You’ve deferred to me as the authority on this matter. I’m correct without the need to use force.
Examples such as being an intellectual or moral authority don’t rely on force. I’ll defer to the intellectual authority that is the Oxford English Dictionary on this one, and point out you’re definitionally wrong.
In either instance, these authorities aren’t maintained by force, only the fact that people view them as the authority. Denying said authority isn’t going to see the dictionary police come and drag you away - people will just think you’re kinda dumb.
You already crowned me king of the hill when you declared me the intellectual authority.
If you want to walk that back because you don’t like it, feel free, but you’ll do nothing more than make yourself look silly and inconsistent - not correct.
I’m not one for monarchs, but it’s good to be the king.
So you’re not the intellectual authority because I say you’re wrong and I am in fact the authority. Prove me wrong and moreover order me to do legit any fucking thing.
Walking back your own statements because you don’t like the outcome does nothing to hurt my intellectual authority, while it torpedoes your own.
My advice - if you want to be seen as the intellectual authority, make a better case for it. Violence won’t work, and your current line of argumentation is proving my point.
Farming to prove yourself the intellectual authority is enough evidence that you are in fact not the intellectual authority. It’s that perceived power vs actual power issue again.
Your advice as what? Certainly not the intellectual authority.
As the established intellectual authority here, who was handed this status without the need for violence, there’s nothing for me to add. You proved me right.
You’ve deferred to me as the authority on this matter. I’m correct without the need to use force.
Examples such as being an intellectual or moral authority don’t rely on force. I’ll defer to the intellectual authority that is the Oxford English Dictionary on this one, and point out you’re definitionally wrong.
In either instance, these authorities aren’t maintained by force, only the fact that people view them as the authority. Denying said authority isn’t going to see the dictionary police come and drag you away - people will just think you’re kinda dumb.
I say you’re wrong and assert I am the intellectual authority.
It’s king of the hill, time to shove me off homie.
You’re own source, order me to do something and watch me ignore your presumed authority.
You already crowned me king of the hill when you declared me the intellectual authority.
If you want to walk that back because you don’t like it, feel free, but you’ll do nothing more than make yourself look silly and inconsistent - not correct.
I’m not one for monarchs, but it’s good to be the king.
Sure did, now use your authority to hold that position.
It’s clearly an example you dolt.
King stupid is still king I suppose.
No need for me to reestablish what you’ve already conceded.
Are you sure you’re OK after all that violence I inflicted on you?
So you’re not the intellectual authority because I say you’re wrong and I am in fact the authority. Prove me wrong and moreover order me to do legit any fucking thing.
Walking back your own statements because you don’t like the outcome does nothing to hurt my intellectual authority, while it torpedoes your own.
My advice - if you want to be seen as the intellectual authority, make a better case for it. Violence won’t work, and your current line of argumentation is proving my point.
Farming to prove yourself the intellectual authority is enough evidence that you are in fact not the intellectual authority. It’s that perceived power vs actual power issue again.
Your advice as what? Certainly not the intellectual authority.
As the established intellectual authority here, who was handed this status without the need for violence, there’s nothing for me to add. You proved me right.
So long, intellectual peasant.