Woohoo, official off-topic thread!

Originally posted by Burning thought
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.....

Look, you're aware that reading fallacies off of a site doesn't mean that you can properly identify nor use them, correct?

Originally posted by General Kaliero
You fail at analogies, too, as well as listening to, well, anything that doesn't bolster your own opinion.

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

Yes damn..I fail do I....ouch another shock to the ego, another incredibly meaningful jibe...

It does not matter what I post here, the opinions are not based off anything factual, merely opinion, bias and hate for reasons outside of debating in the first place.

Originally posted by Peach
Look, you're aware that reading fallacies off of a site doesn't mean that you can properly identify nor use them, correct?

Ime using them for what they say, so yes, I wouldnt use them if they did not fit in with my argument against someone.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes damn..I fail do I....ouch another shock to the ego, another incredibly meaningful jibe...

It does not matter what I post here, the opinions are not based off anything factual, merely opinion, bias and hate for reasons outside of debating in the first place.

Ime using them for what they say, so yes, I wouldnt use them if they did not fit in with my argument against someone.

And do you have evidence of this negative opinion, bias, and hate outside of debating?

Realize that "everyone's negative opinion right here on this forum" is not an acceptable answer, as that would fall under reasons based on debate.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
The jibes go a long way toward amusing myself. I don't particularly care how you take them.

And do you have evidence of this negative opinion, bias, and hate outside of debating?

Realize that "everyone's negative opinion right here on this forum" is not an acceptable answer, as that would fall under reasons based on debate.

I dont need evidence, that was not an argument I am going to use to change any minds here, simply something ill bring up because of facts that I know from other forums, the people here obvioulsy do not spend all their time here, there are other forums.

No it would not....not if many of the opponents are either friends of the opposition and are pettie enough to back them up for that reason or have had their arguments broken by me in the past on other sites.

Originally posted by Burning thought
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.....

The error or attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. Look at the examples. They all are simply attacking the source of the argument, be it the person arguing, or the source, such as their Richard Nixon example. I have not done this. I have insulted you and others, this cannot be denied, but I do not generally(it could have happened, though I doubt it) attack the character who is making the argument as a basis for why their argument is wrong. Not only are you not logically competent, you can't even read your own sources? Oh my.

So it is factual that I always go into threads and commit fallacy after fallacy without arguing against the opposition's points and then flee the thread? Is it now? Then what the hell am I doing now?

Of course. As a fallible entity, it is to be expected. Only I admit the many things I was incorrect about. Unlike you who denies most things you are wrong about.

I have already proved you have no idea what you are talking about. Reading comprehension helps.

Afraid not. I have brought up several valid points and arguments using logic and reason. Cause I am a logical individual. Unlike some people.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I dont need evidence, that was not an argument I am going to use to change any minds here, simply something ill bring up because of facts that I know from other forums, the people here obvioulsy do not spend all their time here, there are other forums.

No it would not....not if many of the opponents are either friends of the opposition and are pettie enough to back them up for that reason or have had their arguments broken by me in the past on other sites.

Also, more assumption. Occam's Razor, little one, Occam's Razor.

Why the number 50?

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a debate on here that has even 50 people in it. Never mind on one single side.

50 is a number someone pulled out their ass.

I'm going to use 5. Because 5 is actually believable.

5 people say one thing, another is saying something else. How do you know who is telling the truth, assumptions excluded.

Personally, I find Occam's Razor to be... insufficient.

The only "Logical" answer is; Roll a die.

If you remove all assumptions then you only have the numbers on either side. Without assumption everyone has an equal chance to be right. So the one has a 16.67% chance to be right. the 5 have a 83.33% chance to be right. One is more likely, but not certain. It's that simple.

You all seem to be trying to 'prove' the other wrong. Not happening. Not by any real answer that isn't circumstantial. From how i perceive it that is where the debate ends. I do not see how anyone can say anything different if you are indeed removing all assumptions.

Personally, i would tally previous debates and realise the one has been in many situations of the sort before, therefore it such a individual keeps going against the odds i would deem it faulty. My reasoning being; is a pixel on my screen that is black permanently while all the others are are different, is it the only working one? too unlikely to be worth considering.

Meaning, i would consider from numerous experiences if an individual constantly 'swims against the tide' i would deem it be faulty.

Originally posted by C. C. Cowgirl!
[b]I'm still gone, by the way. This is just a swift stop on my journey 😛 [/B]

Indeed, a shame. 🙁

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Why the number 50?

I'm pretty sure I've never seen a debate on here that has even 50 people in it. Never mind on one single side.

50 is a number someone pulled out their ass.

I'm going to use 5. Because 5 is actually believable.

