DAMN BL Warzone really needs to be amended

[Fridge!]

Let me translate what Fridge is saying:

Yes, and those peopwe awe being iwwationaw in doing so, fow thewe is sufficient evidence to pwove that the wowwd is not fwat, and yet they continue to bewieve that hte wowwd is fwat despite theiw inabiwity to discwedit such evidence. It doesn't mattew if you don't bewieve something is wogicaw, it means nothing unwess you can dispway othewwise. Youw pewception does not change extewnaw states, by bewieving that something is not wogicaw, that does not wendew it iwwogicaw. You can bewieve the wowwd is fwat, but the wowwd wiww stiww go on being wound. It doens't mattew what you think wogic is, that does not change what wogic and what it means fow somehting to be wogicaw actuawwy is. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit!

Once again, not intelligent enough to counter argue so you resort to the tactic of trying to discredit what I type by these little games that don't require you to think.

[[a] kitkat]

Why dont you go create 127 Damn accounts so that you can win the poll in the next room.

http://www.damnr6.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=5582.msg75987#msg75987

[Fridge!]

Haha,

Now apply all that logic to a game based on belief and not actual metaphysical life. That is what you are arguing.

Now Aristotle said it best, a chair is not a chair unless you consider it a chair.  A more simpler man would just say your sitting on shaped fucking wood. You go on believing in your chair nonsense.

see how it works...

Umm, "actual metaphysical life"??  Metaphysical refers to the abstract.  

Also your latter point is also irrelevant.  I could write a long winded explanation that displays why it doesn't apply, or else I can just give you an example...

It doesn't matter if you believe that I am on fire, no matter how hard you believe it or think it, I'm still not burning.  Why?.. becuase your perception and your beliefs do not change external states.  They do not change actual conditions.

[Fridge!]

Why dont you go create 127 Damn accounts so that you can win the poll in the next room.

http://www.damnr6.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=5582.msg75987#msg75987

Again, an Ad hominem argument that is irrelevant to the discussion.

[[a] kitkat]

Why dont you go create 127 Damn accounts so that you can win the poll in the next room.

http://www.damnr6.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=5582.msg75987#msg75987

Again, an Ad hominem argument that is irrelevant to the discussion.

Actually its an Ad Hominem abusive....  Not an Ad Hominem argument.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

...and cookie warned me about talkin immigration.   

[:V: Stripes]

Isnt it time for an admin to lock it?

Please, this is redicilous - i thought i'm wasting time being on my MAC.. but this is lol

[Fridge!]

Actually its an Ad Hominem abusive....  Not an Ad Hominem argument.

An Ad Hominem abusive is still an Ad Hominem argument, it is just a further classification of an Ad Hominem argument, and it is still a logical fallacy of relevance.

[(SiX)Sheixhundt]

Not only did Fridge take the Bait, he ate the fishing pole.

[Fridge!]

Not only did Fridge take the Bait, he ate the fishing pole.

Oh, did I now, and what bait was that?

[Subucni]

Fridge

Please forgive the unpardonably obstreperous nature of the rispostes to your logical argumentation. I urge you vehemently to comprehend that these persons are of a refractory disposition and have only made the acquaintance of one other member of your race.
So perturbed were they by his superior deductive prowess that in a state of abject discombobulation they consigned him to the role of First Officer on the starship Enterprise.
Thus, eschewing further association with these dissenters, I would be profoundly honoured to be the first to welcome you to our planet.

Subucni

[Fridge!]

Fridge

Please forgive the unpardonably obstreperous nature of the rispostes to your logical argumentation. I urge you vehemently to comprehend that these persons are of a refractory disposition and have only made the aquaintance of one other member of your race.
So perturbed were they by his superior deductive prowess that in a state of abject discombobulation they consigned him to the role of First Officer on the starship Enterprise.
Thus, eschewing further association with these dissenters, I would be profoundly honoured to be the first to welcome you to our planet.

Subucni

Yes, congratulations on your geeky satire; however, it's targeted at my disposition and not the actual topic nor anything relevant to the topic, so again, who cares, wasted post.

[Subucni]

The point I was making in my "geeky satire" was that your propensity for verbose and ponderous discourse seems more akin to vanity than the quest for logic that you meticulously defend.

For example, a purely logical person would appreciate that to reply to a post by claiming it was not relevant and therefore 'wasted', would necessarily fall foul of the same logic, rendering his reply equally 'wasted'.
 
This would not occur to a vane person. They would simply reply.

[Fridge!]

The point I was making in my "geeky satire" was that your propensity for verbose and ponderous discourse seems more akin to vanity than the quest for logic that you meticulously defend.

For example, a purely logical person would appreciate that to reply to a post by claiming it was not relevant and therefore 'wasted', would necessarily fall foul of the same logic, rendering his reply equally 'wasted'.
 
