Irrelevant. I couldn't care less about what types you have assigned to the House characters...we're arguing about a very specific claim that you made regarding type theory (which I've quoted and rephrased several times). Don't obfuscate the argument.
i already stated that i don't consider my "argument" any more valid than an opinion. logically, i can't obfuscate anything that isn't there.
Edit: Okay I'll take the bait anyway. I've stated over and over again why I said that your opinion was idiotic. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT SUBSTANTIATED YOUR CLAIM!!! How else can I get this through to you? Why do you think that NFs are more capable of empathy than SFs? Personal experience? Your feelings? Did you read it in an MBTI book or article? As you've aptly pointed out, it certainly isn't because it's scientific fact. What is it then?
are you kidding me? an opinion, unlike an argument, is not tied to reason.
Here, let me simplify the discussion for you:
You: NFs are more empathetic than SFs. (claim)
Me: No they're not. (counter-claim)
cont.,
Me: You have no evidence. (grounds for counter-claim)
You (now): Wah! Why don't you have a counter opinion? Wah! You called me an idiot!
thanks for being condescending, it generally helps your position in a discussion :rolli:. let me clarify what i meant, since you obviously misinterpreted it (i would expect no less from an INTP):
me: claim in an opinion.
you: proof please. oh wait you don't have any.
me: it's an opinion, it's a point of view, not an argument.
you: OMG GIVE ME PROOF YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT YADDA YADDA YADDA [discussion truncated]
the point is, it's just what i think. it's not an argument, i'm not trying to pull a theory out of my ass or anything of the like. it's my personal point of view, and you can take that or you can leave it. if you consider that idiotic, then i consider you an idiot for thinking exactly that. see what i mean?
Stating that SFs are categorically less capable of empathy than NFs when it isn't true promotes prejudice against sensors. It's like saying that women are less capable of intelligent thought than men. The prejudicial aspect of such statements comes from the fact that they are NOT TRUE. It is not discrimination to say that one group of people with X traits is naturally better at task R than another group of people lacking X traits IF IT IS TRUE. But the fact that such claims usually turn out to be false sends red-flags up every time I see statements of that form.
so what, you're going to prove to me that it is true that sensors are just as empathic as intuits? if i'm not mistaken, this is a claim in an argument. or if it isn't, it's an opinion and i'm not obligated to care about it.
Disregarding for the moment your flaccid (not to mention irrelevant) attempt to rhetorically position yourself as the subversive visionary amidst a mob of zealous MBTI disciples, I would like to inform you of something that every student learns in argument 101. It is as follows: having an opinion does not make one an idiot unless he/she has no good reasons to have said opinion. If you have nothing to defend your opinion, then you shouldn't have that opinion, much less throw it around on an anonymous internet forum.
heeeeeeeeeeeeere's logic. in no rulebook is it stated that you opinion has to be valid in any logic way in order for you to have it. i.e., there does not necessarily have to be a reason to have an opinion. this is the difference between an argument and an opinion; there is no validation required. whether you consider that opinion idiotic is irrelevant since it's completely subjective.
the reason i asked macguiffen in the first place about his presence in all of this was exactly because it didn't make sense for him to look for arguments in a thread about opinions. i could ask you the same thing.
now, are we done here?