I was going to give you an opportunity to practice, but I suspected you wouldn't get it. I guess I was right.

I already gave you an opportunity and you failed, twice. You guess you were right? Then I suppose (assuming you have logic) that you guess I am wrong. Guess what, that's exactly what you are advocating against.

I'm sorry I have to post in such a rude manner towards you, but you must feel the dishonor to understand it.

It was more of a test, I have an affinity for irony.

I know it's bad discussion to say things like, "I'm right you're wrong"; however, I normally don't post things like that unless someone provokes me, I consider myself obliged to defend myself if they start it.

First of all, let's not chop up quotes, because I gave devilesk's entire post, you just gave the first 5 words of one. Despite your claim you chopped up quotes and I didn't... anyways...


You said that "he (devilesk) blatantly posted that he was referring to Centreri" just a few minutes ago. Now you act you aren't wrong at all after you've been blatantly proved wrong, and act as if it was obvious he wasn't referring to the arguements but the post... no further explanation needed.


Even though I already proved you wrong for chopping up quotes when I didn't (I never do unless it doesn't affect the statement made), I'll also say that when someone says something doesn't make it anymore valid than another time (if no new information has been supplied during that period).

You need to pay as much attention to the implicit ramifications of the argument as the explicit. Reacting for the sake of it, gets you nowhere.

You are chopping up posts as in you are arranging them in an order that suggests something different from the whole story, so I did the same (except validly).
I'm not wrong at all, and I haven't been proven wrong. He actually blatantly posted that he was referring to Centreri. I've given you the bare statement. Also, it was obvious he wasn't referring to the arguments, but to the post, because he literally stated that also.

I'll post the whole quote, and I'll give you the whole explanation.
I didn't post his whole quote not because it disproves my evidence, but because it emphasizes how chopping quotes can blur the situation to your favor. My statement was that Devilesk's post was directed towards Centreri. It was directed towards Centreri. You said it wasn't and proceeded to post something that wasn't about who he directed his post to. I was still right even if he was referring to Redhead because that is unrelated to my statement. He was still referring to Centreri.

By the way: You still need to answer everything else I've said that you've provided no evidence against.

It gets me my own personal sense of dignity. Even if I posted in a completely neutral tone, these guys still wouldn't have acknowledged anything, so it really gets me nowhere if I don't react for the sake of it.

So you choose to talk much, say little, and blame "these guys" for your poor choice of words?

Getting them to acknowledge something is not the point, if you think before you react you might learn something, be it about their position, or your own.

Speech is silver. Silence is golden.

He never stated it? But he blatantly posted it? You can't even go a whole sentence without contradicting yourself anymore, then it continues.

Then I show you the quote that says:



All you do is contradict yourself. All of a sudden this thing and that thing was obvious, even when you had just made posts that clearly display nothing was obvious to you. Here are the quotes where devilesk says his post isn't useless (you added on later with evidence immediately following, I don't know if I can give that) And don't give me any bullshit like this isn't him saying his post isn't useless, it is easy to "assume" (infer) that it is.



Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 25 2007, 6:29 pm by Dapperdan.

Note: Yeah, Multi-quote is still broken (Which is TeH sUx), so my replies are in colors.




Oh yeah, so killing them is better than atleast giving them a chance to live.




Stop whining about my problems? I'm not whining about my problems man, I'm presenting my opinion to you. Based on personal experience might I add.


While as you, are the one retorting in a childish and immature mannor (Mind you, I did at first, but I now look at that and wonder wtf I was smoking)

I have an idea... Lets add fifty !'s to the end of a word, to express how angry I am at you.



That really works?


Honestly, I still have no empathy for you, because you're selfish (I guess you learned it from your mother) and you aren't even taking the situation I presented to you into consideration, and you still think your side of the argument is right, based off of personal opinion.

More or less, it is.. But because you still blatantly ignore my opinion of your own personal experience, all of your arguments are invalid and hold no worth.



All you have to back up your side of the argument is il-logical self-opinions based on personal experience.



All I have to back up my side of the argument, is logical self-opinions based on personal experience.



Now before any of you say that I'm being conceded (however you spell that word), just go back and read my hastily thrown together (and might I add, pretty pathetic, but usefull) retort against RedHead, you will see the logic I back up.




I would rather abort an unborn child and make it so I can have more money to support the child I already have (so they can grow up strong, intelligent, and beautiful) instead of not aborting the child, getting another child so I now have TWO, VERY YOUNG CHILDREN (one is a year old, and now a new-born) to take care off, doubling the amount of money that I have to put forth to support them.

Meaning, I have to buy DOUBLE the amount of milk (When milk is at around $2.50-$3 a gallon) every week or two

DOUBLE the amount of Children's formula (About $15 a large "coffee" can size) I have to purchase.

DOUBLE the amount of diapers I have to buy

DOUBLE the amount of groceries that I have to buy (When I would spend $100ish weekly. Guess what? There is $200 in groceries)


When I have a job that barely gets me the rent, and money to support ONE child.

Hmm... Rent for my girlfriends one-bedroom apartment which is about $600 a month... Groceries every week to two weeks at about $150-200... She gets paid Weekly at $9 an hour, gets about $270-300 after taxes.. That leaves her with about.....


$50-250.




THAT is NOT ENOUGH to live off of. ANYWHERE.




And that is with TWO KIDS.



And I really don't want my girlfriend to be on Welfare (because that's stealing my taxes, and there are already a bunch of people [including WORTHLESS FUCKERS WHO ARE STEALING WELFARE] on welfare already) because of selfish assholes like you.



Now if you still cannot see my point and how abortion can be USEFULL, just leave the topic and never come back because you're too arrogent, stubborn and selfish to debate any longer in here.


And I will add that I have NEVER said I am against abortion.


I'm for the choice of the individual to who it pertains to.



If they want to be selfish whores and kill their "child" (depending on when you guys believe sentient life begins) because of their feelings, then that's their problem, not mine (i'm not refering to RedHead's mother in any way)

If there are women out there who really NEED to use abortion to survive, then I'm FOR it.



I don't need to explain myself to RedHead anymore.



And this last quote from you, destroys all other quotes you have said in this debate, and truely shows how stupid you really are.

If you feel "obliged" to defend yourself, do it with LOGIC and PROOF.


Not with OPINIONS and IL-LOGIC.


Where is your proof of any claims you have spouted out?


Exactly, there are none.



Devilesk NEVER referred to ANY of Centreri's arguments.


He simply stated that Centreri should not fall for the Logical Fallacey of Appealing to Emotions.


Which is the only argument RedHead has; thus, making all arguments retorted by him, null and void.


Ad Hominem Abusive (which is what you have done against Devilesk) is the logical fallacy you have dominantly shown throughout your posts, so every argument by you is null and void.


And I just fallacied myself. But only to show you how rediculously stupid you really are.



Now I'm going back to being my conceded, jaded, assholy self

Mulitquote isn't broken, you just don't know how to use it, it was never broken.


The code you used at the top is wrong, and the way the code works now if you fuck it up in one spot everything after that is broken too. The start of your post has 2 open quotes with an =person but only one close quote. Hope that makes sense to you.

You have a complete misunderstanding here. You said he was directing his post to redhead, he never stated that and instead blatantly posted that he was referring to Centreri. Read more carefully.
You aren't even making any sense anymore, which is what happens when you try to gather scraps of things to weakly attack my argument.
He said he was referring to Centreri's post.
That was obvious
He said he wasn't referring to his argument.
That was obvious
What "contradiction" are you even attempting to draw from this?
Listen up, I said he never showed why his post wasn't useless, as in he never gave evidence.
You really do need to read my posts more carefully.

By the way Dapperdan, you still don't have an answer for everything else I've said that you've completely avoided. I'm not going to let up on that until you either respond or give me a reason why you didn't.
Guess what, all of my claims either have proof or strong evidence that no one has been able to refute.
Guess what, we are long past that. your whole statement is completely null.
This is just a melting pile of non-logic.
1. Centreri wasn't falling for appeal of emotions
2. That would mean devilesk was talking about his argument, in that he didn't want the argument to be affected
3. Centreri acknowledged and stated that Redhead did not make a plausible argument, which means devilesk's post was null and void.
Everything you said contradicts each other and they don't even have quotes to refer to what you are saying.
Also you have no idea what you are talking about, because even though devilesk's tone of his post provoked the argument, it certainly didn't build it. I never said, "your argument is wrong because you are rude". I never even alluded to anything close to that. Instead, it just gave me motivation to post evidence as to why his post was useless. Don't go throwing around logical fallacy labels if you don't even understand the full scope of things. Also, this is just a wayward hint, but if you are going to call me "rediculously stupid", the least you can do is spell "ridiculously" correctly.
I've been humble up until now, but since you keep contradicting yourself consistently I have reason to believe that you don't even know how to follow what you say. Why are my choice of words poor? How about you explain that to me instead of forcing it upon me? You don't know much about thinking before reacting, as shown in your other posts, so you can't even say that to me. You aren't teaching me anything that I already don't know, but it doesn't matter anyways because my arguments are still right, and the other arguers have already broken and stomped upon any rules of etiquette available. Silence is golden, so why don't you practice it?

Post has been edited 12 time(s), last time on Sep 26 2007, 2:48 am by PwnPirate.

In chronological order:


I then supply quotes from way previous (they clearly allude to what you're asking for, they are clearly reasonable resistance)
Then you say this:

This last post is just a totally made up claim and attempt to rearrange your words from what they actually were in order to make you right. You couldn't be more clearly wrong. I think all I can really do at this point is try my best to point out how you change your words over and over to fit the arguement you need to defend at the time. It inevitably leaves to things like the above. Like, you being proven wrong and then making something up to cover your bases.

