Members in Shoutbox

Shoutbox Search
Search for:


Shoutbox Commands
/w [name] > Whisper
/r > Reply to last whisper
/me > Marks as action

Shoutbox Information
Moderators may delete any and all shouts at will.
Global Shoutbox
Please log in to shout.
Pages: 1 2 32825 >

[07:40 pm]
TiKels -- Where can I go for good advice for programming/robotics? Stack exchange?
[07:06 pm]
Vrael -- tikels pretty sure errythin u said just then is a fallacy
[07:01 pm]
TiKels -- Recursive fallacies...
[07:00 pm]
TiKels -- Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy: error of attempting to apply Fallacy Fallacy to assert that the other viewpoint is incorrect
[05:53 pm]
Vrael -- Vrael
Vrael shouted: jjf28 it's a fallacy fallacy in itself, but it's true: when you have to get this meta, you've already lost
CecilSunkure
CecilSunkure shouted: No such thing as "this meta". Meta by definition is not recursive. Meta is about one thing; a stack of length one.
see what I mean?
[05:37 pm]
CecilSunkure -- No such thing as "this meta". Meta by definition is not recursive. Meta is about one thing; a stack of length one.
[02:54 pm]
Vrael -- jjf28 it's a fallacy fallacy in itself, but it's true: when you have to get this meta, you've already lost
[01:28 pm]
Vrael -- jjf28
jjf28 shouted: sips cider
trollin so hard, also this is a beautiful shout: TF-
TF- shouted: shart
we should all thank TF
[01:19 pm]
NudeRaider -- ... and so it begins.
[01:15 pm]
*jjf28 sips cider*
[01:07 pm]
NudeRaider -- As a bonus we'd probably put Iceman in a white jacket and lock him away while he's (rightfully) screaming "But he IS trolling!!!" at the top of his lungs. Please have mercy, jj :surrender:
[01:04 pm]
NudeRaider -- NudeRaider
NudeRaider shouted: jj being accused of trolling? That's a new one :omfg:
actually, thinking about it that would be really clever. Nobody would think jj's even capable of it. Nobody would suspect a thing. Would be the troll of the century. :scared:
[01:02 pm]
jjf28 -- Looks like I did surrender it earlier: jjf28
jjf28 shouted: I'd agree that the bar is not so high that they have to explicitly relate the faulty argument to the opposite conclusion, but there has to at least by an implied relationship https://puu.sh/w0DRl/de4e1c9aaa.png
[01:01 pm]
NudeRaider -- jj being accused of trolling? That's a new one :omfg:
[12:47 pm]
jjf28 -- Iceman166
Iceman166 shouted: 'Rejected' and 'inferred' bit of a stretch to "Someone would have had to said a conclusion is wrong because the argument is faulty". You can argue all you want man, but you gotta stick to the point.
naw, I can change my mind if you've convinced me ;)
[12:46 pm]
jjf28 -- Iceman166
Iceman166 shouted: "Someone would have to have said a conclusion is wrong because the argument is faulty" Quoting you word for word here man. Gotta stop this trolling
Alright, my wording was bad, I'd have surrendered that point and amended my statement - why didn't we start there?
[12:34 pm]
Iceman166 -- Anyway, I'm done. My initial point was all about how insubstantial this fallacy circlejerk was and now I've come full circle
[12:30 pm]
Iceman166 -- 'Rejected' and 'inferred' bit of a stretch to "Someone would have had to said a conclusion is wrong because the argument is faulty". You can argue all you want man, but you gotta stick to the point.
[12:29 pm]
Iceman166 -- "Someone would have to have said a conclusion is wrong because the argument is faulty" Quoting you word for word here man. Gotta stop this trolling
[12:28 pm]
jjf28 -- (actually gone this time)
[12:27 pm]
jjf28 -- Iceman166
Iceman166 shouted: You have been doing nothing but making up words
what word in specific have I made up? I've screen-capped the exact form of the fallacy and argued that to commit the fallacy you must follow the form
[12:26 pm]
jjf28 -- you say you quoted exact words... but that quote is not present in the only source you linked, please link your source
[12:26 pm]
Iceman166 -- You gotta be a troll
