So if that is your goal then why are you behaving rather like a lawyer or a politician (both in the worst sense of the meaning, in this context)? You want people to admit to a trivial point and then make some grand conclusion, and since we all admitted to the trivial case you can prove to yourself that you are logically correct. That's not the way reasoning works. Each logical step must be valid and relevant.
I kinda always did want to be a lawyer, though.
Past that, though, I want people to admit a point (its triviality or not isn't important to how I'm using it, you can consider it trivial though--I don't mind) and then open up discussion about the more gray-areas that come after it. No particularly grand conclusion in mind (you might want to roll back the wild assumptions there, I'm not
that good), and I've been clear about that from the outset.
(and logical correctness isn't a consensus operation, sir; it doesn't require acclamation to be true)
Each logical step must be Sound (not necessarily Valid, but I think you mean the same thing with that, no worries), and it must relate... its "relevancy" however isn't a part of reasoning. Relevancy isn't always clear, its a fuddled and hard to nail down piece of jello--sometimes only evident after things come full circle. That's where a certain amount of trust comes in to the speaker.
My point was perfectly related to my argument and my intentions... that establishing that particular iota of rational truth was going to be necessary if we were going to talk intelligently about cases in the more subjective derivatives of it. So, in a nutshell and a more layman way, if we couldn't agree on what is and isn't true, we weren't going to make a lot of headway and progress when we started talking about truths.
I don't have as much faith as Flannel that it's possible to achieve objectivity,
Its possible... its just not usually pleasant if done right--to be objective, you have to take the premises step by step and abide by the conclusion; I think most-times we want to merely justify our conclusions with suitable premises. That's just not the same.
For instance, I have no idea whether its pragmatically possible to have the same experience with a different game... but unless I'm going to back-end my judgement into some premises that kinda justify it, I have to go step by step (start with what's possible) and explore what's true and not, if I'm going to be loyal to the idea that I'm doing it in an objective fashion.
Otherwise, we're just bleating.
(I don't think I'm disagreeing with you, actually, at this point)