EPTFormer BW Pro investigated for domestic abuse - Page 18
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
KamMoye
United States721 Posts
| ||
|
MageKirby
United States535 Posts
| ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:37 KamMoye wrote: ITT: The definition of groupthink. Psychology 101 is really captivating you, no? | ||
|
o[twist]
United States4903 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:37 KamMoye wrote: ITT: The definition of groupthink. what exactly was your argument to which people offered fallacious responses | ||
|
doothegee
Korea (South)3011 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:43 o[twist] wrote: what exactly was your argument to which people offered fallacious responses Science has proven that mindlessly disagreeing with people does, in fact, make you cooler. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:44 doothegee wrote: Science has proven that mindlessly disagreeing with people does, in fact, make you cooler. Yes, I have read much on this "hipster effect." It seems to be running rampant upon quite a few forums. EDIT: Oh and KamMoye I'm still waiting for you to respond to my PMs. If you're just going to be a troll, then that's cool with me, and completely expected, seeing as how you respond in such stupid ways. Just don't expect to challenge my concept of psychology without a proper response. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:43 o[twist] wrote: what exactly was your argument to which people offered fallacious responses Strawman! God, people are so emotionally charged in this thread. | ||
|
Dakkas
2550 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:37 KamMoye wrote: ITT: The definition of groupthink. STRAWMAN! See! I can be just as smart as you! | ||
|
KamMoye
United States721 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:43 o[twist] wrote: what exactly was your argument to which people offered fallacious responses Why do I need to specify an argument to call out impropriety? The vast majority of the posters in this thread are simply behaving like savage beasts. It's implicitly "okay" because the "culture" of this thread allows it. Logically, however, it is specious at best. I counted what, three posts/sentiments that disagreed with the "burn him at the stake!" mentality. What were the responses to those three sentiments? Monkeys flinging poop. Insults. Ganging up. Absurdity. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:52 KamMoye wrote: Why do I need to specify an argument to call out impropriety? The vast majority of the posters in this thread are simply behaving like savage beasts. It's implicitly "okay" because the "culture" of this thread allows it. Logically, however, it is specious at best. I counted what, three posts/sentiments that disagreed with the "burn him at the stake!" mentality. What were the responses to those three sentiments? Monkeys flinging poop. Insults. Ganging up. Absurdity. Because all you're doing is calling other people stupid. How about you actually offer a valid response, rather than guerrilla text? Anyway, I'll just write you off as a troll or a mindless psychology freshman: equally useless. Enjoy your short stay at TL. If you want a real argument, maybe you should respond on here or PMs, other than that, no use for me to waste my energy on you. | ||
|
doothegee
Korea (South)3011 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:52 KamMoye wrote: Why do I need to specify an argument to call out impropriety? The vast majority of the posters in this thread are simply behaving like savage beasts. It's implicitly "okay" because the "culture" of this thread allows it. Logically, however, it is specious at best. I counted what, three posts/sentiments that disagreed with the "burn him at the stake!" mentality. What were the responses to those three sentiments? Monkeys flinging poop. Insults. Ganging up. Absurdity. Someone said that video games cause people to throw acid in other people's faces and murder animals for fun (without any substantial proof), to which people responded by calling this argument what it is - idiotic. I fail to see how dismissing intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, offensive arguments can be considered "impropriety". But then again, what do I know. (This post written through Google Monkey-Poop Translate) | ||
|
Dakkas
2550 Posts
Do you know what I say to that? [Citation Needed] | ||
|
KamMoye
