“Impossible isn’t a word.” -SJEKidd ☮
What is your inspirational saying? Submit it in ths comments section.
Here is a Quote that my RP Character thought up.
"There is no chance, no destiny, no fate, that can circumvent or hinder or control the firm resolve of a determined soul..."
-From "Ner'Xul ShadowHeart"
wizards first rule, right?
"Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its life believeing its stupid." -Albert Einstein
Hah! That's what I was going to say!
"It's funny, what you find when you stop looking... and what you lose as well"
I guess this is on the opposite end of the "inspirational" spectrum. haha Or maybe it doesn't, I dunno.
Let me counter with a quote from the inimitable Me: "To deny the potential of one is to deny the potential of all."
No, no, Ugi, 3J's right. You should only quote people with reputations because A.) They're the only people that matter and B.) They're always right. To quote Endmaster ""LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! ASSPLOSHUNS! AWSUM! LOLOLOL!", I think that says it all.
I'll spare you, haha.
I think he pissed you off more than you pissed him off.
Yeah, but remember that that was in like 2008 and there's a pretty big maturity gap (at least for me) between then and now, considering the age I was then and the age I am now.
The Man In The Hat from xkcd floated once. It was the time he shot lightning out of his hands. It was in a scientist's nightmare, but it was also real, because the Man In The Hat is awesome like that.
Returning to the original topic:
"don't pity the dead, pity the living, and above all those who live without love."
- Albus Dumbledore
Aww, I missed a debate :( I'm gonna bring up some topics I disagree or agree with and talk about them anyway (I'm on Ugi's side so it will be mostly 3J). Who knows, maybe I can get people to start debating again!
"Well if your argument is based on debating people who don't care whether you make sense or not and only debate based on having numbers, and are basically looking at it like a popularity contest then I don't think you can consider it a very serious standpoint" - 3J
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!!! You just completely disproved Public Forum debate, which LD (my group) is constantly at ends with. I'm going to quote this :)
"Discussion: A talk between two or more people about a subject, usually to exchange ideas or reach a conclusion. They are synonyms yes, but the difference is in a debate there are opponents and winners." - Ugi
Actually, if they "reach a conclusion" by exchanging ideas (exactly in a conversation like this one) then it is done by making one side agree with the other side's beliefs. I'd call that a win.
"Nah, if you're debating against someone with confidence issues, that's probably true, but anyone with enough confidence won't have any issues calling you on a quote they don't agree with, regardless of who said it." -3J Completely false, bro. Calling someone's quote false has to due with finesse and facts in debate, not with confidence. Hell, even now when scientists see those other scientists break the speed of light in Geneva, they are quick to say 'Oh no, it didn't break the speed of light because Einstein said it couldn't be broken' and that argument carries a huge amount of weight among the scientific community. It's not because the majority of the scientific community lacks confidence, it's because Einstein is a weighty name.
"With respect to the Thomas Jefferson quote, I'd say that the reason no one cared about your quote was likely just because you weren't supporting your argument well enough. A well supported argument doesn't require any quotes and if Jefferson was actually right (and his quote is applicable) then you should be able to make the argument without attaching his name to it."-3J
Also completely false. It seems like you're arguing about an ideal society, and Ugi is debating about what happens with real people. Real people are swayed by names, plain and simple. For example, I could sit here and point out some problems with String Theory, but if Stephen Hawking sat there and typed that String Theory was correct, guess who the people would support?
"I use quotes for similar reasons. I read quotes by people like King Solomon daily. I quote him daily. I do this because he has better words then I do." -Ugi
You may think he's kidding, he's not. We were talking about if taxes were justified, I brought up the fact that if you pay Walmart for a good or service (like milk for instance) then you pay your country for goods and services as well (like army protection.). He brought up King Solomon.
"You're asking me to believe that you asked a question like that sarcastically and if that's the case, I think you're completely incoherent. I don't think that's the case though, I think you're now just making stuff up. That, or you don't know what sarcasm is." -3J
A few things:
1.) You understand both the question and the fact that he says it's sarcastic, but when he says that his question is sarcastic again it's suddenly incoherent? I'm not quite sure you know what incoherent means.