[12:26 pm]
Iceman166 -- You have been doing nothing but making up words
[12:26 pm]
Iceman166 -- I'm quoting exact words, giving meanings, and actually using direct explanations.
[12:24 pm]
jjf28 -- ne ways time for work, I'll check a few more resources when I get back
[12:23 pm]
jjf28 -- there is not an implied relationship simply from brining up the fallacy, that is a very common misunderstanding which is why I often explicitly say I agree with the conclusion before attacking the form of argument/persuasion
[12:20 pm]
jjf28 -- Iceman166
Iceman166 shouted: Point to any authority where it says "Person X needs to explicitly say they disagree with that conclusion"
jjf28
jjf28 shouted: I'd agree that the bar is not so high that they have to explicitly relate the faulty argument to the opposite conclusion, but there has to at least by an implied relationship https://puu.sh/w0DRl/de4e1c9aaa.png
there has to be either an explicit implied relationship to follow the form of the fallacy on the very page you linked https://puu.sh/w0EI8/6b00eec451.png , no where did your source say anything akin to "People who call out "FALLACY!!" than do the proverbial mic drop with no desire to make any type of contribution, makes this rejection quite explicit." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html
[12:18 pm]
Iceman166 -- And so you don't skip on the point once again, the provision in doubt is 'rejected', 'inferred', or its other variants.
[12:16 pm]
Iceman166 -- So be my guest, provide some weight. These fallacy arguments are toxic and a substitution for lack of substance
[12:15 pm]
Iceman166 -- Oh and that includes every other website or resource I've checked, there is nothing about "saying X", it has all literally been subjective words like 'rejected' or inferred.
[12:14 pm]
Iceman166 -- Point to any authority where it says "Person X needs to explicitly say they disagree with that conclusion"
[12:12 pm]
Dem0n -- I am an eternal family man smh
[12:12 pm]
Iceman166 -- Once again, have you actually read the description of the fallacy on that page or any others? It literally says all that is required is to propose that an argument is fallacious, that is the fallacy in itself. You are making up things.
[12:09 pm]
Iceman166 -- Mist pasted my quote, disregard that.
[12:09 pm]
Iceman166 -- You can say what you want, but the fact of the matter is "People who call out "FALLACY!!" than do the proverbial mic drop with no desire to make any type of contribution, makes this rejection quite explicit." supports my argument and not yours
[11:58 am]
TF- -- shart
[11:58 am]
jjf28 -- I'd agree that the bar is not so high that they have to explicitly relate the faulty argument to the opposite conclusion, but there has to at least by an implied relationship https://puu.sh/w0DRl/de4e1c9aaa.png
[11:55 am]
jjf28 -- Iceman166
Iceman166 shouted: jjf28 Not at all. The word 'rejected' is used not 'someone would have to have said a conclusion is wrong'. The threshold to satisfy is much much lower. Now you are making up things.
Iceman166
Iceman166 shouted: jjf28 And yes, it does apply to what you mentioned. That’s literally the whole point of it.
no, the point of it is you can't use the fact that an argument is faulty to arrive at the opposite conclusion - that is the whole point of the fallacy fallacy
[11:54 am]
Mini Moose 2707 -- Iceman166
Iceman166 shouted: jjf28 People who call out "FALLACY!!" than do the proverbial mic drop with no desire to make any type of contribution, makes this rejection quite explicit.
You ignored the "have provided a case of their own" in jjf's quote.
[11:45 am]
Iceman166 -- jjf28
jjf28 shouted: Iceman166 Iceman166 Iceman166 ihjel Broflamingo no one pointed out anyone actually committing this fallacy, smh; it doesn't really apply to recent conversations as someone would have to have said a conclusion is wrong because the argument is faulty, it doesn't apply to people who point out that a conclusion has not been adequately supported, nor to people who call a conclusion wrong, cite fallacies in an opposing argument, and have provided a case of their own, nor to people who call fallacies as they see 'em ;)