United States721 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:56 NrG.Bamboo wrote: Because all you're doing is calling other people stupid. Incorrect. You are interpreting my words through your own sphere of perspective. All I have really done, however, is make observations. I have not criticized, impugned or judge any individual. I have merely described the behavior observed in a detached manner. From my perspective, at least. You are entitled to disagree. I am entitled to agree to disagree and leave it at that. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:52 KamMoye wrote: Why do I need to specify an argument to call out impropriety? The vast majority of the posters in this thread are simply behaving like savage beasts. It's implicitly "okay" because the "culture" of this thread allows it. Logically, however, it is specious at best. I counted what, three posts/sentiments that disagreed with the "burn him at the stake!" mentality. What were the responses to those three sentiments? Monkeys flinging poop. Insults. Ganging up. Absurdity. Because I have serious doubts that playing video games turns people into lying, animal abusing, wife beating, cheating parasitic people, and if you really want to argue that it does you're going to have to show some evidence. | ||
|
KamMoye
United States721 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:56 doothegee wrote: Someone said that video games cause people to throw acid in other people's faces and murder animals for fun (without any substantial proof), to which people responded by calling this argument what it is - idiotic. Is that really what "someone" said? Or was that your interpretation? Quote his post. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On August 26 2012 12:58 KamMoye wrote: Incorrect. You are interpreting my words through your own sphere of perspective. All I have really done, however, is make observations. I have not criticized, impugned or judge any individual. I have merely described the behavior observed in a detached manner. From my perspective, at least. You are entitled to disagree. I am entitled to agree to disagree and leave it at that. True, I am definitely interpreting your words through my own perspective, which does mask the original meaning. However, the fact that you have PMd me 2 or 3 times by completely dodging all of my questions, I will just continue to write you off as a troll. Talk to me when you grow up a little bit  Or at least after you take a few more psychology courses. + Show Spoiler + On August 26 2012 12:57 Dakkas wrote: Your first post in this thread was heavily implying we should be showing compassion to luxury. You imply because of the strenuous lifestyle as a progamer affects his psychology and has led him to this, essentially bringing in the whole 'Nature vs Nurture' debate by linking his actions to nurture. Do you know what I say to that? [Citation Needed] | ||
|
TommyP
United States6231 Posts
| ||
|
doothegee
Korea (South)3011 Posts
On August 26 2012 13:00 KamMoye wrote: Is that really what "someone" said? Or was that your interpretation? Quote his post. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you, but here you go: On August 26 2012 04:33 Terranist wrote: you people don't like to hear it, but these are the dangers of socially depriving young adults and making them play a violent game for 12 hours a day during a crucial development stage of life. Then again, I saw that you wrote this: On August 25 2012 23:50 KamMoye wrote: This thread is a great example of how out-of-touch this generation is with compassion. Would you prefer to be called a troll or just ignorant? | ||
|
oBlade
United States6295 Posts
That just isn't a strawman. No, that's really what Terranist said. It seems like an honest representation of his position to me. On August 26 2012 04:33 Terranist wrote: you people don't like to hear it, but these are the dangers of socially depriving young adults and making them play a violent game for 12 hours a day during a crucial development stage of life. No, ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance. That means you introduce some irrelevant information about people into the discussion to act like it makes your conclusion correct. But in this case, it was taken as a foregone conclusion that video games have nothing to do with what Luxury has done. The seemingly dyslogistic "idiocy" is actually attempting to answer a different question. On August 26 2012 11:28 bo1b wrote: Why are people even arguing that a video game made luxury a sociopath? So idiocy is very relevant to the question of what would motivate someone to say that. I am in awe at how emotionally charged and intellectually misplaced these contributions are. No kidding, we should all hold ourselves to your standards of meticulous posting. On August 26 2012 12:52 KamMoye wrote: Why do I need to specify an argument to call out impropriety? Fallacies are explicitly in the realm of logos. If you're complaining about fallacious argumentation when you didn't even have an argument, you've committed a category error for the gratification of your own ego (presumably everyone will be impressed by your apparently refuting everyone with one word). On August 26 2012 12:37 KamMoye wrote: ITT: The definition of groupthink. "People are agreeing." We noticed that already. | ||
|
SlayerS_BunkiE
Canada1717 Posts
| ||
| ||