2.) The internet can't convey sarcasm, I can picture him saying a question and being sarcastic about it, I do it all the time to make fun of people who ask stupid questions.
3.) If he thinks it's sarcam, and I think it's sarcasm, and you don't think it's sarcasm, then I think it may be you that doesn't know what sarcasm is.
"Look at the burning question thread. I think I pissed him off. " - Cool
I don't think 3J gets mad during debates all the time, and even at times when I can't reach any other conclusion than "he said that because he was mad" I would just list it as slightly irritated. Just the way he poses his points, with his condescension and personal insults, makes him seem angry when he really just uses a dickish debate style.
I remember, I just remembered it because it was awesome and I posted it to say, in an off-handed way, that just because a quote has a weighty name behind, it doesn't mean it's important.
Bold is me.
"Completely false, bro. Calling someone's quote false has to due with finesse and facts in debate, not with confidence. Hell, even now when scientists see those other scientists break the speed of light in Geneva, they are quick to say 'Oh no, it didn't break the speed of light because Einstein said it couldn't be broken' and that argument carries a huge amount of weight among the scientific community. It's not because the majority of the scientific community lacks confidence, it's because Einstein is a weighty name." - Bo
Ugilick said that we use weighty quotes to win debates because no one will argue with you once you use it.
I said that only someone lacking confidence would do so.
"Calling someone's quote false has to due with finesse and facts in debate, not with confidence."
Calling someone's quote false has to do with whether or not you A) Believe the quote is false B) Have the confidence to argue it
Succeeding in proving it might have to do with a million other things, but like usual, you completely missed the point.
***THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT IS ERRONEOUS TO THE ORIGINAL POINT OF DEBATE (people shouldn't quote their friends)***
"Also completely false. It seems like you're arguing about an ideal society, and Ugi is debating about what happens with real people. Real people are swayed by names, plain and simple. For example, I could sit here and point out some problems with String Theory, but if Stephen Hawking sat there and typed that String Theory was correct, guess who the people would support?"
Ugilick: No one agreed with me until I brought Jefferson into it. 3J: Maybe that's because you're not arguing well enough Bo: Real People are influenced by quotes, you're talking about an ideal society, if I was arguing against Stephen Hawking, people would think that I was wrong.
What the fuck are you on about? That's about as non-sequitur as you can possibly get.
Also, ***THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT IS ERRONEOUS TO THE ORIGINAL POINT OF DEBATE (people shouldn't quote their friends)***
"1.) You understand both the question and the fact that he says it's sarcastic, but when he says that his question is sarcastic again it's suddenly incoherent? I'm not quite sure you know what incoherent means. 2.) The internet can't convey sarcasm, I can picture him saying a question and being sarcastic about it, I do it all the time to make fun of people who ask stupid questions. 3.) If he thinks it's sarcam, and I think it's sarcasm, and you don't think it's sarcasm, then I think it may be you that doesn't know what sarcasm is."
The question was:
"Benjamin Franklin had friends; would it be short sighted and annoying for his friends to quote him?"
Do you not understand that for that to be sarcastic, he'd have to be saying that Ben Franklin's friends would be short sighted if they quoted him? Do you think that's what he's saying, Bo? Are you a complete moron?
I don't think it was an argument, 3J, it was a statement. He's right, whenever you try and debate you act like you're extremely smart and your opponent is a complete idiot, it's no way to debate... at least not respectfully.
1st paragraph: I'm not trying to sway public favor, I know that most people on this site respond to logic, so I use logic to rebut his arguments. If people go in my favor, then that's because they see the logic.
2cnd paragraph: Hit the nail on the head with that one.
Hmm, from what I've seen I've done nothing but adress what you say, same as Ugi only his was more on teh defensive.
After almost every debate you've been on results in what you say are idiotic arguments that don't adress your arguments that "Maybe it's just me?". A negative outlook can influence a lot, you know.
Yay, debate time! I'll take 3J's example and be bold.
"Ugilick said that we use weighty quotes to win debates because no one will argue with you once you use it.
