Originally posted by Schecter
precisely. isnt it funny how the truth is sometimes spoken in sarcastic rhetoric?
You are quite plainly, wrong.
No train of logic demands that someone who's been 'dishing it out' needs to experience a so-called buzzkill. None.
To you, maybe, because all you seem to come back with are pointless jabs and half-baked bluster.
Originally posted by DarkC
No, read the rest of my post.You are quite plainly, wrong.
No train of logic demands that someone who's been 'dishing it out' needs to experience a so-called buzzkill. None.
what goes around comes around.
one turn deserves another.
etc.....etc....
Originally posted by DarkC
To you, maybe, because all you seem to come back with are pointless jabs and half-baked bluster.
wait...is this a debate?
Originally posted by Schecter
what goes around comes around.
one turn deserves another.
etc.....etc....
Originally posted Schecter
wait...is this a debate?
Originally posted by DarkC
Those are proverbs and cliches. NOT logic.
proverbs which are based in logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning. none of which is purely objective (as in no logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning of any kind). wow, you really want to argue that to death?
Originally posted by DarkC
No, because you don't even have arguments, you just state as though it's plain fact and leave it without support.
never brought an argument of ideas to this thread...just a suggestion.
btw, isnt it a perfect emo watch? i mean....it cuts you
Originally posted by Schecter
proverbs which are based in logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning. none of which is purely objective (as in no logic/philosophy/deductive reasoning of any kind). wow, you really want to argue that to death?
Take the "What goes up must come down" proverb, if you apply it to an object and gravity, then yes, in all logic gravity pulls it down. If you try and apply it to something like the stock market, your logic fails. Which is what you just did.
And show me where I said that cliches or proverbs as a whole were not logical. Go ahead.
Originally posted by Schecter
never brought an argument of ideas to this thread...just a suggestion.
Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, they ARE logic when used in their correct context. Just not the ones you listed, because they are out of context with what's being discussed. Quite simply, if you use a proverb that refers to something else and try to apply it to something completely different, it will not logically make sense.Take the "What goes up must come down" proverb, if you apply it to an object and gravity, then yes, in all logic gravity pulls it down. If you try and apply it to something like the stock market, your logic fails. Which is what you just did.
the stock market has nothing to do with the dealings/misdealings from one individual to another. what an outrageous leap in logic to try to pass off the stock market as an example. are you just replying for the sake of replying? it will probably work since repetative backwards gibberish does get me exhausted and sleepy *fights back yawn*
Originally posted by DarkC
And show me where I said that cliches or proverbs as a whole were not logical. Go ahead.
oh goody...is it my birthday?
Originally posted by DarkC
Those are proverbs and cliches. NOT logic.
you declare that proverbs are not logic. i guess a set of words cannot tangibly BE logic, as it takes the thought to process those words into logic, but do you think you're going to win the internet with your semantics game? thats all you've been doing so far, really.
Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, you did, which I replied to.
Then you take my response and reply to it out of context, stating that it "needs" to happen as if it were irrefutable fact (it isn't). Seems to be a reccurring theme with you.
more semantics gaming.
fine, ill retract my previous statement, publically. in its place:
"IMHO, *insert previous statement*" 🙄
Originally posted by Schecter
the stock market has nothing to do with the dealings/misdealings from one individual to another. what an outrageous leap in logic to try to pass off the stock market as an example. are you just replying for the sake of replying? it will probably work since repetative backwards gibberish does get me exhausted and sleepy *fights back yawn*
You haven’t explained why it is wrong or how your viewing is correct.
Proverbs are based on logic, it doesn’t mean that they are logic indefinitely and in all cases.
Your use of those two clichés does not prove that your “buzzcut” comment is logical.
It’s interesting to see you accusing me of replying ‘for the sake of replying’ when I have backed my statements up with arguments and evidence.
Really, the last time I checked, trash talking in that kind of manner made one look remarkably foolish.
Take a good look at your next post here.
oh goody...is it my birthday?
But hey, if you want to bluster, fine by me.
you declare that proverbs are not logic. i guess a set of words cannot tangibly BE logic, as it takes the thought to process those words into logic, but do you think you're going to win the internet with your semantics game? thats all you've been doing so far, really.
I believe I just told you to show me EXACTLY where I clearly declared that proverbs were not logic at all. You have failed to do that. You haven’t even tried. And again, you’re taking it off topic with extremely silly phrases like “winning at the internet”.
I agree that proverbs are logic, when they remain in context. Pay attention.