People who call out "FALLACY!!" than do the proverbial mic drop with no desire to make any type of contribution, makes this rejection quite explicit.
[11:45 am]
Iceman166 -- jjf28
jjf28 shouted: Iceman166 Iceman166 Iceman166 ihjel Broflamingo no one pointed out anyone actually committing this fallacy, smh; it doesn't really apply to recent conversations as someone would have to have said a conclusion is wrong because the argument is faulty, it doesn't apply to people who point out that a conclusion has not been adequately supported, nor to people who call a conclusion wrong, cite fallacies in an opposing argument, and have provided a case of their own, nor to people who call fallacies as they see 'em ;)
And yes, it does apply to what you mentioned. That’s literally the whole point of it.
[11:44 am]
Iceman166 -- jjf28
jjf28 shouted: Iceman166 Iceman166 Iceman166 ihjel Broflamingo no one pointed out anyone actually committing this fallacy, smh; it doesn't really apply to recent conversations as someone would have to have said a conclusion is wrong because the argument is faulty, it doesn't apply to people who point out that a conclusion has not been adequately supported, nor to people who call a conclusion wrong, cite fallacies in an opposing argument, and have provided a case of their own, nor to people who call fallacies as they see 'em ;)
Not at all. The word 'rejected' is used not 'someone would have to have said a conclusion is wrong'. The threshold to satisfy is much much lower. Now you are making up things.
[11:13 am]
Suicidal Insanity -- Use LOX + a good donator material :P
[09:33 am]
rockz -- I use bleach to clean plastic bottles. I use ammonia to clean beer bottles. Usually rinse thoroughly after both though.
[06:46 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- TiKels
TiKels shouted: The pot was bleached because it removes awful stains from when I burn food
that seems excessive
[04:20 am]
lil-Inferno -- u right
[03:09 am]
Vrael -- if you put enough bleach in 1 glass of water and drink it nothing else will taste
[02:59 am]
jjf28 -- read that a few weeks ago when my water started tasting crappy, sounded pretty sketchy so I opted for boiling
[02:58 am]
TiKels -- Who knew?
[02:58 am]
TiKels -- For drinking
[02:58 am]
TiKels -- Like teaspoon to many gallons will purify water
[02:58 am]
TiKels -- Also, I learned you can consume bleach
[02:57 am]
TiKels -- The pot was bleached because it removes awful stains from when I burn food
[02:57 am]
TiKels -- jjf28
jjf28 shouted: my chem mem is you scrub under running water to get rid of caustics, or use a less-caustic material with the opposite PH to clean off the more caustic material
lol. Immediate red flag
[02:51 am]
jjf28 -- but at that point you're getting a mongoose to clean up the snakes that cleaned up the mice
[02:50 am]
jjf28 -- tomato sauce would be more practical
[02:47 am]
jjf28 -- maybe if you keep it cold enough and scrub it with a banana you could get salt :P
[02:43 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- see, silly
[02:39 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- chlorine isn't harmful, it's silly gas!
[02:38 am]
jjf28 -- bleach+vinegar = potentially harmful gases
[02:37 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- also, why are you bleaching things?
[02:37 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- always use bleach, and always mix it with things
[02:22 am]
jjf28 -- oh wait, don't use vinegar :P
[02:20 am]
jjf28 -- looks like vinegar would neutralize bleach
[02:18 am]
O)FaRTy1billion[MM] -- should I go blast like chainsaw gutsfuk outside in protest?

Pages: 1 2 32825 >


Members Online: BeatMeistro, Roy, Suicidal Insanity, TEC_Ghost, TiKels