Yes, it is. And what was actually said, not your interpretation, is also there.
So, glad to have that settled
Moving along...
you guys are ok.
- Thread starter soullust
- Start date
Yes, it is. And what was actually said, not your interpretation, is also there.
So, glad to have that settled
Moving along...
The argument isn't illogical, it's just wrong.
In order to be illogical, it has to contain some reasoning.
Sorry to nitpick.
Last edited:
You're not sorry; you posted this to do precisely that.
Now. If you're going to say an argument must have some reasoning, then feel free to reason.
I put the premise up to begin with.
Go ahead and refute it. Use whatever reasoning you feel applies. Including whatever it was prompted you to respond in such a manner.
Wow.
Compare the thread title to the content...
I mean - just --- wow.
Although Gustav did make a point...
As for the rest - Why can't we all just get along?
Compare the thread title to the content...
I mean - just --- wow.
Although Gustav did make a point...
sandy is divine in all ways
she knows her god given role....
As for the rest - Why can't we all just get along?
OK. I'll just select one of your statements.
Everywhere but on the internet, emotion beats reason every time.
The problem with that is not that it is illogical, the problem with it is that it is incorrect.
It's easily refuted.
You say that everywhere, and every time, emotion beats reason.
Would that be true if you were playing a game of chess for example?
Or, would it be true if you were considering how to invest your money?
Or, would it be true if you wanted to decide what clothes to bring on holiday?
etc etc.
Thbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpt!
In truth, despite her claims to be a hot woman (I find it silly to push the first, and do not wish to become dubious about the second), I think the delivery of skanky ass would probably be about the last thing I expect of Sandy.
The rolling of the eyes suggests you already know the answer, so I shan't spoil the joke.
Randwolf said:
Although Gustav did make a point...
In truth, despite her claims to be a hot woman (I find it silly to push the first, and do not wish to become dubious about the second), I think the delivery of skanky ass would probably be about the last thing I expect of Sandy.
As for the rest - Why can't we all just get along?
The rolling of the eyes suggests you already know the answer, so I shan't spoil the joke.
None of those qualify as arguments.
An emotional stake in the matter spurs one to greater efforts. Without emotion, no one would ever bother arguing at all.
If you are saying that we use reason to achieve something that we desire, I'd agree, that's true.
So, for example, in the chess game, we use reason to win because we want to defeat the other player.
Even though we show little emotion while playing, we have emotional needs that are met by playing.
Is that what you meant?
No. I didn't mean 'arguments" as in logical constructs, I meant arguments as in emotional confrontations - like an internet debate.
We don't always use reason to achieve what we desire. All you have to do is witness the eventual decomposition of many "arguments" here to see that reason only plays a part as long as you're winning. Once you start losing, the ultimate result is the loss of reason (usually it turns into unreasoned self-justification and sometimes acrimony).
Umm. When I said "Emotion beats reason every time", I was to a certain extent incorrect. Too much emotion invested in an argument - particularly on the internet - will result in a loss. Not enough will also do so; perhaps the midddle ground is, as always, where it's at.
I was pissed last night. Thought the term "argument" might be misunderstood but couldn't be bothered changing it.
We are having Prime Time TV political debates at the moment, because in the UK we are approaching a General Election.
It's all prepared and rehearsed.
There is no brilliance.
By brilliance, I mean the decisive ability to find the right words to outline a vision of the future, and carry people with you.
I think that at our best we do better on here.
Not that brilliance is always a good thing.
Tony Blair had it, but he was also a manipulative shit.
@TM
I meant arguments as in emotional confrontations - like an internet debate.
I think an internet debate is more like , to continue the chess metaphor, a postal chess game.
Except in postal chess, you can't retract past moves.
It is also frowned upon to use aids like chess machines.
On an internet debate, people can backtrack on previous statements, look things up using google, amend their post, disappear if losing, etc etc
The only rules are basic ones regarding treating other people with respect, avoiding racism and obscenity, and not using the forum for ulterior purposes.
Complaining about these few rules is like complaining about Boxing because you can't conceal a knife in your glove.
Good game. I like it.
It's all prepared and rehearsed.
There is no brilliance.
By brilliance, I mean the decisive ability to find the right words to outline a vision of the future, and carry people with you.
I think that at our best we do better on here.
Not that brilliance is always a good thing.
Tony Blair had it, but he was also a manipulative shit.
@TM
I meant arguments as in emotional confrontations - like an internet debate.
I think an internet debate is more like , to continue the chess metaphor, a postal chess game.
Except in postal chess, you can't retract past moves.
It is also frowned upon to use aids like chess machines.
On an internet debate, people can backtrack on previous statements, look things up using google, amend their post, disappear if losing, etc etc
The only rules are basic ones regarding treating other people with respect, avoiding racism and obscenity, and not using the forum for ulterior purposes.
Complaining about these few rules is like complaining about Boxing because you can't conceal a knife in your glove.
Good game. I like it.
Last edited:
Fair enough. With you on that.
However, ever seen the American TV show "Boston Legal"?
The character of Alan Shore, if you're familiar with it, has the combination of great intellect and an emotional stake in whatever he argues. He wins because he has both.
And here we are at the middle ground again. Alright, so "emotion beats reason every time" wasn't a terribly bright thing to say. You're quite correct. Fuck you.
However, ever seen the American TV show "Boston Legal"?
The character of Alan Shore, if you're familiar with it, has the combination of great intellect and an emotional stake in whatever he argues. He wins because he has both.
And here we are at the middle ground again. Alright, so "emotion beats reason every time" wasn't a terribly bright thing to say. You're quite correct. Fuck you.
Fuck you too
Haven't seen that show, but I'll look out for it.
The standard of the best US TV scriptwriting has been at its peak for the last 13 years.
This is slightly embarrassing, but my opinion is that it all started with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
Haven't seen that show, but I'll look out for it.
The standard of the best US TV scriptwriting has been at its peak for the last 13 years.
This is slightly embarrassing, but my opinion is that it all started with "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
I hope you aren't mocking Buffy, Soulust.
Your name sounds like the kind of creature she'd turn to dust.
Your name sounds like the kind of creature she'd turn to dust.
I hope you aren't mocking Buffy, Soulust.
Your name sounds like the kind of creature she'd turn to dust.
Naw i am not mocking at all, i just never heard anyone give that show so much credit. Also i liked that show and Sarah Michelle Gellar is hot
You do that. And stay the fuck away from anything remotely resembling conversation.damn! i <3 spamming and stupid topics like those!!!!
i guess we'll partners at spamming!
what do you say? ok? we make a group only for spamming fans. like me.
And by the way, you (Kremmen). Editing a post some time after I've replied is not on.
Makes me look like I've agreed with everything you said - which I do not.
Still don't see the drawbacks of this "reasoned conversation"?
Makes me look like I've agreed with everything you said - which I do not.
Still don't see the drawbacks of this "reasoned conversation"?
Yes I understand.
You agreed with me and then I added things to what I had said.
Like "Marquis has a big donkey head and he smells like cheese." That kind of thing.
Not done deliberately. Sorry.
What was it that you disagreed with that I added later?
Surely it wasn't that Tony Blair was a manipulative shit?
If it was my definition of the word brilliance, I don't agree with that myself either.
Last edited: