AOL - Recruiting Starts Now.

[MadocComadrin]

JFC are you kidding me?

He attacks a random element relatively unrelated to the bigger picture of my post then you jump on my back about it too? Really?
Whenever you have to say "prove" with quotation marks in an argument as your evidence, I'd say that discredits you pretty quickly. I'd also say it discredits you rather quickly when you're saying that the solar system revolves around the earth. Besides, it really doesn't matter when you look at what my OP was getting at.

That's like me saying "WELL, THE LETTER A HAS NEVER BEEN FULLY ESTABLISHED TO BE LEGAL IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, AND AS SUCH, YOU USING IT IN YOUR POST MAKES THE ENTIRE POINT OF YOUR MESSAGE QUESTIONABLE. RESPONSES IN GREEN."

My point wasn't directed towards whether some crazy bastards believe the earth is flat -- it isn't. My point wasn't aimed at what EXACTLY Y2K entailed, nor is it entirely relevant to talk about the exact details of buying indulgences.

My post was just meant to say that bandwagoning is an extremely weak argument, and using some historical demonstrations to show that simply because most people believe something doesn't make it true; it's a logical theory, you nit-picking nancy.

Special message for retards in red.

Perhaps, but those things were quasi-witty generalizations meant to support your point by attempting to make people who believed something completely rational (at the time of belief), ie. not a bandwagon, look stupid or even crazy (I read the word sheep in your post, so apparently you think people who believed with those majority were simply sheeple). When we actually proved those things to be rational at the time, your argument was exposed to contain a rather big fallacy in itself--appeal to the ridicule.

Likewise, responses in *color* is just a convenient way to address points quickly without breaking up the original quote; it's used quite a bit. You really don't have to have a cow over it 

 

[Marin Peace Bringer]

Also, I want to point out that there is no solid proof that the sun is the center of the solar system.  Like I said, there are scientist who have made arguments (with mathematical and cosmological back up) that the earth is the center of the solar system.  Like I said before, there is no way to prove it with out a doubt one way or the other.

And also, like I said before, my only point in replying to you was to show that there are arguments for the other side, and that just because there is proof for one side, does not make it right, because there can be equally good proof for the other side (like the solar system problem, there are arguments which have proof, for both sides).

As to which one you believe, it does not really matter, because the sun or earth being the center has nothing to do with our day to day lives.

 

[BlackTide]

JFC are you kidding me?

He attacks a random element relatively unrelated to the bigger picture of my post then you jump on my back about it too? Really?
Whenever you have to say "prove" with quotation marks in an argument as your evidence, I'd say that discredits you pretty quickly. I'd also say it discredits you rather quickly when you're saying that the solar system revolves around the earth. Besides, it really doesn't matter when you look at what my OP was getting at.

That's like me saying "WELL, THE LETTER A HAS NEVER BEEN FULLY ESTABLISHED TO BE LEGAL IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, AND AS SUCH, YOU USING IT IN YOUR POST MAKES THE ENTIRE POINT OF YOUR MESSAGE QUESTIONABLE. RESPONSES IN GREEN."

My point wasn't directed towards whether some crazy bastards believe the earth is flat -- it isn't. My point wasn't aimed at what EXACTLY Y2K entailed, nor is it entirely relevant to talk about the exact details of buying indulgences.

My post was just meant to say that bandwagoning is an extremely weak argument, and using some historical demonstrations to show that simply because most people believe something doesn't make it true; it's a logical theory, you nit-picking nancy.

Special message for retards in red.

Are you sure that's the kind of language you want to be using with you being watched and all?
Regardless I think you should show a wee bit of respect to the thread owners and continue your nice religious debate over PM's or not at all...

 

[Mr.X]

Actually, the letter A is legally established.

[quote author=dictionary.com]
A, a   
–noun, plural A's or As, a's or as. 
1. the first letter of the English alphabet, a vowel.
[/quote]

Oh, and AOL, PM me when you get guys for a scrim, if you want

 

[Rhade]

JFC are you kidding me?

He attacks a random element relatively unrelated to the bigger picture of my post then you jump on my back about it too? Really?
Whenever you have to say "prove" with quotation marks in an argument as your evidence, I'd say that discredits you pretty quickly. I'd also say it discredits you rather quickly when you're saying that the solar system revolves around the earth. Besides, it really doesn't matter when you look at what my OP was getting at.

