an introvert and i'd withdraw from going out, but those times are always replaced by times where it's pretty goddamn clear i'm an extrovert.


I've considered this before, but I think it's unlikely... working with others drains my energy fast. At my very best (and this took a lot of development), I can maintain my energy level around people but I've never gotten energized by working with a group of people like many ENFPs do. It's simply impossible for me to get energy out of social interactions.



Nova said:


> If someone has trouble with seeing which they prefer out of their thinking and feeling judgments, I automatically think they are probably a dominant perciever.


I've heard that there's something in socionics that relates to this but I'm not totally up on everything with socionics.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

My apologies for the late response. I tend to fail to notice replies to my post since I'm used to being informed about them and forget about the threads >_>



timeless said:


> Perhaps you didn't see that I was criticizing only the connection between MBTI types and cognitive functions. You apparently didn't see it the first time, so I'll quote for you again: "I don't ascribe to the connection between MBTI types and cognitive functions." Never did I say that I didn't agree with the concept of cognitive functions themselves. I think they're a good tool for classifying certain types of thought. Using them in the same post does not mean that I support the connection, and I'm frankly baffled that you could come to that conclusion. If I mention Communism and Capitalism in the same paragraph, does that mean I agree with both? Ludicrous.


 I don't think you seem to have understood what I am saying. I am already quite aware that you don't ascribe to the connection. What I take issue with is the use of JCF terms in a manner that doesn't model the way in which they were laid out by the theorist who designed them.



timeless said:


> You also stated that I can't ignore the Jungian order. Why? Are the Jungian orders sent down by God and are therefore immutable and beyond criticism? I think not. Don't be so dogmatic.


 You can't ignore it if you are using Jung's theory. If you want to use something that isn't his, of course, pay them no attention. But unless you have a srs academic opposition to the theory rather than "I don't feel it works this way" then that is not rly sufficient to claim that Carl Jung's theory doesn't work that way. If you are using terms from his theory; i.e. if you are using his theory to describe something, you should abide by what that theory says. Ignore it if you like. Just don't ignore it if you use the theory that it comes from. You can not walk into a Swiss court and apply American law.



timeless said:


> Again, never did I say that I have a problem with all of Jungian psychology. I would challenge you to quote for me where I said that. I clearly was only criticizing the link between MBTI types and the cognitive orders. (Spoiler Alert: I never said it, so you're not going to come up with anything.


 Well that's fine, because I didn't actually claim that (don't know where you found that: I explicitly stated that I am fine with people using whatever personality theories they want...) so there you go.



timeless said:


> Did I say that I can use Jungian cognitive functions any way I want because I'm using MBTI? *Nope*


 Well, yes. In implication, at least, because MBTI does accept Jungian cognitive functions. *The official theory* states function orders for each types, does it not? They are intrinsically linked because one is derived from the other. So to separate them is pretty much to say that you can use Jungian functions any way you want *in relation to MBTI.*. You can say that you are an INFP with a primary Ni, for instance. 

I mean aside from the fact this doesn't make any sense, because the MBTI descriptions arise from behaviour commonly found in people who use those functions, it is still equitable from the position that I read it, to saying that you can use JCF in any way you want to _when talking about MBTI_ because you don't think it's connected to MBTI.



timeless said:


> There we go. So in the future, don't lie about what I'm saying. I know you have the capacity to read, so I'm not sure what possessed you to spew these fabrications about what I was saying.


 There is a substantial difference between lying and being wrong. I mean clearly I misunderstood your post, but this is the nature of the English language. It is subjective at its heart. At the time of posting you had in your signature an irregular function chain and then just an inch on my screen above you are making the claim that you don't think you can use MBTI in conjunction with JCF *and then reason why using the terms of of JCF.* 



timeless said:


> Your only on-topic argument in this entire post is merely an appeal to some unnamed authority. Bravo.


 Well given that you set half your post aside to reply to a claim I hadn't made, I feel no need to reply to this.



Promethea said:


> Cognitive functions etc.. aren't even scientifically proven, but pseudo-scientific *THEORY*, so its really ridiculous to try to be all hardline about the "facts" when there really are none to begin with.


 Well we aren't discussing the theory here. I agree, it could be total bullshit. I am not even claiming that there are any facts to be hardline about. What I am being 'hardline' about is the proper use of a _theory_, not the application of_ fact_.



