I wanted to address your logic when you saw Phantom's post as self-contradicting. I don't think anything Phantom said would lead to the conclusion that they like things for other people to play them, that was an idea we brought about, but I feel illustrates a way in which one could like something without intending to play it, or could have their experience improved by it while liking it less than the default. I wasn't reinterpreting things that were said, I was aiming for an end result that establishes that liking something while preferring the default is not a contradiction. That's what was needed to close the missed connections.DirkGently wrote: ↑6 months agoBut I do find it kinda weird in instances like this, where you came into the conversation I was having with another party, and (I would argue) reinterpret what the other party said. Maybe you actually do/did feel that their POV was that they "liked" alternative frames as an option for other people to use, but I really don't think that interpretation is supported by anything they posted, and I don't think it's typically a way that humans interact with the question "do you like ____?" So, to me, it feels like you started with "Dirk must be wrong, so whatever interpretation demonstrates that he is wrong must be the correct one." rather than trying to make an honest attempt to understand what RxPhantom meant and going from there.
And then we could maybe approach the secondary question as "even if you like the old border, if you prefer the new one, wouldn't you rather they stop using the old one?" Which I think gets to where you want to be without someone having to defend while they aren't stating a logical contradiction. The part about other people enjoying them would be my answer to that question, but perhaps there are others who would find more agreement with the idea of them not old-bordering new cards from that position.
I did not ask that knowing how DirkGently would answer, Dirk and I don't think the same. But if that were rhetorical, if that was presented as a leading question, my expectation would be that the answer was no. You jumped in to answer, emphatically, "yes". You are all the evidence you need that it was not a rhetorical question, that there are real, distinct options in how to answer it.
You can read the discussion after that question. There's no sophistry, nobody is being misled.