Originally posted by Schecter
im just touched flattered by all the time you're devoting to me. cry
Really, that ego of yours is escalating to dangerous levels.
it always begins the same
its like you're running on a simple program:
Originally posted by Schecter
no, your little friend needs to experience a buzzkill, which he has no trouble dishing out.
semantics gamer: *scans for 'imho'. results: negative*
*commence semantics game*
Originally posted by DarkC
Because Sorgo X has dished out a lot of buzzkill, he 'NEEDS', objectively, to experience one?Another example of Schecter's "impeccable" logic.
Wrong, yet again.
*repeat semantics game*
---------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DarkC
Literally? Yes, it does, in fact. Since the 20’s, to be exact.You haven’t explained why it is wrong or how your viewing is correct.
i explained my logic in a series of proverbs. thats reality. go back and read. never did i say that logic was absolute.
Originally posted by DarkC
Proverbs are based on logic, it doesn’t mean that they are logic indefinitely and in all cases.
Your use of those two clichés does not prove that your “buzzcut” comment is logical.
*semantics loop*
Originally posted by DarkC
It’s interesting to see you accusing me of replying ‘for the sake of replying’ when I have backed my statements up with arguments and evidence.
*declare provided evidence which is nonexistant*
Originally posted by DarkC
Really, the last time I checked, trash talking in that kind of manner made one look remarkably foolish.
Take a good look at your next post here.
*authoritative condicension in the form of "forum peacekeeper" *
Originally posted by DarkC
Nothing to do with the subject, not part of an argument. Wow, I’m really losing sleep over it.But hey, if you want to bluster, fine by me.
Learn to read my posts, Schecter.
*end trite diatribe* *recommence semantics loop*
Originally posted by DarkC
I believe I just told you to show me EXACTLY where I clearly declared that proverbs were not logic at all.
you declared my response moot on the grounds that it was proverbial, which would make sense to you if you werent on your loop.
Originally posted by DarkC
You have failed to do that. You haven’t even tried. And again, you’re taking it off topic with extremely silly phrases like “winning at the internet”.
you're right. i havent even tried. whats funny is you clearly are...whats odd though is its unclear what you're trying to prove.
Originally posted by DarkC
I agree that proverbs are logic, when they remain in context. Pay attention.
yet you somehow feel that you can discredit that context by declaring its possible to take it out of context. really, thats pretty much what you're tring to do here. its clear you really are being a 'tireless rebutter'.
Originally posted by DarkC
Flattering oneself, now?Really, that ego of yours is escalating to dangerous levels.
too late for that
Originally posted by Schecter
glad you agree that its hallow victory rhetoric 😂
The rhetoric doesn't matter. Why?
That one word you placed before "Rhetoric".
It's called "Victory".
Using such words and using them properly are two different things.
Please; Continue digging a deeper hole for yourself. Amuse me, Schecter.
Originally posted by Schecter
it always begins the same
its like you're running on a simple program:
semantics gamer: *scans for 'imho'. results: negative*
*commence semantics game*
*repeat semantics game*---------------------------------------------------------------
i explained my logic in a series of proverbs. thats reality. go back and read. never did i say that logic was absolute.
I even asked you if what you said earlier was meant as objective logic.
Your response?
Originally posted by Schecter
precisely.
"One good turn deserves another", and "What goes around comes around" do nothing to justify that you think Sorgo X deserves a buzzkill because he's been dishing it out a lot. Logically, there is no reason why he should.
One describes Karma, and the other describes repayment (both of which are subjective topics anyways).
While they sound similar and might be associated with the "buzzkill" comment, neither do not have anything OBJECTIVE to do with what you said at hand.
*declare provided evidence which is nonexistant*
It's only nonexistant if you didn't bother reading it in its entirety.
You're really just acting ignorant, that's what's going on.
*authoritative condicension in the form of "forum peacekeeper" *
You're accusing me of being condescending, when you are the one analyzing my posts incorrectly and breaking it down with blatantly stupid comments regarding 'semantics'.
Once again, 'logic' from the great Schecter.
you declared my response moot on the grounds that it was proverbial, which would make sense to you if you werent on your loop.
I declared it moot on the grounds that it was a proverb or a cliche, and that it was used out of context. I've already explained how and provided an example.
you're right. i havent even tried. whats funny is you clearly are...whats odd though is its unclear what you're trying to prove.
Keep up.
Believe me, I have seen my share of so called 'debaters' who make up for lack of skills with massive truckloads of bluster, the "no effort" clause being one of the oldest excuses in the book.
Doesn't work on me, pal.
yet you somehow feel that you can discredit that context by declaring its possible to take it out of context. really, thats pretty much what you're tring to do here. its clear you really are being a 'tireless rebutter'.
The previous example of "What goes up must come down", remember? Not too difficult to do. When you apply it to astrophysics, for example, it becomes illogical.
Explain to me how taking proverbs out of context is impossible.
If I'm a 'tireless rebutter', you're a 'blustering chatterbox', my shortsighted friend.