I said that only someone lacking confidence would do so" - 3J
And I said that weighty quotes win debates because people decide who win debates, and as I said before people are influenced by weighty names. What Ugi is arguing is not the same thing as what I'm arguing. I support him because we are on the same side, but I have a different reason to be on that side. PS: Saying the same thing twice doesn't make it twice as true, go ahead and quote me on that :)
"Calling someone's quote false has to do with whether or not you
A) Believe the quote is false
B) Have the confidence to argue it
Succeeding in proving might have to do with a million other things, but like usual, you completely missed the point." -3J
Completely correct with that point, I missed it.
"The question was:
'Benjamin Franklin had friends; would it be short sighted and annoying for his friends to quote him?'
Do you not understand that for that to be sarcastic,he'd have to be saying that Ben Franklin's friends would be short sighted if they quoted him? Do you think that's what he's saying, Bo? Are you a complete moron?" - 3J
Oh 3J, 3J, 3J, I'm seeing a pattern here. You get upset you're losing a point, you insult. Let me break it down for you in the simplest way I know how.
Sarcasm: A sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark (dictionary.com)
The definition in itself shows that using sarcasm doesn't mean the "exact opposite" as your typical short-sighted logic tells us, but let's break it down further in case you try to call me on that, either with an actual argument or with another insult as you're so happy to use.
Irony: A manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementory impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
Because he was being sarcastic, the definition of sarcasm is a sharply ironical taunt, and irony is a means of indicating detatchment from a subject, by saying he sarcastic about the question it means that he was detaching himself from the sort of person who ask that question. I use those kinds of sarcastic comments all the time, occasionally in the form of a question. Just because you have an improper grasp on sarcasm, it doesn't mean anyone who uses sarcasm or supports the use of sarcasm is a "complete moron".
And before you make a comment about how I call you short-sighted and yet I get on you for insulting people, I believe that when someone tries to debate respectfully, then the other person is completely disrespectful, then the respectful person has grounds to then become disrespectful in order to make it an equal playing field. To put it in Kindergarden terms "He started it!" :P
Your whole first paragraph is not in the vein of the argument at all. We're not debating why weighty quotes win debates. We were debating whether or not people would attack your quote if you attached a big name to it. I'm not going to attack your red herring.
"Oh 3J, 3J, 3J, I'm seeing a pattern here. You get upset you're losing a point, you insult. Let me break it down for you in the simplest way I know how.
And before you make a comment about how I call you short-sighted and yet I get on you for insulting people, I believe that when someone tries to debate respectfully, then the other person is completely disrespectful, then the respectful person has grounds to then become disrespectful in order to make it an equal playing field. To put it in Kindergarden terms "He started it!" :P"
No, that's not what it means at all. If he were being sarcastic, he would be detaching himself FROM THE SUBJECT, not from the sort of person who would ask the question. The subject of course, being the question itself. Were he being sarcastic, he would have mentioned the people who would ask that question, even in a minute way. Instead, he LEAD HIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH WITH THAT QUESTION RIGHT AFTER I MADE THE EXACT OPPOSITE POINT. He wasn't being sarcastic, and here's further proof: After I challenged him on it, he said it was "a joke". He said that because he was trying to paint a serious statement as a non-serious one because he realized it destroyed his argument. No one's believing that he asked that question sarcastically, that's ridiculous.
His first few sentences:
Benjamin Franklin had friends; would it be short sighted and annoying for his friends to quote him? Of course I'm not saying I disagree with you, but let look at why things are quoted. Somehow when we assign a saying to a famous individual it becomes truer. It shouldn't matter who said it first, it should ring true, or false, regardless.
There is just NO chance that his first sentence is sarcastic. Read it in context.
I'm reading it in two contexts, One: the serious one you claim is real and Two: the humorous/sarcastic claims is real.
In yours, yup, it's serious. In Ugi's it starts out as a humorous statement about the topic, then moves in to a deeper explanation of what he believes.
Both ways work, but seeing as the guy who Wrote the Frickin' question says it's sarcastic, and an obvious critic who is very quick to insult people with almost no grounds in a debate says it's not, I'm gonna go with the author here.
