My OPINION

[query]

Thanks for the entertaining volley.

Care to elaborate?

I'm not going to play your "I explain something, then you imply I have not explained it by asking me to explain it" game.

Which is exactly why it's a different issue.

I'm not going to play your "I explain something, then you imply I have not explained it by asking me to explain it" game.

[Borror0]

I'm not going to play your "I explain something, then you imply I have not explained it by asking me to explain it" game.

If you already have explained it, point me out where you have.

Your tendency to state that you have made an irrefutable argument before and that I am wasting your time is tiring.

[branmakmuffin]

If you already have explained it, point me out where you have.

I'm also not going to play your "I explain something, then you imply I have not by asking me to point out where I explained it" game.

Your tendency to imply, by insisting they explain it again, that someone has not explained something is tiring.

[Borror0]

Your tendency to imply, by insisting they explain it again, that someone has not explained something is tiring.

Assuming dishonesty from the other poster(s) is not a very powerful rhetoric strategy and is a debate stopper.

Pointing out where you made that point isn't very time-consuming, and is probably less time-consuming than the time it took you to reply to me. It seems to me as if you have ran out of argument and simply try to avoid admit you are wrong by avoiding all debates through the means of attacks to your opponent(s).

[Angelus_dead]

There is the "personal preference" opinion (e.g., "Red is a more pleasing color than blue"), and there is the "scientific opinion"

Do you know what quaternio terminorum is?

[oogly54]

NERD

Nerd is a term often bearing a derogatory connotation or stereotype, that refers to a person who passionately pursues intellectual activities, esoteric knowledge, or other obscure interests that are age inappropriate rather than engaging in more social or popular activities. Therefore, a nerd is often excluded from physical activity and considered a loner by peers, or will tend to associate with like-minded people.

The DDO forums is not a life, try to get one sometime.

[query]

Okay it meant The fallacy of four terms, sure
but I read up on it and now I do.

Amazing how easy admitting you were wrong or I don't know can be.

Thanks AD BTW, I understood the logic point it made before reading this, but never knew of that phrase's and formal explanation's existance....I love learning things new to me.

And as for Oog's Nerd definition, reminds me I'm late! Gotta go to my (non DDO playing...not even D&D for me today, friend.)

(*the gaming nerd waves bye-bye to all here*)

Edit: Guilt makes me post my source. We ALL should learn, sorry. If it's a bit hard to get, wikkis do explain it on a "layman's terms."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fourterm.html

Do you know what quaternio terminorum is?

[bobbryan2]

NERD

Nerd is a term often bearing a derogatory connotation or stereotype, that refers to a person who passionately pursues intellectual activities, esoteric knowledge, or other obscure interests that are age inappropriate rather than engaging in more social or popular activities. Therefore, a nerd is often excluded from physical activity and considered a loner by peers, or will tend to associate with like-minded people.

The DDO forums is not a life, try to get one sometime.

What about the person that comes onto the DDO forums and gets upset enough to start throwing insults around?

Is that person a nerd as well? Or actually... wouldn't adults playing video games, D&D in particular mean all of us are nerds?

[cornelius]

You are never going to win against an army of DDO nerds. They will bend and twist whatever you say to try and make themselves seem intellectually superior and your arguments seem foolish. Even though they really don't know what they are talking about or understand the point of the thread they will attack you and insult your intelligence while using the synonyms feature of Microsoft Word to bump their vocabulary up a few notches.

This thread is a waste of everyone's time, except the losers who plan on sitting in their computer room the entire day arguing over the Internet because they don't have any real life friends. To them this is heaven. A place where they can state their opinions and attack others without any threat of repercussion. Almost none of them would say any of this to you in real life because they wouldn't come outside long enough for actual human interaction and because they would be afraid to state their opinion to your face.

Of course, this is all my opinion. Flame away nerds.

[bobbryan2]

You are never going to win against an army of DDO nerds. They will bend and twist whatever you say to try and make themselves seem intellectually superior and your arguments seem foolish. Even though they really don't know what they are talking about or understand the point of the thread they will attack you and insult your intelligence while using the synonyms feature of Microsoft Word to bump their vocabulary up a few notches.

This thread is a waste of everyone's time, except the losers who plan on sitting in their computer room the entire day arguing over the Internet because they don't have any real life friends. To them this is heaven. A place where they can state their opinions and attack others without any threat of repercussion. Almost none of them would say any of this to you in real life because they wouldn't come outside long enough for actual human interaction and because they would be afraid to state their opinion to your face.

Of course, this is all my opinion. Flame away nerds.

I would say anything I said in this thread to your face.

Believe it or not... I actually engage in logical debates in real life from time to time!

[Dogchair]

You guys make me laugh.

seriously.

It doesnt take much to point out flaws in others, but I implore you to find a mirror and use your own sharp wit and rhetoric on yourself.

[branmakmuffin]

Assuming dishonesty from the other poster(s) is not a very powerful rhetoric strategy and is a debate stopper.

No, the dishonesty is the debate-stopper.

Pointing out where you made that point isn't very time-consuming, and is probably less time-consuming than the time it took you to reply to me. It seems to me as if you have ran out of argument and simply try to avoid admit you are wrong by avoiding all debates through the means of attacks to your opponent(s).

Implying that someone has not made a point or explained something before is a common rhetorical technique. It's disingenuous. People do it so they can say, as a follow up, "See, I asked him to explain it, and he refused, therefore he is wrong." Perhaps you're used to getting away with it. If so, go back to using it on those who are vulnerable to it.

