[QUOTE]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...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] ORLY MR. OWL? Wow, you're such a great arguer, you've found a post that I never even bothered to read! Wrong. [B]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![/B] Try actually [I]reading[/I] the entire argument before you even post anything. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] Oh hello, this isn't anything I've referred to (except I have). If he is simply commenting, that means his post [I]is[/I] 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. [QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] The circumstances you've shown me contradict each other; therefore, you fail. :) [QUOTE]I'm pretty sure that is past tense up there.[/QUOTE] 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. [QUOTE] Really? Where's anything to back up your claim? Where are the statements Devilesk made that say "my original post is not useless," followed by solid evidence? Where is anything that even alludes to that? I would say you are the one lying here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]There's a reason that everyone involved says you are wrong, it is becuase you are.[/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. [QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] Why can't you read? I've posted that [B]personal opinions have nothing to do with the argument[/B]. 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 [B]single[/B] 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 [I]you[/I] 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. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] 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 [I]another[/I] contradiction, and then later [B]another[/B]. 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]I would have cut that rambling down to, "Why is my choice of words poor?".[/QUOTE] And yet you don't answer the question. I would cut it down to "Silence is golden".

Quote

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...

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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

Quote

I'm pretty sure that is past tense up there.

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.

Quote

Really? Where's anything to back up your claim? Where are the statements Devilesk made that say "my original post is not useless," followed by solid evidence? Where is anything that even alludes to that? I would say you are the one lying here.

Quote

There's a reason that everyone involved says you are wrong, it is becuase you are.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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

I would have cut that rambling down to, "Why is my choice of words poor?".

And yet you don't answer the question. I would cut it down to "Silence is golden".

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. [quote=PwnPirate] And yet you don't answer the question. I would cut it down to "Silence is golden".[/quote] No, you did not cut it down at all, lets look back at what you actually said: [quote=PwnPirate] 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?[/quote] "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 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.

Quote from PwnPirate

And yet you don't answer the question. I would cut it down to "Silence is golden".

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

Quote from PwnPirate

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?

"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.

[QUOTE]There's a reason that everyone involved says you are wrong, it is becuase you are.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to make a statement that [I]because[/I] 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. [B]His post is not useless[/B], but in fact provides an additional view about the workings of the conversation.

Quote

There's a reason that everyone involved says you are wrong, it is becuase you are.

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.

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.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE] I was going to give you an opportunity to practice, but I suspected you wouldn't get it. I guess I was right.[/QUOTE] There you go. [QUOTE]So you choose to talk much, say little, and blame "these guys" for your poor choice of words?[/QUOTE] 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 [B]bad[/B] 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 [QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE] 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 [B]two[/B] 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. [QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] Which is useless because Centreri already acknowledged Redhead's argument was an appeal of emotions and that it didn't work.

Quote

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.

Quote

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

There you go.

Quote

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

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

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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.

Which is useless because Centreri already acknowledged Redhead's argument was an appeal of emotions and that it didn't work.

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?

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?

[QUOTE]Also, which 2 statements of mine contradict? And just exactly what assertions have I made, to your understanding?[/QUOTE] I mentioned them earlier. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] 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.

Quote

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

I mentioned them earlier.

Quote

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.

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.

[quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE]Also, which 2 statements of mine contradict? And just exactly what assertions have I made, to your understanding?[/QUOTE] I mentioned them earlier, I'm tired of repeating myself. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] 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.[/quote] I haven't quit yet.

Quote from PwnPirate

Quote

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

I mentioned them earlier, I'm tired of repeating myself.

Quote

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.

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.

[QUOTE]I haven't quit yet.[/QUOTE] 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.

Quote

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.

[quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE]I haven't quit yet.[/QUOTE] 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.[/quote] That's funny. You're asking to be beaten even more, but no I'm having fun reading other people own you.

Quote from PwnPirate

Quote

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.

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

Quote

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.

[quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE]That's funny. You're asking to be beaten even more, but no I'm having fun reading other people own you.[/QUOTE] 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.[/quote] 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.

Quote from PwnPirate

Quote

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.

[quote=PwnPirate]Antisleep is just talking about my ettiquette,[/quote] [quote=AntiSleep]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.[/quote]How is this about etiquette? Even my comments directed to you were more about pragmatism than etiquette.

Quote from PwnPirate

Antisleep is just talking about my ettiquette,

Quote from AntiSleep

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.

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

[COLOR=#EBEE80]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.[/COLOR] [quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE]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...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] ORLY MR. OWL? Wow, you're such a great arguer, you've found a post that I never even bothered to read! Wrong. [B]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![/B] Try actually [I]reading[/I] the entire argument before you even post anything. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] Oh hello, this isn't anything I've referred to (except I have). If he is simply commenting, that means his post [I]is[/I] 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. [QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] The circumstances you've shown me contradict each other; therefore, you fail. :) [QUOTE]I'm pretty sure that is past tense up there.[/QUOTE] 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. [QUOTE] Really? Where's anything to back up your claim? Where are the statements Devilesk made that say "my original post is not useless," followed by solid evidence? Where is anything that even alludes to that? I would say you are the one lying here.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]There's a reason that everyone involved says you are wrong, it is becuase you are.[/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. [QUOTE] 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.[/QUOTE] Why can't you read? I've posted that [B]personal opinions have nothing to do with the argument[/B]. 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 [B]single[/B] 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 [I]you[/I] 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. [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] 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 [I]another[/I] contradiction, and then later [B]another[/B]. 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]I would have cut that rambling down to, "Why is my choice of words poor?".[/QUOTE] And yet you don't answer the question. I would cut it down to "Silence is golden".[/quote] [quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE]That's funny. You're asking to be beaten even more, but no I'm having fun reading other people own you.[/QUOTE] 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.[/quote] [COLOR=#EBEE80]Alright "Mr. Logic": [quote][B]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![/B][/quote] 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![/quote] 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 [I]reading[/I] the entire argument before you even post anything.[/quote] 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 [I]is[/I] 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.[/quote] 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. :) [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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.[/QUOTE] 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 [I]another[/I] contradiction, and then later [B]another[/B]. 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.[/COLOR]

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.


[quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE]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...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]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.[/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.
[QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
The circumstances you've shown me contradict each other; therefore, you fail.
[QUOTE]I'm pretty sure that is past tense up there.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]
Really? Where's anything to back up your claim? Where are the statements Devilesk made that say "my original post is not useless," followed by solid evidence? Where is anything that even alludes to that? I would say you are the one lying here.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]There's a reason that everyone involved says you are wrong, it is becuase you are.[/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.
[QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
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]I would have cut that rambling down to, "Why is my choice of words poor?".[/QUOTE]
And yet you don't answer the question. I would cut it down to "Silence is golden".[/quote]

[quote=PwnPirate][QUOTE]That's funny. You're asking to be beaten even more, but no I'm having fun reading other people own you.[/QUOTE]
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.[/quote]

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![/quote]

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![/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/QUOTE]
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.

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.

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.

[quote=Armony]Born in Germany, raised in the US, really wish I had been able to stay in Germany. I hate this country.[/quote] [B]The country hates you.[/B]