"Your whole first paragraph is not in the vein of the argument at all. We're not debating why weighty quotes win debates. We were debating whether or not people would attack your quote if you attached a big name to it. I'm not going to attack your red herring." -3J
Red Herring? If I'm using that phrase correctly (I've only heard it used once before) it means something used to distract you from the point at hand, and that isn't the case at all. As I said before, what you and Ugilick are arguing is not neccesarily the same as what you and I are arguing. Same side, different arguments, you can't use the same rigid (some would say short-sighted) argument to adress both of them.
"No, that's not what it means at all. If he were being sarcastic, he would be detaching himself FROM THE SUBJECT, not from the sort of person who would ask the question. The subject of course, being the question itself. Were he being sarcastic, he would have mentioned the people who would ask that question, even in a minute way. Instead, he LEAD HIS WHOLE PARAGRAPH WITH THAT QUESTION RIGHT AFTER I MADE THE EXACT OPPOSITE POINT."
Mmhmm, mmhmm, and so you think that the entire question, which is where your confusion lies. Time to break it down again:
Subject: The noun, noun phrase, or pronoun in a sentence or clause that denotes the doer of the action or what is described by the predicate. (Thefreedictionary.com)
Follow along with me here, if you would. The question is denoting (please don't make be provide a definition) the type of person asking tbe question, and so that is where the sarcasm is being directing. (They don't call me the "Grammar Nazi" for nothin').
Moving on, because of the position of his question, and the fact that you made a point beforehand, it clearly cannot be sarcastic? Have I called you short-sighted yet?
"He wasn't being sarcastic, and here's further proof: After I challenged him on it, he said it was "a joke". He said that because he was trying to paint a serious statement as a non-serious one because he realized it destroyed his argument. No one's believing that he asked that question sarcastically, that's ridiculous." - 3J
Time to make my list:
1.) So you don't think sarcasm is used in a humorous manner like in a joke? I do, that's the only time I use sarcasm. If he was joking around (I believe I saw him use the phrase "goofing around"), I would guess that he's using the sarcasm in a humorous manner, which I believe constitutes a joke.
2.) So he's trying to act like the statement is something altogether different from what it really is because he lost the argument? Looks like I finally get to use sub-points! A.) Ugi never saw his question as an argument, so why would he be arguing anything in teh first place. It is your highly confrontational/competitive nature that declared it a debate, not Ugi himself. B.) It's weird, you're giving Ugi both too much and too little credit at the same time. you act like he can't debate and that he isn't confident (Which if you knew the guy at all you would know it was completely untrue), and yet at the same time you say he can think on the fly and "paint his ... statement" when he fears defeat. Sounds like a bit of a contradiction you made when trying to come out on top...
3.) Well, I believe it's sarcastic, Ugi believes it's sarcastic, as I don't believe anyone else offered their opinion that would make it 2 vs. 1, which would mean that you're the only one who doesn't believe it. Weird, I think we have different definitions of the phrase "no one", would you like me to define that to? And yes, that was a sarcastic question used in a humorous manner, *Gasp* whaddaya know, it is possible :P
I'm supporting JJJ on this one. Usually I wouldn't care whether Ugi was being sarcastic in his post or not, but JJJ's made some pretty compelling arguments here and so far you have all failed to "win" this argument.
JJJ called your post a red herring because it was straying from what he was arguing. I'm not you, so I can't say whether you were doing that intentionally or not, but what you are trying to argue is not relevant to JJJ's contention. Here's how I saw things play out (some of it is paraphrasing):
JJJ: Ugilick said that we use weighty quotes to win debates because no one will argue with you once you use it. I said that only somebody lacking confidence would do so. (In other words, JJJ is distancing himself from your post, explaining that what you said is not what he is arguing.) Bo: What Ugi is arguing is not the same thing as what I'm arguing. (More or less stating the obvious.) JJJ: That isn't in the vein of the argument. We're not debating what you just said, we were debating whether or not people would attack your quotes if you attached a big name to it. I'm not going to attack your red herring. (JJJ outlining that what you are trying to put forward is not what he is debating.) Bo: What I'm arguing is not the same as what Ugi is arguing.
