EPTTimisoara, Romania - Page 6
| Blogs > mdb |
|
Perguvious
United States1783 Posts
| ||
|
Raneth
England527 Posts
On March 09 2010 07:04 Durak wrote: I only have a few minutes now so I'll address a few of your points now and then the rest in a couple hours. SC3 is deductively valid. It is my personal opinion that unwitty memes are unfunny. That is stipulated. If you disagree, then that's fine, you may disregard SC3 from my argument. I don't put much weight into SC3 because humour is a very personal matter. Teamliquid is a community formed around StarCraft. Why would TL want to alienate anyone (besides cheaters, lol)? Moderators certainly can set the rules for the forums to create a better environment. I was about to start talking about how relative truths work, but i really cba, so yeah, lets just strip SC3 from the argument for simplicity sake, on the grounds that its relative so we cant argue either way. Next statement is basically "why would TL want to alienate anyone?" the rest isnt really part of your argument, so i'll leave it out for now. Now in here, we have some assumptions. Some we may agree with, some we may not. Assumptions being made: - Alienation is always wrong - Teasing alienates people - People are being alienated Now, i actually dissagree with all of these. The first one isnt that important, as you do infact add (except cheaters) becuase ofc, we do alienate people, such as criminals, and we think thats a good thing, so this is a case of you not saying what you mean properly, and the real assumption going on is "alienating people purely becuase they are romanian/dont understand sarcasm is wrong" and that i agree with actually, i think that is wrong. Next assumption, "teasing alienates people" not in all cases, no it doesnt, not at all, in lots of cases it brings people closer together. You seen, this is not the kind of, "pick on the fat kid" variety of teasing, this isnt friendless teasing, this is not, "we all hate romanians lets pick on them" this is far more linked ot the type of teasing between friends, such as, the other week, i was a bit drunk, and went to open my door, miss judged the handle and face planted the door  now, my friends naturally, have not let me forget this, and have been teasing me about it, do i feel alienated? no. Not in the slightest, i may not like being made fun of, but i can see the funny side, (and lets be honest, its pretty damn funny) and i know its all a joke. -just like the romanian thing-So i dissagree with this assumption that teasing directly leads to alienation. That leads to the final assumption, that people are actually being alienated from the comunity. I just find this hard to believe, that anyone has actually gone, "you know what, i love the recources on TL, i like most of the people, and i have a good time on there, but becuase of that damn meme, im never going back to it" And lets face it, this meme isnt endorsed by all, as this discussion shows, so they are not alone, and thus by definition not alienated, they have not been driven from TL, nor are they alone there. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3685 Posts
On March 09 2010 06:09 Mogget wrote: Premise 5 is flawed, the key word here being -unfair- as in, unjustified. If for example, i say that all chinese people are bad people because they are chinese, that is unjustified, and i am being discriminative. However, if i say, said that forigners are worse than koreans at sc1, or indeed if i was a korean, and said that any particular nation of people were bad at starcraft, im not being discriminative, im just being accurate. You are incorrect. If you don't understand Chill's definition, Premise 5, then he's another one from Wikipedia: "Discrimination toward or against a person of a certain group is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit." Your example of saying that foreigners are bad at StarCraft is being discriminatory. It doesn't matter if it's accurate or not, although I would argue that they are not bad at StarCraft. On March 09 2010 06:09 Mogget wrote: And as with most stereotypes, they are based on truth, lots of romanians have shown a lack of understanding of sarcasm, thus, it is founded, and not discrimination. sure there are exceptions, but that doesnt stop me generalising. If you want to get into an argument about generalisations being wrong, you will loose  An American that spells generalise with an s? There are all sorts of problems here but I'd just like to say that "lots of romanians have shown a lack of understanding of sarcasm" is unfounded. I can think of a few examples from the thread that started this and maybe some other examples. I think there are a similar number of people from other countries that have missed sarcasm.On March 09 2010 06:09 Mogget wrote: Premise 1 is flawed logic, becuase -you- have started this thread, not the meme, your using circular logic, you are the one de-railing the discusison, no one else, not the meme, -you- now, if