Quote Originally Posted by Whiteroom View Post
If their stance is irrelevant, why use it in the first place. Or is it only relevant if it supports your argument?
Because they were two different arguments. One argument was from the perceived SE position, and one is from my own. Whatever SE thinks about parsers doesn't change the fact that I agree they're useful. You're spending an awfully long time fighting with someone who wants them in the game too (provided people don't abuse them). In fact, if SE really doesn't hold the fear that jerks will use it to be jerkier, that's better for me.

So, given that almost anything put in the game can be abused, should they stop adding things?
Not surprisingly, this has already been covered ad nauseam.
Nobody won victories for being able to carry a gun by saying "Well, I could just stab someone with my pen, so what are you going to do, ban pens?" Nobody won victories for drug legalization by saying "Well, I could just overdose on Tylenol, what are you going to do, ban Tylenol?" So why do people think that they'll win victories for parsers by saying "Well, I could just harass someone for wearing purple clothes, are you going to ban purple dyes?"
Also does the parser actually create jerks? Or are the people already jerks, abusing something in game.
Depends on the person.

If you can write a program that actually changes people into jerks from nice people, that is a powerful program.
Most people call them "internet browsers".