This would not occur to a vane person. They would simply reply.

I got the point, and it still does nothing to contribute to the topic.  The reason I do not address posts that fail to do such, is because they detract from the focus of the conversation.  They are the reason that discussions veer off topic.

Additionally, no, my reply that one's post is wasted as it is irrelevant to the topic is not, by the same logic, a wasted post.  It serves the purpose of compelling the individual who makes the post to either develop theirs to show that it is relevant (as it did successfully with you and onwig), or else it conveys that I have no interest in discussing matters that are off topic and irrelevant.  It helps prevent people from making such posts in the future.

See how this is getting off topic now?  Now all that has to happen is one other individual comes along and, as there is now actual discussion over this (off topic) issue since I have replied in a thought-out manner, if they decide to post a reply giving their thoughts on this sub-discussion, Shabam!  We have a thread that is no longer discussing anything that it set out to compel consideration over.

[onwig]

you wasnt succesful at all, I had to develop my posts because you just didnt get it. I just wanted to see if you could answer a post simply.. and you've still proven you can't do that, you repeat the same sentences over and over.

[*DAMN Hazard]

Either post on topic or don't post at all. Any further spam will force me to lock this thread. Please stay on topic.

Hazard

[BTs_FahQ2]

It doesn't matter if you believe that I am on fire, no matter how hard you believe it or think it, I'm still not burning.  Why?.. becuase your perception and your beliefs do not change external states.  They do not change actual conditions.

This is where you still don't get it.  I never do have to believe that you are on fire and no you are not burning, you are basically in a state a metamorphasis, changing to glorious gases and carbon. So yes, perception and belief can have an effect on an external state, because i can think the result of it vastly different from yours. We can agree something is happening, but what. Life is just based on agreements of certain things so that we can understand and move through life easier. The people who see it differently or don't accept our terms are the ones we consider insane and odd.

[*DAMN Hazard]

I think a philosophy thread would be more appropriate huh? Right now you guys are running verbal circles around the real issue. Discuss the topic at hand or I'm locking this bad boy. Last warning.

Haz

[Fridge!]

It doesn't matter if you believe that I am on fire, no matter how hard you believe it or think it, I'm still not burning.  Why?.. becuase your perception and your beliefs do not change external states.  They do not change actual conditions.

This is where you still don't get it.  I never do have to believe that you are on fire and no you are not burning, you are basically in a state a metamorphasis, changing to glorious gases and carbon. So yes, perception and belief can have an effect on an external state, because i can think the result of it vastly different from yours. We can agree something is happening, but what. Life is just based on agreements of certain things so that we can understand and move through life easier. The people who see it differently or don't accept our terms are the ones we consider insane and odd.

That is irrelevant, we were talking about logic, and you were trying to state that my argument is not logical if people don't believe it is logical.  Not to their perception, then no, however that doesn't change the fact that there are actual measures in place to determine these things, and no matter what they perceive, those measures don't change for their perception.

[PUNiSHER™]

Also, please don't respond to logically constructed points by empty statements, develop them.

As for there's no point in changing the system because it has worked, if it is logically laid out before you that amending the system would infact result in the system's increased facilitation of the goal it sets out to achieve, and you can not defeat the logic with solid logical reasoning of your own, then you should accept the proposal, for it is more reasonable than the current one.

I'm not opposed to warzone, I just feel it can be improved and can display why in a logical fashion. 

Nobody has been able to punch any hole through the logic I used to approach this conclusion.  If you can't find a logical flaw in the structure to the argument, then you can't logically disagree with it.

Oh, and btw, logic isn't a matter of opinion, if you can't punch a hole through the logical reasoning that is employed to reach a conclusion, or display a more logical sequence, then you logically agree with it

What you are saying is, why don't you develop your points with a lesser degree of logical sequencing, why don't you dumb them down

You must be able to punch a hole through my actual statements in order to logically disagree with them.

No, it isn't enough, for if a logical sequence leads to a conclusion, and you can not find any way to punch a hole through the logical sequencing anywhere, then you logically agree with the conclusion.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe something is logical, it means nothing unless you can display otherwise.

Your perception does not change external states, by believing that something is not logical, that does not render it illogical.

It doens't matter what you think logic is, that does not change what logic and what it means for somehting to be logical actually is.

An Ad Hominem abusive is still an Ad Hominem argument, it is just a further classification of an Ad Hominem argument, and it is still a logical fallacy of relevance.

Additionally, no, my reply that one's post is wasted as it is irrelevant to the topic is not, by the same logic, a wasted post.

That is irrelevant, we were talking about logic, and you were trying to state that my argument is not logical if people don't believe it is logical.

# of times the term "logic" was used: 28
# of times used in a single sentence: 4

*DAMN Quote of the day :  "It doens't matter what you think logic is, that does not change what logic and what it means for something to be logical actually is."[/color]