We understand that you and Ugilick are arguing different points, but JJJ has chosen not to argue against you on this point. Saying "we're arguing different things" isn't conveying any new information. He has acknowledged that it is not what he is debating and moved on (or tried to, rather).
JJJ has answered the other aspects of your post, I was more or less clarifying what he was trying to say with that red herring comment (and the ones before it).
Its suprisingly fun watching how all this progresses.
Haha, almost all of my debates with 3J have been like this, where have you been?
Trash talking that you start :) We both put in good points and tear down good points, then talk down to each other at the same time. I'd put it in at about a third of the argument.
Oh yeah, stop putting Cool down. He helps with the site and occasionally he has a good idea.
No, what happens is, we debate, you insult. I insult back (I can't remember if Ugi did), then Cool shows his support for my side. No doubt, he was antagonistic, but you basically just called him a worthless pile of crap by not only saying that he "never knows what he's talking about, ever", but then refusing to allow him to participate in the debate.
3J, you're the steward here, and you've done a great job. However, if you're gonna try and make mudslinging a huge part of your debate, then act like you're being victimized when people react negatively to it, then that's just rediculous. I would expect you to approach things with just a little more maturity than that.
Wait a second, JJJ-thebanisher is a troll?
No...
We've all discussed this before, but a person is only a troll if the purpose of them arguing with you is to get you made at them or just mad in general. This is not why JJJ debated/argued with people, therefore he is not a troll.
It doesn't matter if you're mad or annoyed with him, it matters if that was his intention or not.
So short of him coming in and going "Ha I made you all really mad, just as planned", he's not a troll.
So, I'm just gonna weigh in here a little bit.
1) "The persons ideas going against yours to sway popular opinion towards your favor."
False. People do not decide who wins arguements. I know this is outside of the convention of debate teams, etc, but I'm talking about reality - proving a questionable statement to be true. Not catering to biases and stupidities of people. People do not know correct hypothetical syllogism. They do not recognize constructive and destructive dilemmas. They cannot tell when you've accidentally applied a rule, missed the point, attacked a straw man, or established a false analogy. They do not know why statements in arguments exist for the reasons they do. Rather, they are persuaded by the very fallacies that make such arguments... well, just that: False. Bad. Unsuccessful. People do not recognize the stronger arguments. No, it is the job the active participants to establish valid arguments with true premises, such that the conclusion follows with necessity or probability. We may never know whether the death penalty or affirmative action ought to be instated or abolished. We may never really know what lines governments can and cannot cross in order to enhance the freedoms of most or protect its citizens. All we have are our beliefs and the reasons for believing them to be true. If your reasons for believing anything is true do not stand to scrutiny, then there is something to be said about your belief. For this, we use obviously true statements (not public opinion) to support our moral, intellectual, circumstantial, etc, beliefs that take the form of questionable statements.
There, now that I've ranted off about... haha. I actually found most of this thread to be pretty funny. But I'll just cover some of these things in general, pointing stuff out here and there that may've been lost in the whole debate, because a lot was said.
2) Insults
Insults do not make an argument weak, flawed, or otherwise. Addressing them in the context of a debate such as this simply detracts from the arguments and opens up an entirely new discussion. Namely, their purpose, their usefulness (or lack thereof), and blah blah. If you want to have the discussion, no one's trying to stop you. But it's important to recognize that they in no way change an argument's meaning or validity, nor do they make one's premises any less true. While I don't believe anyone really tried to discredit JJJ for his use of invective statements (besides Bo, I believe it was, in conjunction with "Ugi's the author"), certainly a lot of attention was given to the fact. Which, again, if you want to have that conversation, it's fine. But it bares no weight in the matter at hand. And it is especially bad, on the part of he who addresses the insults, when he addresses them only. Although, again, I don't think I saw that happen here.
My personal opinion: Frustration. I get frustrated all the time in situations like these. And though I personally try to minimize it to snide, tongue-in-cheek remarks, that's just how I do. haha
3) Sarcasm
It's true that sarcasm is not portrayed well via internet forums. However, once a statement is made ("Franklin had friends..."), all one has now in trying to prove the absence or existence of sarcasm is what he can argue. What are your reasons for believing what you believe?
