Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by Burning thought
So your admitting your talking nonsense? because that cannot be evaluated, you cannot evaluate each indivudal like that, so your just blabbering without actual reason? ...by assuming everyone is of average intellect and speaking truth for the right reasons you may as well change the entire scenario...

Originally posted by NemeBro
Also, I must give a tip of the hat for General Kaliero's argument emphasizing on Occam's Razor. Good show my good man, I hope one day you can think of me as a son like I look at you as a father. 🙂

Originally posted by WO Polaski
hey lana theres a thread in the otf called something like demotivational posters: GO! or something along those lines. i tired to find it in search but it doesnt show up. when i did the search i told it to search titles only and to show results as threads but i get nothing. what am i doing wrong?

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=462075

😛

Originally posted by Burning thought
So your admitting your talking nonsense? because that cannot be evaluated, you cannot evaluate each indivudal like that, so your just blabbering without actual reason? ...by assuming everyone is of average intellect and speaking truth for the right reasons you may as well change the entire scenario...

I would probably do better than you by far since you cannot take into account the fact that I would be judging each of these people on their views, not just all of them as a group.

I really doubt you would, because somehow I have a feeling that you don't have the first clue how actual debates go.

I was on a debate team for four years, for the record.

Nor is GK speaking nonsense; what he says makes perfect sense. To everyone but you, apparently.

Wonder what that says.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I notice how you did not actually make an attempt in disproving my explanation of what those fallacies actually mean. You have no idea what an ad hominem is as evidenced by your usage of the term, and an appeal to majority fallacy is only a fallacy if someone were to use popularity as the basis for why a point is wrong.

If you are an idiot I can see why you would think that. I have pointed out the fallacies in a post of your's before. There was 11. Be thankful I do not do it every time you post because you would look like a fool if I did.

It is the same thing as an appeal to majority/popularity fallacy, it is the same Goddamn thing, only with a less widely known name(I assume). Why did you bring both up as if they were separate fallacies?

When was this? I do not recall this. And regardless, that was one example out of the many others. There will always be exceptions, that does not change the norm.

I may not stick around to debate you, but it is mostly only you. Why do you think that is BT? Not because you are more intellectually or logically adept, oh no, but because you are so pitiful in the logic department that arguing with you has roughly the same effect as trying to shove my head through a foot of reinforced steel. I have had many debates with people I consider worth debating, you are not worth that kind of time and effort.

Nope, afraid not. Your use of fallacies and just plain bad logic is far worse than my own. The No-Limits fallacy for instance is your trademark. Hyperbole is also a tool you use on occasion.

Also, I must give a tip of the hat for General Kaliero's argument emphasizing on Occam's Razor. Good show my good man, I hope one day you can think of me as a son like I look at you as a father. 🙂

I know what both mean...you simply claiming I dont means little.

Or you are an idiot how did you put it....cuddling your Ego..."shrug"

lol so you were wrong? yes you were....so much for there not being a bandwagon fallacy, and them being the same thing makes no difference.

Another load of baseless BS and Ad hominems

Yes afraid so, stop trolling and stating nonsense without actually bringing anything new.

Brown tongueing lol......lowly...

Originally posted by Peach
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=462075

😛

grrr. thank you. >.>

😛

what do you set the perimeters for when you search for threads?

Originally posted by General Kaliero
So then, you quite simply don't understand the basics of sociology. I have a lot of work to put into you, don't I?

or you could stop just bantering nonsense thats not worth anything in the current argument, its like a major red herring, what worth is this probability factor when all of its content is based on hundreds of other assumptions? nothing, and in the end its not worth a glimmer of truth anyway.

So its like your trolling me in a way, or at least from the arguments point of view.

Originally posted by Peach
[url]

I really doubt you would, because somehow I have a feeling that you don't have the first clue how actual debates go.

I was on a debate team for four years, for the record.

Nor is GK speaking nonsense; what he says makes perfect sense. To everyone but you, apparently.

Wonder what that says.

Ah well, they do say skills sometimes fade with age.

What does it say? it says a lot of things, its pretty much another argument, exactley the same as the previous ones.

Originally posted by Burning thought
or you could stop just bantering nonsense thats not worth anything in the current argument, its like a major red herring, what worth is this probability factor when all of its content is based on hundreds of other assumptions? nothing, and in the end its not worth a glimmer of truth anyway.

So its like your trolling me in a way, or at least from the arguments point of view.

Ah well, they do say skills sometimes fade with age.

What does it say? it says a lot of things, its pretty much another argument, exactley the same as the previous ones.

