ORLY MR. OWL?
Wow, you're such a great arguer, you've found a post that I never even bothered to read! Wrong.
Centreri isn't falling for emotional appeal because he states in that same sentence that Redhead's emotional situation isn't relevant! He is merely offering his own personal condolences which doesn't affect his stance at all!
Try actually reading the entire argument before you even post anything.
Oh hello, this isn't anything I've referred to (except I have). If he is simply commenting, that means his post is useless, if he isn't merely commenting, the only other option is that he is trying to post about Centreri's argument. You've dug your own loophole of ill-logic.
The circumstances you've shown me contradict each other; therefore, you fail.
Hello? I was referring to my post which you were referring to which WAS in present tense. This is a perfect example of how you are making no sense.
That's some quality reasoning right there. Everyone in the Klu Klux Klan hates Africans because Africans are wrong, right? Here you are making the same mistake over again by attempting to bring the number of people in play to try to validate your argument.
Why can't you read? I've posted that personal opinions have nothing to do with the argument. That is the most basic of statements. How can't you even connect that personal opinions don't further an argument? Hello? If you are so against this statement, I'm sure you can explain to me why it's wrong in a simple single sentence, so why don't you? If you have the answers, why do you waste your time referring to burden of proof and simply stomp my argument to the ground with an explanation of how personal opinions further an argument? Because you're wrong, all you can do is try to attack my method of arguing without having anything against the argument itself. The truth isn't that you don't have enough time to post everything, it's just that you have nothing to post. Why don't you just give up?
But since you ask for it so much, I'll go ahead and tell you. Personal opinions aren't related to the argument because you cannot use personal opinion alone to validate your statements. Which, ironically, is exactly what Centreri was telling Redhead in his original post.
Humble to you? Yes I have. Because for a while there I passively accepted your farce of an idea that you were contradicting yourself on "purpose". Which is obviously not true as shown by evidence when you rushed to delete "idiot" from your previous post. You tried to fabricate an argument that you were giving me a "chance to practice", and in your rush to create a reason out of thin air (for the sake of your dignity, which is another contradiction because you aren't accepting that your idea is false, even when a contradiction was forced) you made the mistake to make another contradiction, and then later another. You don't actually drive any point with irony, that doesn't even make sense in a logical argument (irony is just used to make literature more interesting, and it doesn't help you validate anything in the least). You weren't contradicting yourself for the point of proving anything. You were contradicting yourself because you were caught up in your very own emotion, and therefore you can't say anything to me.
And yet you don't answer the question. I would cut it down to "Silence is golden".

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 26 2007, 11:23 pm by PwnPirate.

I asked you to show me contradicting myself, which means show two or more(More because you said I did it consistently) statements I have made which cannot both be true. If you read my statements, I never said you are not an idiot, I just said that stating facts without context and making reactionary comments is not an effective way to change someone's mind. I do not think my intention was to convince you that you are an idiot, so I think you have proven my point.


No, you did not cut it down at all, lets look back at what you actually said:


"How is my choice of words poor?"

This was my answer to this question, what does your paragraph say that my sentence does not?

I try to speak only as much as is useful.

I'm not trying to make a statement that because everyone involved says you're wrong, it means you are. I was saying everyone believes you are wrong because they are in fact correct and you are. The main point of this statement is to at least get you to realize it's possible that you're wrong.

I've started the rest of my epic post in a word document... so I'll refute all your other shit (that you won't even listen to) later. But first, I'll get to the point.

devilesk said: Don't fall for his appeal to emotions. Just don't reply to them.

He was in fact saying this: that by even making a statement to redhead that was emotional he is falling for redhead's appeal (not a reference to his arguements, but to the part where he as you say, "offered his condolences". Or more so, he's telling him not to truly fall for his appeal to emotions at any point after that. He's telling him not to reply to the appeals to emotions. You could infer that he is basically saying RedHead is using a logical fallacy by trying to appeal to his emotions, and devilesk is telling centreri (and in turn others) not to fall for it. He is making a contribution to the arguement. His post is not useless, but in fact provides an additional view about the workings of the conversation.

Pointing out an appeal to emotion or authority in an abortion debate is like pointing out a puddle in a hurricane, simply because the common stances have no other support. The forgotten first step is to figure out what 'deserves' to live and why, without appealing to authorities(anything that enjoys immunity from potential falsification, like religion or a political doctrine). I do not have a complete solution to this first step, but I do acknowledge it is absolutely necessary.

