It is interesting, isn't it? If I hold a view I announce right from the beginning as being subjective (which, by the way, most of the opinions expressed here by most of us are), I need to back it up.
So what is it that I need to back up? That it's how I perceive something? How do I do that?
This is just odd.
Sure, Odeon. See if you follow this:
Let's say it was not you and your claims of me being intellectually dishonest and all those other associated claims. Hypothetically, let's say I had said you were a coward. I then throw some more claims about you being a weak character and an authoritarian. (It doesn't really matter the claims, so long as they are out of character, subjective and unable to be backed up)
Now YOU may think "WTF? Why is Al saying that? That is out of character, he has to have some reasonable idea why he thought that because he is a reasonable person and a smart guy. If I press him, I will find a reasonable reason why he'd call me cowardly... And it had better be a good reason. It's likely a misunderstanding."
So you press and I start making vague anecdotal evidence and then point to the definition of coward. You contest that your behaviour doesn't match the definition . It makes no sense and by now you've introduced the other things like you being authoritarian and weak-willed. The cowardly claim is being repeated over and over and the condescending concession is that you are not always cowardly...just now.
You naturally suspect I'm not being entirely on the level, and why not? We have disagreed before but regardless of whether we disagreed or or indeed whether we were making arguments based on subjective opinion or speculation I had always managed in such disagreements to convey a reasoned approach to why I claimed what I claimed.
But now you suggesting this has me repeating my claim, but also asking to drop the matter and to facilitate this process, agreeing that you are not really weak-willed.
If you read this, and think about it, you may be struck with the thought that such a situation is odd at the least and unreasonable.
There is plenty strange here but I do not believe my reaction is one of them.
I can treat this as a test in adaptability.
I can at random, for no good reason, throw weak subjective claims, maybe reference a dictionary definition, repeat said claim without decent evidence or reasoning to back it and then tell you to drop it.
It's silly but I don't mind doing it if this is the new standard.