This thread is a waste of everyone's time, except the losers who plan on sitting in their computer room the entire day arguing over the Internet because they don't have any real life friends.

Which evidently includes you, since you bothered to read enough of this thread to formulate a reply, and then bothered to actually reply.

Do you understand what "irony" is?

[Aranticus]

These are from four separate posts in this thread.

Please tell me you're joking and my radar is out of tune today.

nope, bad shroud run

[Borror0]

Implying that someone has not made a point or explained something before is a common rhetorical technique. It's disingenuous.

If find this situation extremely ironic, as you are guilty of what you try to accuse me of most of the time.

Often, you try to portray me as someone who dismiss other's opinion because they differ from mine. When you draw that conclusion, it is because you fail to understand that, in any argument, there are many in my opinion's that are never written, but still implied. Adding multiple IMO's in an argument weakens it. Saying "It's a bad idea!" or "It's a bad idea, in my opinion." carry the same meaning, but do not have the same strength which is why "It's a bad idea", or comments of the same sort, are more often used in our rhetoric.

Whether or not you are aware of their existence is not important, the fact that you ignore the implied IMO's in other posters' arguments is annoying and makes dealing with you extremely complicated. If you care at all, this is the reason you are so infamous on the forums, along with your tendency to pointlessly argue semantics.

I do not know if you really believe that the other poster is being dishonest or close-minded which would excuse why you recur to personal attacks, as discrediting your opponent is the only strategy left when your opponent is close-minded or dishonest, but the only way I can respond to you is by assuming you are genuine. Perhaps this is naivety of my part, but I rather be naive than to see the worse in others as such an attitude would prevent all debate with me.

Bran, revise your attitude. I take the time to tell this to you since, even though we disagree a lot, I know you are not a stupid person. In fact, it is obvious to me you are a clever person. I would not waste this time for someone that I view as immune to logical argument or stupid. You are extremely clever, but you are looking down on many posters when it is not warranted.

Acting as if we are unwilling and unable to change our position, no matter how good the argument(s) will be, makes of you what you try to speak against. I doubt this is your intention, Bran, but this is how you come across. To your surprise, there are many posters on these forums who are willing to listen and accept good arguments. You would realize that if you would engage yourself in an honest debate with them instead of hiding in personal attacks, semantics and agnosticism.

This is the irony of the situation, Bran. You have such a negative view of others that you become what you speak against. In the post I quoted above, you assume that I am dishonest by ignoring all the obviously compelling argument you made previously. However, this is your opinion. The arguments that you seem to view as compelling do not sway me. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I lost the argument by using lame tactics, I am simply not convinced by the arguments you have brought this far.

If you have grown tired of this argument or that we will obviously never reach consensus is fine, but saying I am dishonest is not.

[branmakmuffin]

If you have grown tired of this argument or that we will obviously never reach consensus is fine, but saying I am dishonest is not.

You employ disingenuous rhetorical tactics. That's doesn't necessarily mean you are a dishonest person. Lots of people use similar or identical tactics. Others either don't recognize the tactics when they see them, or decide it's not worth the effort to point them out.

And your post has yet another example of disingenuousness. The point of controversy is whether it's reasonable to state "Without common ground, 'The Earth is round (or not round)' can be said to be an opinion." Yet you imply that the point of controversy is ignoring the unwritten "IMOs" in statements which are clearly just matters of opinion. But I'll indulge you and address the unwritten "IMO," even though it is not the point of controversy. If it's clear that a statement is merely a matter of personal preference ("DDO needs respecs") then of course there's no need for the "IMO." The problem arises when people state something like "DDO needs respecs" and then base yet another argument on the premise that DDO needs respecs, under the assumption that it's a given that DDO needs respecs.

[Borror0]

Yet you imply that the point of controversy is ignoring the unwritten "IMOs" in statements which are clearly just matters of opinion.

That's not what I said, you misunderstood me.

I'm not insisting that it is the problem in this instance, I'm saying this is something you are often guilty of. That's not the problem in this thread but something connate, sharing the same root. For the same reason you often miss those IMO's one's argument, you are not incline someone is not swayed by the arguments you view as compelling.

Ironic, again, as it is the exact point I was trying to make when I said "Without common ground, 'The Earth is round' is an opinion."

One thing is a fact only when a consensus is made to decide that this opinion is a fact.

[Samadhi]

So home from work, re-read everything in this thread, and I think I have changed my mind.

EVERYTHING IS TRUE. EVERYTHING IS PERMISSABLE.

[branmakmuffin]

Ironic, again, as it is the exact point I was trying to make when I said "Without common ground, 'The Earth is round' is an opinion."

The roundness of the Earth is never subject to opinion one way or the other, with common ground or lacking common ground, because it is demonstrably true or false.

One thing is a fact only when a consensus is made to decide that this opinion is a fact.

No, facts are not decided by consensus, unless you're saying that the Earth was flat until Archimedes (or whoever it was) proved it was round.

If the entire population of the Earth voted "The Earth is flat," that wouldn't make the Earth flat, although it might mean people would behave as if the Earth were flat. But that's not the same thing. That's the difference between social science and hard science.

[Beherit_Baphomar]

Wrong.

Wrong.

Edit; Holy ****, didnt realise this nightmare had gone on for 7 pages!

[crock]

i came here for an argument, this is just contridction