5 people say one thing, another is saying something else. How do you know who is telling the truth, assumptions excluded.

Personally, I find Occam's Razor to be... insufficient.

The only "Logical" answer is; Roll a die.

If you remove all assumptions then you only have the numbers on either side. Without assumption everyone has an equal chance to be right. So the one has a 16.67% chance to be right. the 5 have a 83.33% chance to be right. One is more likely, but not certain. It's that simple.

You all seem to be trying to 'prove' the other wrong. Not happening. Not by any real answer that isn't circumstantial. From how i perceive it that is where the debate ends. I do not see how anyone can say anything different if you are indeed removing all assumptions.

Personally, i would tally previous debates and realise the one has been in many situations of the sort before, therefore it such a individual keeps going against the odds i would deem it faulty. My reasoning being; is a pixel on my screen that is black permanently while all the others are are different, is it the only working one? too unlikely to be worth considering.

Meaning, i would consider from numerous experiences if an individual constantly 'swims against the tide' i would deem it be faulty.

It was a number I brought up to make the discussion of Occam's Razor easier. I didn't say that 50 people do actually think BT is a horrible debater. It was just a number to illuminate the workings of Occam's Razor and to give us the ability to discuss it with easy terms (i.e. when talking about the number of people against, we don't have to talk in vagueities, but rather can use the number, which should make discussion flow more easy)

Also, your example of rolling dice is, very similar tp the people example, just through different means of chance.

I think you are confusing the previous argument about whether BT's posts are nonsense, with the latest one how this one tool (Occam's Razor) works. Of course they are trying to prove each other wrong, and I would say it has already happened, but you are right that it won't have a real bearing on the earlier debate, which might be the more interesting one.

i like men 😄

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Okay, so I can completely disregard your claim as a bold-faced lie. Good to know.

Also, more assumption. Occam's Razor, little one, Occam's Razor.

You can disregard anything, you would disregard it whether ime right or if ime wrong.

Razor is useless here and is in itself, full of hundreds of assumptions just to try and make it work, which it is useless anyway.

Originally posted by NemeBro
"Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"😉, but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid. "

The error or attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. Look at the examples. They all are simply attacking the source of the argument, be it the person arguing, or the source, such as their Richard Nixon example. I have not done this. I have insulted you and others, this cannot be denied, but I do not generally(it could have happened, though I doubt it) attack the character who is making the argument as a basis for why their argument is wrong. Not only are you not logically competent, you can't even read your own sources? Oh my.

So it is factual that I always go into threads and commit fallacy after fallacy without arguing against the opposition's points and then flee the thread? Is it now? Then what the hell am I doing now?

Of course. As a fallible entity, it is to be expected. Only I admit the many things I was incorrect about. Unlike you who denies most things you are wrong about.

I have already proved you have no idea what you are talking about. Reading comprehension helps.

Afraid not. I have brought up several valid points and arguments using logic and reason. Cause I am a logical individual. Unlike some people.

Your doing it now, attacking me instead of my argument, with your "not only are you not logically competent but cannot read your own sources", your trying to use negatives of me to prove I am wrong...it does not work...

Your committing one fallacy while not actually arguing, just stating egotistical nonsense.

Originally posted by Burning thought
You can disregard anything, you would disregard it whether ime right or if ime wrong.

[b]Razor is useless here and is in itself, full of hundreds of assumptions just to try and make it work, which it is useless anyway.[/B]

Occam's Razor has zero assumptions. It's the very principle of avoiding unnecessary assumptions.

It's quite obvious now that you aren't even listening. You've apparently rejected basic logic and science in favor of your own little world where your vision is absolute.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It was a number I brought up to make the discussion of Occam's Razor easier. I didn't say that 50 people do actually think BT is a horrible debater. It was just a number to illuminate the workings of Occam's Razor and to give us the ability to discuss it with easy terms (i.e. when talking about the number of people against, we don't have to talk in vagueities, but rather can use the number, which should make discussion flow more easy)

Also, your example of rolling dice is, very similar tp the people example, just through different means of chance.

I think you are confusing the previous argument about whether BT's posts are nonsense, with the latest one how this one tool (Occam's Razor) works. Of course they are trying to prove each other wrong, and I would say it has already happened, but you are right that it won't have a real bearing on the earlier debate, which might be the more interesting one.

I believe you have caught on to the wrong end of the stick.

I changed the number because it was ridiculous compared to the topic. I do not truely care about Occam's Razor.

I know all about it. I think it's crap in my opinion. Thus i didn't add on to it in my post other than the bare minimum.