There you go.
There you go.
Claiming you are right, and forcing upon me that my choice of words are poor.
I don't care to change anyone's mind, just to personally know whether I am right and they are wrong, because I consider it relatively impossible in this state to change anyone's mind. The only reasons I have for continuing this argument now are to defend myself and find out if they have anything valid to say. Your choice of words are poor because they are ambiguous and can be read in any way, which is terrible in an argument. I made a paragraph to specify exactly what I was saying to prevent misinterpretations beforehand. Keeping it short and concise is a bad thing if you aren't clarifying as many details as you can during the moment of posting. There is a difference between literature and discussion.
Your advice doesn't suit me, I wont take it. End of discussion

Of course it's possible I'm wrong, but your evidence certainly isn't showing that I am, it's showing that you are. By the way, a total of two people are arguing that my post was useless. Antisleep is just talking about my ettiquette, Devilesk isn't even here anymore, and Kellimus is still trying to catch up to the modern state of the argument (but I'll add him to the count to give you benefit of the doubt). You try to make it sound like an army of rocket scientists are trying to refute what I am saying.
Which is useless because Centreri already acknowledged Redhead's argument was an appeal of emotions and that it didn't work.

Post has been edited 6 time(s), last time on Sep 27 2007, 12:36 am by PwnPirate.

And you call me ambiguous, the last actual topic under discussion in this thread was abortion, who was right or wrong about who's fallacy is completely irrelevant. An argument should be like a miniskirt, long enough to cover the essentials, short enough to be interesting.

Also, which 2 statements of mine contradict?
And just exactly what assertions have I made, to your understanding?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 27 2007, 12:59 am by AntiSleep.

I mentioned them earlier.
That's if you want it to be interesting. I don't care if my argument is interesting, I'm not working on a persuasive essay here. This argument could have been much shorter, if Dapperdan just quit when Devilesk did. Anyways, I don't feel we are disturbing anyone, because there isn't any actual topic argument going on while we are arguing.

I haven't quit yet.

If you haven't quit, then post actively. Otherwise you just seem like you're trying to wait for me to make a minor mechanical error and then base your entire argument on that.

That's funny. You're asking to be beaten even more, but no I'm having fun reading other people own you.

Nice useless post. Too bad Kellimus isn't even close to saying anything valid, and Dapperdan is just desperately scratching for a bit of gristle to throw at me, no one is owning me at all. Your false confidence isn't convincing anyone.
Go ahead and refute me if you can, otherwise you've lost. Not like you can though, which is why your next post is also going to be useless commentary.

No, I actually won a while ago. You're just too stubborn to realize your defeat, which is why it is pointless to keep going on when my victory has already been clearly established.

How is this about etiquette? Even my comments directed to you were more about pragmatism than etiquette.

Edit: The Multi-quote button is still fuxored (Which is what I use), and even my own typed quote tags don't work... So my retort is in yellow.




Alright "Mr. Logic":

Quote

Centreri isn't falling for emotional appeal because he states in that same sentence that Redhead's emotional situation isn't relevant! He is merely offering his own personal condolences which doesn't affect his stance at all!

So that means that because I express sorrow towards your situation (Which is Appeal to emotion) then I say its irrelevant, I'm not appealing to emotion? Wow.

Quote

He is merely offering his own personal condolences which doesn't affect his stance at all!

Which in turn would be Appeal of emotion (even if he did not change his stance). If you're going to argue about semantics, then you really are trying to reach for anything to argue about.

Quote

Try actually reading the entire argument before you even post anything.

Hmm.. For being so "logical", you sure seem to provide tons of Logical Fallacies for us intelligent people to poke at and show how inane you truely are. Devilesk is right. He pwned you (Along with myself, Dapperdan, AntiSleep, ect..) a long time ago.

Quote

Oh hello, this isn't anything I've referred to (except I have). If he is simply commenting, that means his post is useless, if he isn't merely commenting, the only other option is that he is trying to post about Centreri's argument. You've dug your own loophole of ill-logic.

I've dug my own loophole of ill-logic by simply providing the truth of the situation, which is that Devilesk simply input a comment: "Don't appeal to emotions"?? How is it "ill-logical" to point out how a specific comment provoked idiots like yourself (oops, Ad Hominem, my bad) into arguing about semantics?

I guess pointing out your ill-logic makes me ill-logical (Well, according to your logic that is)

Quote

The circumstances you've shown me contradict each other; therefore, you fail.

And until you have proven me otherwise, burdon of proof is on you. But until then, you fail again. If you want me to get technical, its because that last sentance is a spammy sentance, and contributes nothing to your retort or debate.

Quote

That's some quality reasoning right there. Everyone in the Klu Klux Klan hates Africans because Africans are wrong, right? Here you are making the same mistake over again by attempting to bring the number of people in play to try to validate your argument.

And how is it any different than your reasoning? What it seems like to me (judging by your posts) is that you cannot admit defeat when you have been proven wrong, and that you continue to argue about things, even when proven wrong.

So.... I guess that makes your reasoning the same as their reasoning. By your logic and reasoning that is.