That's like me saying "WELL, THE LETTER A HAS NEVER BEEN FULLY ESTABLISHED TO BE LEGAL IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, AND AS SUCH, YOU USING IT IN YOUR POST MAKES THE ENTIRE POINT OF YOUR MESSAGE QUESTIONABLE. RESPONSES IN GREEN."

My point wasn't directed towards whether some crazy bastards believe the earth is flat -- it isn't. My point wasn't aimed at what EXACTLY Y2K entailed, nor is it entirely relevant to talk about the exact details of buying indulgences.

My post was just meant to say that bandwagoning is an extremely weak argument, and using some historical demonstrations to show that simply because most people believe something doesn't make it true; it's a logical theory, you nit-picking nancy.

Special message for retards in red.

Perhaps, but those things were quasi-witty generalizations meant to support your point by attempting to make people who believed something completely rational (at the time of belief), ie. not a bandwagon, look stupid or even crazy (I read the word sheep in your post, so apparently you think people who believed with those majority were simply sheeple). When we actually proved those things to be rational at the time, your argument was exposed to contain a rather big fallacy in itself--appeal to the ridicule.

Likewise, responses in *color* is just a convenient way to address points quickly without breaking up the original quote; it's used quite a bit. You really don't have to have a cow over it 

Rational at the time != True

 

[MadocComadrin]

Aye, but rational also != crazy.

 

[Rhade]

Aye, but rational also != crazy.

My point never was to say that people were crazy, my point was to say that the argument of "most people believe it, so it's true" is incorrect, that's all.

 

[McBeverage]

Rhade, you'd enjoy the off-topic section of the forum far more. 

 

[MadocComadrin]

Aye, but rational also != crazy.

My point never was to say that people were crazy, my point was to say that the argument of "most people believe it, so it's true" is incorrect, that's all.

Aye, but when shown that none of the examples given (which were generalizations to begin with) were part of that group all you have left in your argument is that hidden appeal to the ridicule.

 

[KoA John]

                                                                              Surely Rhade has made

                                                                                      A grenade
           
                                                                              To blow up the maid
   
                                                                          In a supposedly fair trade 
 
                                                                                     

 

[rgodfrey]

come on over to my server rhade and i will beat on your little bald head like a kettle drum. 

 

[Rhade]

come on over to my server rhade and i will beat on your little bald head like a kettle drum. 

Are you serious?

 

[Orion]

Watch out, dude, he's got like 20 ranks. Clearly you're his subordinate.

 

[Sir Gowe]

All this intellengent talk and no FIGHTING?!

We are not Scientists yet go kill something hell a Khergit!!! 

 

[RobertMUGABE]

Lol Gowe...

 

[Sir Gowe]

Are you like stalking my ingame character now holy dude stop that.

 

[RobertMUGABE]

Nah just browsing the forums and I looked at this one thread and saw your contradicting post again so I loled and posted my lol. That is all.

 

[rgodfrey]

I owned rhade over and over in a duel King John as my witness. What a loser. 

 

[Rhade]

I owned rhade over and over in a duel King John as my witness. What a loser. 

You "owned" me? "Over and over?" How ****ing bad are you when you need to fabricate things and run away as soon as you have the slightest advantage then blow it out of proportion?

I won the first duel, you won the second, I missed my thrust on the third and you took that.

At this point, it was 2 duels to 1. This is not "owning."

At which point you refused to duel me again (knowing you'd lose) and you took your fluke victory and bailed before you got wrecked.

If you want to talk ****, let's do a best of 7? I promise you're going to get beat pretty badly. But then again, I'm sure you're going to dodge because you know that.

 

[rgodfrey]

You little lying snot nosed buffoon. I never even gave you the ready signal, never tried to stop you, while you were up on me hacking repeatedly. After I gave you the ready signal you were toast over and over again. Why would I want to beat you down more and more rhade? Your not even in my league kid. You can't even touch me with your blade rhade! First thing you need to do is get out of the minors before you run your mouth off at the pros. Otherwise your going to keep getting your lunch ate. Now go tell mommy to pack you a bigger lunch next time for when you have diarrhea of the mouth. Pfft.