Random point, 'cause I remember it from the insults thing: "The guy who wrote it said this" is not a relevant argument, when the guy who said it is in a position to gain favorability (or what have you) if he can be proven right. I understand the reasoning, however. The fact that he said it lends Ethos to the argument for sarcasm; however, the idea that he stands to gain (in the context that JJJ pointed out - i.e. to save face) strips him entirely of that very credibility. So, you can base an argument on this, but that argument would be visibly unsuccessful. Note, I'm not necessarily saying you're conclusion is false. I'm simply show how this particular argument fails
My personal opinion: It did not look like sarcasm or a joke in any sense when I read it. I don't have enough reason to believe it absolutely wasn't, but rather that it probably wasn't. What it looked like to me, honestly, was a counter example to JJJ's position, then mostly an affirmation of JJJ said (which actually seems to be where the sarcasm is located, but that's because our ideas of why famous quotes are "good" are totally different, and I guess you actually believe what you're saying) in the second and third paragraphs.
Given this, JJJ opened two lines of debate/discussion from Ugi's original post. 1) Paragraph one was not sarcasm (to which I agree, it does not look like sarcasm at all), and 2) your idea of why famous quotes are "good" is questionable. He presents his own counter claim, and later argues in full. I can see why he becomes frustrated. haha
4) Quotes
On this, I don't necessarily agree with anyone... At least, I think. It's hard to tell with all that's been said. I don't think a "good" quote has anything to do with who said it. If Thomas Jefferson said "even the smallest of penises can satisfy a Hamiltonian," I don't think it would matter how famous or brilliant he was. Likewise, I've heard things from people who aren't famous that I find rather inspiration or all around "good." There certainly haven't been very many, but I'm not beyond the idea that a layman can produce inspirational words with poetic resonance. At the risk of pulling a NeverMind, like she did up there, haha, one of the following is from me. I don't think it's the best, by any means, but I also don't think it's the "worst," or least good. If you've read some of my stuff I've posted in the past, you'll immediately recognize my words - or if you recognize some of the others - or you google them - or mine is clearly the shittiest arrangement of sounds, and my conceited self just can't see it. haha All possibilities. In any case, my attempt to hide it among these other more famous ones to present a point would then be an utter failure. haha
A) "This is Hell; nor am I out of it"
B) "The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioning our characters in the wrong way."
C) "If you're going through Hell, keep going"
D) "We don't want to make out peace Just breathe forever and never leave No, not this place we've made ourselves Not this Hell we're used to"
E) "When I die, I hope to go to Heaven, whatever the Hell that is."
Certainly all quotes should be read in the context they were given, but good enough, yo.
Anyway, that's how I see things. I'm gonna do my homework now. haha
Oh, and how could I forget: "Impossible" is a fuckin' word.
I actually find it pretty annoying most of the time, as well. haha But that's usually because the things people say (ie "impossible isn't a word") are usually far more retarded than inspirational.
And I agree. It was in my junior year in high school when I came to the realization that nothing I can ever come up with, with regard to philosophical insight and such, will ever be 100% original. The things I will come up with, more than likely, have already been said before, and far more eloquently. haha This was, of course, a sad realization, but I have no reason to believe otherwise.
I mean, Thoreau's on Civil Disobedience, Emerson's idea of genius and drill, practically all of Mill's On Liberty, were all ideas I had far before I was introduced to these authors. I was proud of those ideas and beliefs. But I realized that, although I came up with them on my own, they weren't "mine." That said, they're not necessarily Mill's or Thoreau's either. It just so happened that they came up with them on their own as well as were kickass writers/philosophers, so the fleshed it out better than anyone ever could. So, if I was going to debate the merits of Liberalism/Libertarianism, I'd be more inclined to quote Mill's arguments than to try to just "start from scratch," if he will, because that dude can say it way better than I can. haha
No doubt! haha I actually think the first one is a quote... but a misquote. haha Probably referring to the Alice in Chains song "Dirt." The correct lyric being "One who doesn't care is one who shouldn't be," referring to himself on heroin. The song isn't one of his lyrical masterpieces, haha, that's for sure. And misquoted, as it probably was, it's just... bad. haha
And I agree. I said it was a sad realization, but I guess I failed to mention my present view, being similar to yours. Being that these ideas no one's in particular to "claim," they're for anyone who finds reason enough to hold them. And there's certainly a great deal to be said about that, as you said.