Quote

You have never shown me to contradict myself, In fact the only contradiction was the fact that I chose to disregard my own advice so I could frame my point cynically. Please show me which assertions I have made are mutually exclusive.

Humble to you? Yes I have. Because for a while there I passively accepted your farce of an idea that you were contradicting yourself on "purpose". Which is obviously not true as shown by evidence when you rushed to delete "idiot" from your previous post. You tried to fabricate an argument that you were giving me a "chance to practice", and in your rush to create a reason out of thin air (for the sake of your dignity, which is another contradiction because you aren't accepting that your idea is false, even when a contradiction was forced) you made the mistake to make another contradiction, and then later another. You don't actually drive any point with irony, that doesn't even make sense in a logical argument (irony is just used to make literature more interesting, and it doesn't help you validate anything in the least). You weren't contradicting yourself for the point of proving anything. You were contradicting yourself because you were caught up in your very own emotion, and therefore you can't say anything to me.[/quote]

Hmmm....

Logic: 0
Fallacies: 5

Want me to point them out for you?

Wait, you're "logical". So I guess you can do it yourself

Alright, what contradictions? Seriously. All I hear you spout out is "contradiction this! contradiction that!"

If we fucking contradict ourselves so much, why don't you be so kind as to point out to us, where we do so?


Oh wait, that's right. Because YOU are projecting (Basic Psychology). More than likely projecting cause you have been beaten, and you're arguing just for the sake of arguing, and you are an ill-logical human being.

Uh oh! I just fallacied, better go appeal to emotions.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Sep 28 2007, 5:23 pm by Kellimus.

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Really, people, for heavens sake, stop. Make a forum for it: centreri.invisionfree.com or something.

The country hates you.

O rly? (Yes, I'm Mr. Owl, someone who will ultimately be cooler than you ever will be I'm talking about Mr. Owl not me)

I'm pretty sure THIS country is hated, GuN.


If it wasn't, why do I hear from all my Australian, Britian, Scottish, Irish, Spanish, German, Russian, ect... friends that America sucks?



Oh, I forgot. You think you know everything.



Continue

Love America, Hate the people in it.

I hate Athiest's who want to take God out of everything.
I hate Democrat's for not letting us fight a war.
I hate Liberals. [ Liberalism is a Mental Disorder ]
I hate people who say they hate america even though they live in it.
I hate Vegetariens opinions not them.
I hate Canada for saying that our bill of Right's is stupid.
I hate that Al Gore thinks there's Global Warming.
I hate hillary clinton who is trying to run for president and want's to spend billions of dollar's on our tax's for giving 5,000 dollar's to baby's or something like that.
I hate Illegal aliens
I hate people who think Illegal Aliens are not hurting our civilation.
I hate the UN
I hate the Police
-

I love Michael Savage
I love our Music Culture
I love Our Scenary.
I love our right to vote and entitled to our opinions
I love our history.
I love that our leader's left other people to make thier own country.
I love that we help other countries even though they hate us.

I'll think of more later I got a headache now hahaa!

Your views seem biased, and I'm sure you don't "hate" these things. You underestimate the power of the world "hate"

If you hate Atheists for wanting to take your imaginary friend "God" away, then you obviously don't understand this country. Atheists have the right, because the "god" attitude can be viewed as discrimination against Atheists.

The war in Iraq is a drain on the country's resources, and has created even more unneeded enemies. Our relations with Europe have taken a serious hit, along with other locations across the world.

Liberals are a giant help to this country, and have some great ideals IMO.

I have the right to hate America because I'm stuck here for a few more years, and then I can go away after college if I desire. Learn that teenagers are essentially stuck here with their parents until they are of age.

Vegetarian opinions are just that, opinions, they believe they are leading a healthier lifestyle. You have no right to hate their opinion because it is different than yours.

Canadians are allowed to call our Bill of Rights stupid, it is simply their opinion, although I haven't seen a Canadian say that.

Al Gore has every bloody right to believe in Global Warming. It's not like there is a fucking mound of evidence, man-made any natural for it. He is simply trying to save the planet, which Human urbanization has/is destroying.

Hillary Clinton could make a great president. It would also be nice to see what would happen if a female took the wheel.

Illegal aliens simply come here because we have a better lifestyle. I'm sure you'd want to be here if you were living in some slum with barley enough food and water to survive. In California, they take the farming jobs that we citizens don't want to do, thus they are helping the economy.

The UN has been beneficial to countries across the world, and has helped shorten and prevent numerous conflicts. They also do many things to help the 3rd world, such as the Trick or Treat for UNICEF program.

Without the police, I could walk into your house, steal your stuff, and walk out with no punishment or attempt to stop me. The police do their job to protect and enforce the law.

He has the right to, he just doesn't have the grounds. Although I agree with most of what you said. I just don't know why you even bothered with this guy, tbh.