i were to say that in itself means that your not allowed to argue against it, that would be a fallacy in my own argument, but im not saying that, im just saying, this point isnt vailid. The thread was derailed from the second post. I didn't even bring the argument up. A Romanian did (cylclone25). I was provoked because of cyclone25's posts and subsequent warning. My post was directly related to that. Therefore, your counter-point is absolutely irrelevant. On March 09 2010 06:09 Mogget wrote: I have just attacked a sufficient number of premises to derail everyone of your sub conclusions, and as im sure you know, to attack a valid argument, i only even needed to show that one of your premisis were false. You are incorrect. An argument can still be valid, inductively or deductively, if a premise is false. Also, you're wrong. On March 09 2010 06:09 Mogget wrote: EDIT: btw, im not nessaciraly saying i do or dont support your conclusion, your argument is just invalid and it anoyed me. Don't get annoyed so easily, especially when your points are without merit. Edit: You seriously made another post as I was writing this? I'll edit my reply in. | ||
LosingID8
CA10830 Posts
 | ||
|
Raneth
England527 Posts
If i say "saving peoples lives is wicked" and i define wicked as "evil act, displeasing" and the you reply saying that thats not the case, i can not prove you wrong by then going, look, you didnt understand my definition, here's another one wicked "a slang term meaning good, groovy and generally pleasing" thus im right. That just doesnt make sense, those are two totally different definitions, and yes, i have picked an extreem here, that is to illustrate a point. next paragraph, Im english, and also dyslexic, so spelling is not my fortae so to speak. And as to your repsonse, "I think there are a similar number of people from other countries that have missed sarcasm." burden of proof is on you im afraid, like i said, i dont actually care about this discussion, i just dont like bad argument, your goign to actually need to show that to be the case to use it. On March 09 2010 06:09 Mogget wrote: Premise 1 is flawed logic, becuase -you- have started this thread, not the meme, your using circular logic, you are the one de-railing the discusison, no one else, not the meme, -you- now, if i were to say that in itself means that your not allowed to argue against it, that would be a fallacy in my own argument, but im not saying that, im just saying, this point isnt vailid. The thread was derailed from the second post. I didn't even bring the argument up. A Romanian did (cylclone25). I was provoked because of cyclone25's posts and subsequent warning. My post was directly related to that. Therefore, your counter-point is absolutely irrelevant. see my response to that earlier. and no, if a premise is false an arguemnt cannot be deductivly valid, it can only be inductivly valid. If you dont belive me just do some reading. Dont forget, for an arguemnt to be deductivly valid, if the conclusions are true, it must logically follow that the conclusion HAS to be true. If you can loose a premise and it not effect your arguement, either it shouldnt be there, or your arguemnt is inductive not deductive. and in retrospect your argument is inductive so yeah, that was a null point by me. edit: for example:- All white things are swans I saw a white thing ------------------------------ Therefore i saw a swan <-- this is a valid argument If i remove a premise it stops being true, there are no un-nessacary premisis, for example All white things are swans I saw a white thing It is tuesday < this isnt needed ------------------- I saw a swan this is not valid premis so attacking it in this case would not cause the argument to fall down. it shouldnt be in there. even if i add, something about tuesdays being good for swan spotting, its still un-nessacary. | ||
|
BalloonFight
United States2007 Posts
On March 09 2010 00:53 ghermination wrote: The romanian jokes are funny because they're true, and every time we have one of these threads a romanian steps up and get's laughed at due to their lack of sarcasm detection and weak english, perfectly reinforcing the stereotype. Also, Tahiti. no, most of the time it's a low post count user who doesn't know the rather stupid TL meme and thus is unaware of the joke, which has nothing to do with sarcasm. being able to detect sarcasm would not allow one to understand what the fuck was going on if they did not know the joke beforehand. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3685 Posts