Originally posted by General Kaliero
Not quite, because being a person of well above average intelligence, I accept fact and reject falsehood. If you were actually able to provide an ounce of credibility to your claims, then they might be worth listening to. But as you refuse to, I have to simply disregard your words out of hand.

Occam's Razor has zero assumptions. It's the very principle of avoiding unnecessary assumptions.

It's quite obvious now that you aren't even listening. You've apparently rejected basic logic and science in favor of your own little world where your vision is absolute.

Oh so your a person of above average intlligence are you? well being a person of above above average intelligence I accept fact and reject falsehood of a higher level than yours....please stop with the senseless words and statements. I was stating a fact, whether you believe me or not is neither here nor there, nor do I care.

No, you have to make hundreds of assumptions to make it work, you have to assume things about the people, e.g. making them all equel, which is reality, they are not.

no I reject baseless logic or the lack of logic.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
i like men 😄

Oh SAM!!!!!!!!

Posting in my profile while i wasn't looking, idiot.

Originally posted by Burning thought
And to address your previous edit, before you edited again Peach, if 50 people were against one person and we made many many assumptions, e.g. that everyone was truthful, everyone had the right end of the stick, everyone knew what they were talking about then this probability would be less foolish and may make some sense.

But because we cant make all those many many assumptions about the people in question, its a worthless test of probability, because half of them may simply be lieing for silly reasons. Backing up their friends, etc etc, more assumtions that can be made so eventually, youll have so many assumptions that the probability is not worth doing at all and still, the very theory is worthless because it cannot evaluate fact.

Also, its a higher probability that more people out of 50 are going to have all those assumptions levied against them in a negative way, rather than the 1, simply because there is more people.

You would not know that, how can you make this evaluation? and how is them being stupid the only factor? they could be bias, petty, bored etc etc, there could be 100 reasons why they would rather go against me , than with me, not all of them to do with how annoying I debate.

Ime not assuming everything, whats funny is I know a lot of these people from other forums and actually know their reasons and why they could be against me which unfortunatley cannot be shown or evaluated here.

The thing is, you mentioning Jaxx as the less bias one towards me shows how little you really know, and ill actually go further towards their line of thinking in this instance and simply claim "your wrong" without further argument or reason.

Yes, you are assuming everything, unless someone from the past actually told you that they have a grudge against you and will always cause conflict by not agreeing with you no matter what the circumstances, then yes, you are assuming. Please, dont flatter yourself, even if you did annoy someone in the past, it doesnt automatically mean that they'll stop using logic in debates and go against you for no real reason.

Please, dont tell me how little i know, you cant understand a simple thing gk has explained. Go right on ahead and say your right, i couldnt care less if you want to make yourself look even more idiotic.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
I believe you have caught on to the wrong end of the stick.

I changed the number because it was ridiculous compared to the topic. I do not truely care about Occam's Razor.

I know all about it. I think it's crap in my opinion. Thus i didn't add on to it in my post other than the bare minimum.

You asked where the number came from, I explained.

Also, what's with everyone talking about how awesomely intelligent they are?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Oh so your a person of above average intlligence are you? well being a person of above above average intelligence I accept fact and reject falsehood of a higher level than yours....please stop with the senseless words and statements. I was stating a fact, whether you believe me or not is neither here nor there, nor do I care.

No, you have to make hundreds of assumptions to make it work, you have to assume things about the people, e.g. making them all equel, which is reality, they are not.

no I reject baseless logic or the lack of logic.

I've heard the "I don't care about writing properly on the internet" argument before, and it is quite simply a load. Intelligent people use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation simply because that's how it's meant to be done.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "higher level" of fact and falsehood. Things are either fact, or they are not. There are no shades of grey in a subject's absolute state.

You are not comprehending the very base of the principle. Occam's Razor contains no assumptions. It is the concept and guideline that the theory with the least assumptions is most likely true. The theories themselves use a baseline of average persons without ulterior motives. That is the basis established through sociology. So if you want to say that decades of professional scientific research are incorrect, be my guest, but if you do so no one can be faulted for calling you a moron.

You do not reject lack of logic. You simmer in it. With chopped carrots and celery.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Your doing it now, attacking me instead of my argument, with your "not only are you not logically competent but cannot read your own sources", your trying to use negatives of me to prove I am wrong...it does not work...

Your committing one fallacy while not actually arguing, just stating egotistical nonsense.

Admit you were wrong about your usage of an ad hominem fallacy.

Also, you are incorrect, I outright provided the definition from your own site and explained why you were using the term wrong, that is not an ad hominem, that was a statement after I proved my case.

Stop committing the fallacy fallacy please. Look it up in your little site to find out what that is.

Also, Bardock, I am far above average intelligence, that is why I can talk about how awesomely intelligent I am. 131