57139 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I like arguing with indoctrinated trolling presences. They suck at logic.

Don't like Indoctrination Theory?  How about the Zoidberg Theory? 

LOL! sign me up! 

Zoidberg, the first reaper.

[SubAstris]

[quote]byne wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...


I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last
[/quote]

You didnt answer his question.




I explained why his logic was faulty, that is a sufficient answer

[Dwailing]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Shepard seeing trees of such quality which are not the same to any trees seen in the other evidences for IT, such as dreams. Points to another reason, not IT

LOL! and what reason would that be?

I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

OK, I said I was going to stay away, but I have to say something.  I'm taking a logic class, and I see something that is immeditately wrong with that argument.  You have placed your middle term (the term that is repeated in both premises but NOT in the conclusion) in the conclusion.  Your argument is invalid.

[lex0r11]

Back again.

byne wrote...

[...]

You didnt answer his question.

SubAstris wrote...

Evading the issue...I like it

That's what they do. One particular fella always avoided half of my questions.

Now guess what they all had in common.

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

You didnt answer his question.

I explained why his logic was faulty, that is a sufficient answer

>You said the trees point to something other than IT.
>He asks what they point to.
>You tell him he is illogical.
>You claim this answers his question.

Thats not how answering questions works.

[MegumiAzusa]

I was bored

Note: Harbinger doesn't like trees and always horns when shooting them! (very obvious at about 1:20 )

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

Yes I am clearly indoctrinated. And now my facts and logic are indoctrinating you

But.. if you're indoctrinated, then... your facts and logic are obviously twisted by some outside bias. That's like saying "I am a liar, believe what I say."

You're not doing a very good job of..... whatever it is you are trying to do.

[MaximizedAction]

balance5050 wrote...

I like arguing with indoctrinated trolling presences.

He either had never literary analysis classes in school or just trolls us.
IT is not difficult to understand, especially if you take into consideration that this game is interended for the mass and not for a particular 'elite' minority.

IT should be fun and interesting. But as every theory, it needs some defense against the Glenn Becks that tend to drop by.

[Tirian Thorn]

balance5050 wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

I like arguing with indoctrinated trolling presences. They suck at logic.

Don't like Indoctrination Theory?  How about the Zoidberg Theory? 

LOL! sign me up! 

Zoidberg, the first reaper.

No.  Zoidberg is still around because he wasn't worth harvesting. 

[balance5050]

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]byne wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...


I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last
[/quote]

You didnt answer his question.




I explained why his logic was faulty, that is a sufficient answer



No, I asked what the trees could mean if not I.T.

Modifié par balance5050, 01 mai 2012 - 07:43 .

[SubAstris]

Dracorequiem wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

It IS a similar argument. People that believe in God believe God designed the universe, so any weird thing is his doing.

We know FOR A FACT that Bioware designed every aspect of the game. A lot of arguments for IT take this into account, while those against IT tend to forget that.

There can be no random trees or treeish pattern that just happens to be there because someone HAD to program those trees there. At this point, if you're not understanding this you're simply being obtuse.

They might believe God is doing it, but that doesn't make it true of course.

BW did design every aspect. Doesn't mean there is also a meaning behind everything for example, the fact that the same models are used on one planet and another doesn't mean the two things are linked. Or in fact, they didn't think everything through. IT requires infalliability on BW's part.

Again, we know the trees are there, we don't know why they are there

[lex0r11]

[SubAstris]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

You didnt answer his question.

I explained why his logic was faulty, that is a sufficient answer

>You said the trees point to something other than IT.
>He asks what they point to.
>You tell him he is illogical.
>You claim this answers his question.

Thats not how answering questions works.

I have already answered, I don't know. I'm just saying the argument that it supports IT is shaky

[Bill Casey]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

To me, if IT is true, it just proves once and for all that when game companies do the same old thing, it sells like hotcakes and everyone eats it up. When they try something new, they're criticized and dragged through the dirt by a formerly loyal fanbase.

It's the sad state of video gaming.

If IT is true, I will send messages of appreciation and gratitude for a brilliant narrative...

However, while I'm betting on Indoctrination being true, faith is bad and constructive criticism is good...
In the event that IT isn't true, faith in it will hinder valuable criticism of the ending...

Until the EC, it's Schrodinger's plotline. We must assume IT is both true and false until we see the result...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 01 mai 2012 - 07:46 .

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

They might believe God is doing it, but that doesn't make it true of course.