I'm not sure if I want to retype it at the moment. I'll just address the last part that I didn't get to. On March 09 2010 09:30 Mogget wrote:and no, if a premise is false an arguemnt cannot be deductivly valid, it can only be inductivly valid. If you dont belive me just do some reading. Dont forget, for an arguemnt to be deductivly valid, if the conclusions are true, it must logically follow that the conclusion HAS to be true. If you can loose a premise and it not effect your arguement, either it shouldnt be there, or your arguemnt is inductive not deductive. and in retrospect your argument is inductive so yeah, that was a null point by me. You are incorrect. An conclusion may have false premises and still be deductively valid. However, it will not be a strong argument. "Anyone who accepts the premises of a deductively valid argument must, unless they are irrational, accept the conclusion." - Groarke, Leo. Good Reasoning Matters! : a constructive approach to critical thinking. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2008. Page 146. Also, my argument has both inductive and deductive conclusions. | ||
|
Raneth
England527 Posts
On March 09 2010 11:10 Durak wrote: This is extremely unfortunate. I was almost done my reply to both of your posts and I hit mouse 5 by accident (hotkey for back webpage). Remind me to never compose large replies in the TL reply box. I'm not sure if I want to retype it at the moment. I'll just address the last part that I didn't get to. You are incorrect. An conclusion may have false premises and still be deductively valid. However, it will not be a strong argument. "Anyone who accepts the premises of a deductively valid argument must, unless they are irrational, accept the conclusion." - Groarke, Leo. Good Reasoning Matters! : a constructive approach to critical thinking. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2008. Page 146. Also, my argument has both inductive and deductive conclusions. your qoute supports my claim? anyone who accepts the premises of a deductivly valid argument -must- accept the conclusion, thats what a valid argument is, the quote is besides the point, if you can find problem with one of the premis, you negate the logical route leading to the conclusion. The only time when this gets confused, is when more than one argument is being made at the same time, to reach the same conclusion. For example, if i made the argument: All white things are swans i saw a white thing All swans are at this park on tuesdays it is tuesday i am at the park ------------------------- therefore i saw a swan now it is true, i could prove you wernt at the park, and the cocclusion would still be valid, but that is because there at two arguments here. one of which is All white things are swans i saw a white thing the other of which is All swans are at this park on tuesdays it is tuesday i am at the park now, if i were to prove one of the premisis wrong, in either of these arguments, its individual conclusion would no longer logically follow. Each part is nessacary to the argument, and if there is a flaw in any one part, the conclusion can no longer be inferred from the argument. EDIT: also not the wording in that definition, again, the key word here being "if" as in if and only if they accept the premises (all of them) then the conclusion -must- be true, "if" they dont accept them (any of them) then they do not -have- to accept the conclusion. | ||
|
Raneth
England527 Posts
On March 09 2010 11:10 Durak wrote: Also, my argument has both inductive and deductive conclusions. your argument as a whole is inductive, i could agree with all of your premisis and sub-conclusions yet still disagree with your conclusion, there isnt a logically certain route i -must- take, granted if i accept all your premisis then i almost certainly would agree, but i wouldnt have to, thus the argument as a whole is either inductive, or it isnt a -valid- deductive argument. | ||
|
spitball
Australia81 Posts
On March 09 2010 03:50 Chill wrote: If you want to put together a statistical basis to prove that Romanians are no more likely to miss sarcasm than anyone else, by all means go ahead. If it comes back true, I will never post about it again. Until that day, I will have to cite empirical evidence. The burden of proof is on you. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3685 Posts
Here's an example for you: P1: Pigs are winged animals P2: All winged animals can fly SC: Pigs can fly This is a deductively valid argument. If you accept the premises, you must accept the conclusion. There is no way to reach a different conclusion because of the wording. It doesn't matter if the premises are true or false, it's a definition about how the premises lead to the conclusion. Now, this is obviously a weak argument. The premises are unacceptable. However, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises and it is deductively valid. P.S. I was going to go back and finish correcting your other posts. It doesn't seem necessary now since you should be able to correct them yourself from these basics. I appreciate you playing devil's advocate but it's not well-founded criticism and I doubt it's being considered for more than our interest. Edit: I should have just linked you to wikipedia instead of teaching you myself since you are obviously questioning everything I say irrationally. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive#Deductive_logic if you don't believe me, or go make arguments with them about it. I'm not going to prove the earth is round to you. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
| ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
It works everytime. | ||
|
vhallee
899 Posts
On March 09 2010 03:22 Durak wrote: If anything, the OP is going to get less responses from Romanians because they are unhappy with TL. That's actually the main reason why I stopped posting here and removed my nationality in the profile. I perceived TLnet as a community comprised mostly of intelligent people - however, pushing that "Romanians sarcasm LOL" meme is just sickening - it just sounds like a broken record, babbling about the same thing over and over again. I shouldn't care, because it's the internet, but to me TLnet seems, as I said, like a place full of intelligent people. If I would go to the TLnet fitness thread and start saying "you're fat eh? you must be American LOL" that would probably be considered a huge offense; calling someone a Romanian here became synonym with 'retarded', but doesn't seem the least bit offensive. Btw I'm not really butt-hurt. I'm not living in Romania anymore, but the jokes about Romanians at my office are hilarious and I even push them forward cause I enjoy them. This meme, on the other hand, just goes to show that the TLnet is not what I thought of it. tl;dr: make fun of Romanians = encouraged, make fun of Americans/others = ban. | ||
|
ghostWriter
United States3302 Posts
It's that Romanians don't understand sarcasm and has come out several times in different threads And yeah, many Americans are obese FUCK YEA AMERICA | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
On March 10 2010 06:14 vhallee wrote: That's actually the main reason why I stopped posting here and removed my nationality in the profile. I perceived TLnet as a community comprised mostly of intelligent people - however, pushing that "Romanians sarcasm LOL" meme is just sickening - it just sounds like a broken record, babbling about the same thing over and over again. I shouldn't care, because it's the internet, but to me TLnet seems, as I said, like a place full of intelligent people. If I would go to the TLnet fitness thread and start saying "you're fat eh? you must be American LOL" that would probably be considered a huge offense; calling someone a Romanian here became synonym with 'retarded', but doesn't seem the least bit offensive. Btw I'm not really butt-hurt. I'm not living in Romania anymore, but the jokes about Romanians at my office are hilarious and I even push them forward cause I enjoy them. This meme, on the other hand, just goes to show that the TLnet is not what I thought of it. tl;dr: make fun of Romanians = encouraged, make fun of Americans/others = ban. Well that was a huge mistake  .Also, even if the majority found the meme stupid and not funny, it would be the idiotic minority that perpetuate it anyway. Not that I think finding the meme funny makes you an idiot. Although I might have just said that. Don't read too much into it. + Show Spoiler + I think the meme is worn out, but the resulting arguments that it always brings up are always entertaining. | ||
|
LordWeird
United States3411 Posts
| ||
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
On March 10 2010 06:14 vhallee wrote: That's actually the main reason why I stopped posting here and removed my nationality in the profile. I perceived TLnet as a community comprised mostly of intelligent people - however, pushing that "Romanians sarcasm LOL" meme is just sickening - it just sounds like a broken record, babbling about the same thing over and over again. I shouldn't care, because it's the internet, but to me TLnet seems, as I said, like a place full of intelligent people. If I would go to the TLnet fitness thread and start saying "you're fat eh? you must be American LOL" that would probably be considered a huge offense; calling someone a Romanian here became synonym with 'retarded', but doesn't seem the least bit offensive. Btw I'm not really butt-hurt. I'm not living in Romania anymore, but the jokes about Romanians at my office are hilarious and I even push them forward cause I enjoy them. This meme, on the other hand, just goes to show that the TLnet is not what I thought of it. tl;dr: make fun of Romanians = encouraged, make fun of Americans/others = ban. It's about what they've done on TL. Americans = fat may be true but it hasn't been proven to be true of this community. Romanians = can't understand sarcasm happens every time Romania is referenced lol. | ||
|
spitball
Australia81 Posts
On March 10 2010 08:06 Chill wrote: It's about what they've done on TL. Americans = fat may be true but it hasn't been proven to be true of this community. Romanians = can't understand sarcasm happens every time Romania is referenced lol. You only need one Romanian to miss some sarcasm every 6 months to keep the meme alive. | ||
| ||