Haha, I just thought of this and couldn't not post it: "You're always more likely to regret what you don't do than what you do-do..." ;) You know, 'cause no one regrets a doo doo haha
Ahhh *Credibility Destroyed*
I'm still deciding whether or not it was worth it. haha
Alright, I'm willing to admit I lost the debate, I'm just gonna bring up some stuff that was said about myself (not saying anyone was trash-talking me beyond reason or anything), and then adress that.
"While I don't believe anyone really tried to discredit JJJ for his use of invective statements (besides Bo, I believe it was, in conjunction with "Ugi's the author")," - Zero
What "Ugi's the author" thing are we talking about. I might have debated it at one point but I honestly don't remember. I have nothing against creative put-downs, but "are you a complete moron?" gets me pretty pissed, especially when it's groundless seeing as I backed up all my grammatical arguments with legit definitions and facts, and he backed his up with vague statements and insults(not that I didn't throw an insult back) :P.
"You're putting words where they weren't spoken, perhaps you should reread what was said" - 3J
Not true, I read it fine, but perhaps our interperatations (I think I just butchered the spelling) were different. When you Ugi said that he wouldn't question a quote with a weighty name, and you said that if people don't question quotes because of names they lack confidence, I just added 1+1 and got 2. Well, either that or i completely misconstrued it and got 11, I've been known to do that occasionally. (this counts as something that was said about me because it means I didn't read)
"I don't care how many of you and your friends think it's a sarcastic joke. It wasn't. Any sane person would agree."
(This counts because I don't agree, and because he's saying that any sane person would agree and he knows i disagree then he's calling me insane). Well, I guess you'd just have to know the guy. Ugi can get pretty goofy with his sarcasm, but we've been really close since freshman year so I just picture him actually saying. I know that when I sound sarcastic I normally just sound like a dick, and Ugi said that if he didn't know the way I said he really would think I was a dick haha.
*insert October's list of paraphrases here* "We understand that you and Ugilick are arguing different points, but JJJ has chosen not to argue against you on this point. Saying "we're arguing different things" isn't conveying any new information. He has acknowledged that it is not what he is debating and moved on"
Actually, no. I was arguing one thing, if 3J wanted to end it at any time he could have said so, instead he argued it anyway. I actually stated that I was gonna be arguing something compeltely different, he used the same argument anyway, so I pointed out it wouldn't work. It wasn't my sole argument, and I don't think it's fair to say it was. Don't get me wrong, 3J made some great points, but I'm not exactly and idiot.
And Zero, gret job on that statement, btw. It's what convinced me I lost.
"Actually, no. I was arguing one thing, if 3J wanted to end it at any time he could have said so, instead he argued it anyway. I actually stated that I was gonna be arguing something compeltely different, he used the same argument anyway, so I pointed out it wouldn't work. It wasn't my sole argument, and I don't think it's fair to say it was. Don't get me wrong, 3J made some great points, but I'm not exactly and idiot."
I'm sorry but the placement of that error was just too funny to not bring up.
I was going to point that out as well haha (but as I'm currently discussing something with Bo I thought it'd be seen as rude to bring it up).
I have no doubt you're not an idiot Bo. You're extremely smart and could probably best me in most debates. I apologise if my post made it seem like I thought of you as an idiot. I was just trying to explain what JJJ was saying regarding the red herring in different words.
Yeah, because "I'm not going to argue that red herring" isn't wanting to end it at all.
He argued the other points because they were more relevant to Ugilick's argument (and whether or not he was being sarcastic earlier in the thread).
Bo, this is what I was referring to:
"Both ways work, but seeing as the guy who Wrote the Frickin' question says it's sarcastic, and an obvious critic who is very quick to insult people with almost no grounds in a debate says it's not, I'm gonna go with the author here."