When I have endless amounts of free time to rebuttle to all your other easily dismissed points when I have the time. As of recently, I'm very busy. I'll try to point out the big key of this conversation on why you are wrong: devilesk's initial post was not useless, but was in fact related to the emotional dealings coming up in the current on topic discussion. PwnPirate's main arguements are that devilesk's post was useless although he can supply no substansive evidence other than what he considers the constitutes of a good post.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the unconvinced (as anti would say). Ultimately, I just believe devilesk's posts were the far lesser of the two evils. His posts were mostly defending himself, yours were attacking him (once it really got into it). You were the one proceeding the arguement on most occasions (possibly every, I'd need to look back and confirm), you were the one arguing for the sake of arguing apparently even more than he was, you even admitted to it. I'll give my epic quote/reply post some other time.

Those quotes would be useful if I hadn't already responded to them and shown why they weren't strong evidence. I was talking in the present tense, not some random moment from a certain post in the past.
They weren't coming up, because I've already posted more than once how Centreri knew that Redhead's argument wasn't valid.
Although I posted a long time ago that personal opinions have nothing to do with an argument. That is fact, it's 2 + 2 = 4. It's an accepted postulate of arguments, the burden of proof is on you. Eg. If you are going to tell me 2 + 2 = 4 is just my opinion, you better tell me why or you're obviously wrong.
You're right, I was attacking his posts, but where is he to defend them? You certainly aren't defending my attacks against him, because you claim you're too "busy", so you really can't say anything as of yet.
I'm not pushing the argument, because guess what, you started it after devilesk stopped. Go ahead and look at your initiative post all you want until it dawns on you.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 26 2007, 3:40 am by PwnPirate.

I feel obliged to point out that a proof can only be made based upon assumptions of context, and it is impossible to be absolutely sure anything is correct. A theory that makes falsifiable predictions is generally more useful, because it provides a framework where you can test the assumptions, instead of simply defining them. This is the fundamental difference between math and science.Humble?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.I would have cut that rambling down to, "Why is my choice of words poor?".

Kellimus is the man.

It was rather illegible.

Note: They really need to fix the damn Muli-quote button.



I just don't know how to use it?

Clicking the fucking Multi-Quote button isn't using Multi-quote? Wow, you just proved your ignorance to me.


Oh, I also forgot that you could read minds. I want that power.







If you can't see that I'm being sarcastic on that last sentance then wow.



Who keeps contradicting themselves? You? Uh, yeah.

Honestly, just leave. You're highly ill-logical, arrogant, ignorant, and just plain stupid. You continously contradict yourself and flip-flop on your standings, and you claim to have facts, but still have not shown them.


The "melting pile of non-logic" in here, is your argument. It has no basis.

Quote

1. Centreri wasn't falling for appeal of emotions

O RLY? How about reading this:

Quote

Oh, and sorry about your mother suiciding. Can't imagine what I would do if that happened to me. But it still isn't a very relevant point...

Bang. Appeal to emotions right there. Therefore, your retort that he did not appeal to emotions is refuted; thus, you lose that point.

Quote

2. That would mean devilesk was talking about his argument, in that he didn't want the argument to be affected

If you really want to try to manipulate the situation into a mold like that, then I suppose you could get away with that ill-logic.... But intelligent people don't mold situations into things so they can win, they just show the ill-logic of the individual, which is what I'm doing to you.

Which by your "2.", you have failed, again. Devilesk did not discuss Centreri's argument, but simply commented to Centreri, that he shouldn't fall to the appeal of emotions.

If Devilesk was to truely discuss Centreri's arguments, like your highly ill-logical self claims, he would have discussed MORE than just a simple:

Quote

Don't fall for his appeals to emotions. Just don't bother replying to them.

Therefore your claims are refuted, and you lose again.

Quote

3. Centreri acknowledged and stated that Redhead did not make a plausible argument, which means devilesk's post was null and void.

If Devilesk's post pertained to Centreri's reply. Which it did not due to circumstances in which I have already shown you; therefore, you fail again.

Centreri did acknowledge that Redhead had no plausible argument, so how does that make anything Devilesk says null and void? If anything, that would make anything Centreri says, null and void (which is not the case, cause he has shown logic and reason)

So in all reality, you have just pwned yourself in many, many, many cases. I just went through and pointed them out, which is what I advise everyone else to do with you, cause you're too hard-headed to admit when you're wrong

I'm pretty sure that is past tense up there. There's a reason that everyone involved says you are wrong, it is becuase you are. Here's how it went (in this instance): you made claims, I gave you quotes proving your claims were wrong, you change your claims to some bullshit claim, I tell you that you are just changing your claims in attempt to not appear wrong, you said you were talking about the present in that instance, you were in fact using the past tense. You're wrong on every turn, and will still make something up in order to make it seem like you were never wrong in the first place. Give up already. This is all I have for now.


You haven't even stated any facts. Why don't you flat out tell us how devilesk's comment is not on topic, instead of calling it fact with 0 reasoning. And that whole analogy is wrong, by the way. Have you ever done basic geometry? Have you ever written a proof? It is the one making the claim that has to provide the proof, not the unconvinced, even in the most basic of math. It's more like, you better be able to prove it to me or nothing you say is valid.


There's other ways to do multiple quoting. But yes, I suppose the multi-quote button is broken. I just didn't realize that you were talking specifically about the multi-quote button because that's not what you said. Sorry that I'm so ignorant. Other than that, well said.