Also, insulting a global mod. Very nice.

Originally posted by Burning thought
or you could stop just bantering nonsense thats not worth anything in the current argument, its like a major red herring, what worth is this probability factor when all of its content is based on hundreds of other assumptions? nothing, and in the end its not worth a glimmer of truth anyway.

So its like your trolling me in a way, or at least from the arguments point of view.

Ah well, they do say skills sometimes fade with age.

What does it say? it says a lot of things, its pretty much another argument, exactley the same as the previous ones.

What he said was in no way irrelevant. If you had any clue what you were talking about, you'd realize that.

And yeah, I guess I don't get much actual practice here. This is basically a battle of wits with the unarmed opponent, while I'm wielding a rocket launcher. However, I'm sure I can state that you would not have the first clue what to do in an actual structured debate. And I doubt you have the experience to refute that.

And what it says is that if something makes sense to everyone but one person, and many of those who agree that it makes sense are likely more educated, especially in this very subject...then it is more likely that they are correct.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
It's not based off "hundreds of other assumptions." It's merely illustrating that you have the capacity to be wrong.

Also, insulting a global mod. Very nice.

No its illustrating that you want to continue to banter about nothing, its based on making many many crude assumptions like truth, unbias, these are very crude assumptions to make, and your making them for the sake of probability, its like your changing values os that your theory actually works.

Not actually an insult, it was an implication that she may be not as skillful as she used to be considering her actions so far, nice try though but from any point of view, thats far less of an insult even if by some far off view you can bring to bear a reason to name it such than in comparison with yours.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No its illustrating that you want to continue to banter about nothing, its based on making many many crude assumptions like truth, unbias, these are very crude assumptions to make, and your making them for the sake of probability, its like your changing values os that your theory actually works.

Not actually an insult, it was an implication that she may be not as skillful as she used to be considering her actions so far, nice try though but from any point of view, thats far less of an insult even if by some far off view you can bring to bear a reason to name it such than in comparison with yours.

He's not bantering about nothing, he's making points that are flying so far over your head that air traffic control is worried.

And there is a huge, huge difference between informal banter online and an actual, formal, structured debate, the latter being what I have experience with.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No its illustrating that you want to continue to banter about nothing, its based on making many many crude assumptions like truth, unbias, these are very crude assumptions to make, and your making them for the sake of probability, its like your changing values os that your theory actually works.

Not actually an insult, it was an implication that she may be not as skillful as she used to be considering her actions so far, nice try though but from any point of view, thats far less of an insult even if by some far off view you can bring to bear a reason to name it such than in comparison with yours.

...do you? It would explain a lot.

I'm losing my interest, by the way. It's like tossing tennis balls at a brick. It doesn't play, it just sits there doing nothing.

You are a very stubborn brick.

Originally posted by Peach
What he said was in no way irrelevant. If you had any clue what you were talking about, you'd realize that.

And yeah, I guess I don't get much actual practice here. This is basically a battle of wits with the unarmed opponent, while I'm wielding a rocket launcher. However, I'm sure I can state that you would not have the first clue what to do in an actual structured debate. And I doubt you have the experience to refute that.

And what it says is that if something makes sense to everyone but one person, and many of those who agree that it makes sense are likely more educated, especially in this very subject...then it is more likely that they are correct.

Assumption and opinion, you assume I dont have a clue, at the same time you make the opinion that it was in no way irrelvent...how could it possibly be relevent then? please tell me?

I doubt a lot of things, but as you said before:

Originally posted by Peach
You doubting something doesn't make it untrue, you realize...

Some baseless assumptions, nice....so do you do them in actual debates? may I make some assumptions as well just to discredit my opponents view? you need facts for a real decision, not assumptions.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Assumption and opinion, you assume I dont have a clue, at the same time you make the opinion that it was in no way irrelvent...how could it possibly be relevent then? please tell me?

I doubt a lot of things, but as you said before:

Some baseless assumptions, nice....so do you do them in actual debates? may I make some assumptions as well just to discredit my opponents view? you need facts for a real decision, not assumptions.

Also, your doubt not affecting the absolute state of something is a basic fact of science.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I know what both mean...you simply claiming I dont means little.

Or you are an idiot how did you put it....cuddling your Ego..."shrug"

lol so you were wrong? yes you were....so much for there not being a bandwagon fallacy, and them being the same thing makes no difference.

Another load of baseless BS and Ad hominems

Yes afraid so, stop trolling and stating nonsense without actually bringing anything new.

Brown tongueing lol......lowly...