Just figured I'd bring it up 'cause it was on my mind with all the "insults" comments. And yeah, if they bother you... well, that's one thing I guess. But it happens. I can tell you really don't seem to be so preoccupied with it as others, though. That seems pretty clear
Also: "When you Ugi said that he wouldn't question a quote with a weighty name, and you said that if people don't question quotes because of names they lack confidence..." Yay, modus ponens. :p Apart from that, I don't remember what was said, or where. But I think there's a semantic issue with the way (at least) one of the premises was derived. Sorta like the difference between "the dog barks" and "the dog is barking" - inadvertently switching one for the other would cause problems, leading to an unsuccessful argument... Otherwise, your reasoning was at least entirely valid. haha
Anyway, 'pprectiate it. haha I wasn't aiming at making anyone "lose," I just wanted to weigh in a little bit. Although, I got carried away, as I do, after writing up the whole thing against the idea that debates are won through the people's vote, or however it was worded. There were a couple other points here and there that I came up with while reading it, but many were later addressed and other things were just left to float around, entirely unaddressed (if that's a word, haha), but I couldn't remember 'em too well. haha I figured I'd written enough :p
Thanks for all these quotes. They are awesome!
"Friends are like gems. They sparkle and shine even at the end." -SJEKidd
"Friends are like gems--useless, and very much dead if they were ever alive." --NeverMind
Didn't you say at some point that you were gonna stop trolling, NM? haha
I was not trolling. Thank you.
Oh... So that's, like... okay then. Kinda makes sense, now that I think of it. haha
Bo has passed judgement. End of this.
Haha, I agree, it was pretty terrible. Still, I think NM's was at least as bad. haha Something about gems being useless and dead, if ever alive (and.. they weren't), just like friends apparently. What friends? And why are their lives in question? haha It just sounds like a failed attempt to to turn Kidd's really poor arrangement of words into a depressed, worse arrangement of words. Hence, the inescapable notion that trolling hath occurred. haha
Real heroes don't wear capes, real heroes wear dog tags.
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving isn't for you.
BZ
Also, ugilick, I'm going to watch Dexter when I grow up. It looks really cool.
Ah, I love Dexter! So behind on that show, I think the last episode I watched was from the 2nd season.
Haha, you can actually start blabbing if you like! I know its bad, but I ended up looking up wiki for the episode summaries (too lazy to watch but too curious to stay in the dark,lol). But one day...Dexter marathon
What's the show even about?
A serial killer. Who only kills other serial killers.
Wrong. haha But close.
I really liked this last season, actually. Kept me far more entertained than the last couple, which I didn't even care to watch after a while. I'm just most curious as to how they'll start the next season, and if they don't just end up using some cop out to make it like nothing ever happened. I'd find that would be thoroughly unsatisfying. haha
Ahh, I had to look up what happened after reading these posts! Hmm...by any chance, did you guys read the books that the Dexter tv series is based on?
Noo! haha :p That's not fun. (the looking up the season part haha)
Didn't read the books either. Buddy of mine told me they were really good though.
T-T Temptation got the better of me and having to watch through 30+ episodes to figure out your guys discussion was too much...
lol, I won't spoil them then :)
EndMaster, you are the most wonderful person I have ever met.
Actually, impossible is a word look it up in the dictionary :p
And anyway, isn't it supposed to be impossible ain't a word?
Get out.
Lol I was joking about one of her earlier posts.
If I see another one of those comments I'll put an arrow in your other knee. Wait arrows don't have knees.
"You are an insignificant speck of dust in the vastness of the universe. You are going to die and it will not matter." -NeverMind.
Lol, I was wondering why that quote sounded so familiar. Nice.
Principal: "Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
Billy Madison: "Okay, a simple no would’ve done just fine."
I've never read Fight Club.
Shut up, you lost. haha
‘Good judgment comes from experience – Experience comes from poor judgment’ – Unknown
‘Experience is a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other’ – Ben Franklin
I thought that was an old chinese proverb
It's also from Abe Lincoln, Ben Franklin, Buddha, and more. It's been repeated so many times throughout history nobody can tell for sure.
Hahaha!
*find
(raka fraka no edit posting braga fraga snort!)