Promethea said:


> Could there be things that these theories are missing? Yes. Could there be exceptions to the 'rules'? Yes. So rather than rehash what everyone has _already read about cognitive functions_, lets perhaps think outside the box a little and speculate on possibilities beyond the imposed limitations. If Jung were still alive today, I wonder how much he would have revised his own theories, in light of new information.. because there is always new information.
> 
> Or fuck, a few people can just keep reiterating lineups of cognitive functions and shut down anyone who can actually think for their self.


 Hey, I am all for discussion and thinking about how we can look at cognitive functions in a new framework. Frankly I don't think there is _enough_ of it. Yet I am not in favour of people *assuming* that it can be without preventing any good reason why. If there are posts and threads here that actually do discuss the issue we are arguing about then I will retract my statement and go and read them. 

If there are not, it would be prudent to make one where the issue can be discussed rather than assuming that it is true and that everyone who disagrees with you can't think for themselves. The thinkers of the middle ages had good reason to believe the Earth was flat - that good reason stopped at the presentation of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

The point I've been making since I first posted in this thread is that I don't think that MBTI and cognitive function orders are concretely linked, but they can correlate. I've made that clear from my first post. Yet you insist on saying that I "don't think you can use MBTI in conjunction with JCF". This is a clear misinterpretation of what I've been saying since the start. (Just do a CTRL+F search for "correlate" and you'll find the post where I made that clear.) 

You've spent another post dodging this issue, mainly by misrepresenting what I've said and providing pointless (and sometimes contradictory) appeals to authority. On one hand, you say that I can't use personal experiences to criticize Jung's theory (Your Quote: _"I don't feel it works this way" then that is not rly sufficient to claim that Carl Jung's theory doesn't work that way."_ By the way, I said "personal experiences" in my post, so your "I don't feel this way" claim seems to be yet another deliberate misinterpretation of my post), but at the same time, you note that MBTI descriptions "arise from behaviour commonly found in people who use those functions." Apparently observation is okay some of the time. When you want it to be.

Anyway, here's the point that you've consistently evaded: it seems possible that someone could have a function preference that's not encompassed by MBTI, and then it would make sense to fit them into the type that's the most similar to how they use the functions (even though it's not a perfect fit.) If you have an objection to this other than simple dogma, I'd like to hear it. Preferably something a little more thought out than "that's the theory, end of story." I don't ascribe to the Church of Jung so calling me an apostate without providing any facts behind your contention isn't really going to work with me.

You say, "well we aren't discussing the theory here." You might not be; I am. But apparently, even if a theory "could be total bullshit" we should "abide by what that theory says". I'm sorry, I don't agree with that. If you have a substantive reply to what I'm saying, instead of mere dogma, I'd like to hear it. I'm glad that the scientific community doesn't follow your attitude, or else we'll have no advancement. (By the way, I'm pretty sure the concept of "gravity" has changed quite a bit since it was first formulated. You should complain about that too. )

By the way, your "American law in a Swiss court" analogy doesn't fit. This would be more analogous to someone arguing for a certain interpretation of a law; something that's done every day. You might accept most of the law, but some part might be faulty. That's precisely my argument here; although you've consistently misrepresented it to say otherwise.

Now, it seems that the more I confront you with this, the more you backtrack. When I said "Again, never did I say that I have a problem with all of Jungian psychology." Your response was that you never claimed I did. But you said that I was "reason[ing] against Jungian psychology" in your earlier post. 

Also, in an earlier post, you said: "But if you do prefer to use MBTI, you should not attempt to take Jungian terms and claim that they can be used in any way you want to because youre using MBTI."

Then when I showed that I made no such claim, you said that I did so "in implication." So first it was a claim, then it was an implication? A claim is asserted as fact, but an implication is just suggested. When I pointed out that I never said that, you quickly fell back to a "well, it was implied" justification. You're desperately defending this mischaracterization of what I said. I shouldn't even need to mention that I said that I agree with the Jungian functions themselves; therefore, I wouldn't use them "any way I want" - I wouldn't define Fi as Si, for example. I've just shown that your representation of my position is clearly false; now I wonder if you're going to drop it and argue something substantial, or if you're going to carry on with it.

It's ironic that you would talk about "evidence" in the last section of your post, but at the same time, when I asked you to provide evidence for your position other than an appeal to authority, you didn't "feel the need" to respond to that. Are you actually going to formulate an argument here? Or are you going to persist in arguing this straw man?


----------