Afraid not. I am simply stating what is true. Now, I won't be a douchebag and claim to never use fallacies, but you are making an objective statement that that is all that I do when I enter a thread. Which is factually untrue.

Yes, technically I was wrong, them being the same thing has relevance in that you brought them both up as separate things, that is redundancy.

BT...Please learn when it is appropriate to bring up fallacies. If we were arguing something about so and so fighting so and so, and I based my argument off your character, that would be an ad hominem, but the reason for me not debating you, IS your character, which should be obvious. Whether that is technically a fallacy or not I admit to being unsure of, but it is an acceptable fallacy. There is such a thing depending on the context believe it or not.

Nah. I'll do whatever I bloody-well please thank you.

You really could not sense the hint of sarcasm? Although I was serious on one note, he is right about Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Assumption and opinion, you assume I dont have a clue, at the same time you make the opinion that it was in no way irrelvent...how could it possibly be relevent then? please tell me?

I doubt a lot of things, but as you said before:

Some baseless assumptions, nice....so do you do them in actual debates? may I make some assumptions as well just to discredit my opponents view? you need facts for a real decision, not assumptions.

You are displaying with every post you make that you don't have a clue.

And...seriously? Seriously? If someone says that something is 'not irrelevant', that means that it is relevant.

Wow.

Just...wow.

Also, take a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

“Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable.”

Originally posted by General Kaliero
You have no idea how much I'm laughing at you right now. It's like you come from Bizarro World.

...do you? It would explain a lot.

I'm losing my interest, by the way. It's like tossing tennis balls at a brick. It doesn't play, it just sits there doing nothing.

You are a very stubborn brick.

Ohhh ooohh ouch! dont say your laughing at me! youll hurt my all important ego! damn...I better go and boost it!

Yeh well, if ime a brick your a concrete block, only this block is crumbling under pressure, hoping for a break and is trying to use a weak and timide fallacy to prop itself up while its construction worker (peach) tries to fix in more cement around it...unfortunatley it really has to budge soon...

Also, for the record, real debates suck IMO.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ohhh ooohh ouch! dont say your laughing at me! youll hurt my all important ego! damn...I better go and boost it!

Yeh well, if ime a brick your a concrete block, only this block is crumbling under pressure, hoping for a break and is trying to use a weak and timide fallacy to prop itself up while its construction worker (peach) tries to fix in more cement around it...unfortunatley it really has to budge soon...

Well, amusingly, all your posts in here will certainly "cement" the prevailing opinion concerning you.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ohhh ooohh ouch! dont say your laughing at me! youll hurt my all important ego! damn...I better go and boost it!

Yeh well, if ime a brick your a concrete block, only this block is crumbling under pressure, hoping for a break and is trying to use a weak and timide fallacy to prop itself up while its construction worker (peach) tries to fix in more cement around it...unfortunatley it really has to budge soon...

Err...no one's using any fallacies, though. Except for possibly you.

And your analogy sucks.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Also, for the record, real debates suck IMO.

I like them. Trust me, it's not exactly easy to cram a ton of info into a few minutes of speaking and coming up with a rebuttal on the fly 😛

Originally posted by NemeBro
1. I brought up a detailed explanation of them and even linked to a site with another, I did not simply claim it, I brought reasoning and even evidence to the table. You, have simply claimed you do.

Afraid not. I am simply stating what is true. Now, I won't be a douchebag and claim to never use fallacies, but you are making an objective statement that that is all that I do when I enter a thread. Which is factually untrue.

Yes, technically I was wrong, them being the same thing has relevance in that you brought them both up as separate things, that is redundancy.

BT...Please learn when it is appropriate to bring up fallacies. If we were arguing something about so and so fighting so and so, and I based my argument off your character, that would be an ad hominem, but the reason for me not debating you, IS your character, which should be obvious. Whether that is technically a fallacy or not I admit to being unsure of, but it is an acceptable fallacy. There is such a thing depending on the context believe it or not.

Nah. I'll do whatever I bloody-well please thank you.

You really could not sense the hint of sarcasm? Although I was serious on one note, he is right about Occam's Razor.

1. Ime reading all my information from:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

Afraid so, ime the more truthful one here....

Yes you were wrong like a great many things.

V2D please learn your fallacies, weve already found your not exactly sure are you...you better read through my link and get a better grip on them.

You do but youll be a fool for doing so.....this statement epitomes the entire argument "against" me.....

Originally posted by Peach
I like them. Trust me, it's not exactly easy to cram a ton of info into a few minutes of speaking and coming up with a rebuttal on the fly 😛