BW did design every aspect. Doesn't mean there is also a meaning behind everything for example, the fact that the same models are used on one planet and another doesn't mean the two things are linked. Or in fact, they didn't think everything through. IT requires infalliability on BW's part.

Again, we know the trees are there, we don't know why they are there

If you don't know then what are you arguing for? Like you have somethingto prove to us strangers and you don't even know what it is. 

[Dwailing]

Dwailing wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Shepard seeing trees of such quality which are not the same to any trees seen in the other evidences for IT, such as dreams. Points to another reason, not IT

LOL! and what reason would that be?

I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

OK, I said I was going to stay away, but I have to say something.  I'm taking a logic class, and I see something that is immeditately wrong with that argument.  You have placed your middle term (the term that is repeated in both premises but NOT in the conclusion) in the conclusion.  Your argument is invalid.

Self bumping.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

You didnt answer his question.

I explained why his logic was faulty, that is a sufficient answer

>You said the trees point to something other than IT.
>He asks what they point to.
>You tell him he is illogical.
>You claim this answers his question.

Thats not how answering questions works.

I have already answered, I don't know. I'm just saying the argument that it supports IT is shaky

You don't have an answer for the trees, we are at least trying to find out. So what other fallacies are you going to present to us today?

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

They might believe God is doing it, but that doesn't make it true of course.

BW did design every aspect. Doesn't mean there is also a meaning behind everything for example, the fact that the same models are used on one planet and another doesn't mean the two things are linked. Or in fact, they didn't think everything through. IT requires infalliability on BW's part.

Again, we know the trees are there, we don't know why they are there

If you don't know then what are you arguing for? Like you have somethingto prove to us strangers and you don't even know what it is. 

I am warning that skepticism should be applied to proposed evidence.

[dorktainian]

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

You didnt answer his question.

I explained why his logic was faulty, that is a sufficient answer

>You said the trees point to something other than IT.
>He asks what they point to.
>You tell him he is illogical.
>You claim this answers his question.

Thats not how answering questions works.

I have already answered, I don't know. I'm just saying the argument that it supports IT is shaky

You don't have an answer for the trees, we are at least trying to find out. So what other fallacies are you going to present to us today?

How exact is what I said a fallacy?

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

They might believe God is doing it, but that doesn't make it true of course.

BW did design every aspect. Doesn't mean there is also a meaning behind everything for example, the fact that the same models are used on one planet and another doesn't mean the two things are linked. Or in fact, they didn't think everything through. IT requires infalliability on BW's part.

Again, we know the trees are there, we don't know why they are there

If you don't know then what are you arguing for? Like you have somethingto prove to us strangers and you don't even know what it is. 

I am warning that skepticism should be applied to proposed evidence.

We're all skeptics... we aren't going to follow the heard and just say "Bad writing!" because THATS the easy solution. We are simply asking why the game ended only half way through the third act.

[UrgedDuke]

ALL HAIL THE HYPNOTOAD!!!!

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

They might believe God is doing it, but that doesn't make it true of course.

BW did design every aspect. Doesn't mean there is also a meaning behind everything for example, the fact that the same models are used on one planet and another doesn't mean the two things are linked. Or in fact, they didn't think everything through. IT requires infalliability on BW's part.

Again, we know the trees are there, we don't know why they are there

If you don't know then what are you arguing for? Like you have somethingto prove to us strangers and you don't even know what it is. 

I am warning that skepticism should be applied to proposed evidence.

We're all skeptics... we aren't going to follow the heard and just say "Bad writing!" because THATS the easy solution. We are simply asking why the game ended only half way through the third act.

If you say so

[SS2Dante]

SubAstris wrote...

Dracorequiem wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

It IS a similar argument. People that believe in God believe God designed the universe, so any weird thing is his doing.

We know FOR A FACT that Bioware designed every aspect of the game. A lot of arguments for IT take this into account, while those against IT tend to forget that.

There can be no random trees or treeish pattern that just happens to be there because someone HAD to program those trees there. At this point, if you're not understanding this you're simply being obtuse.

They might believe God is doing it, but that doesn't make it true of course.

BW did design every aspect. Doesn't mean there is also a meaning behind everything for example, the fact that the same models are used on one planet and another doesn't mean the two things are linked. Or in fact, they didn't think everything through. IT requires infalliability on BW's part.

Again, we know the trees are there, we don't know why they are there

The trees are in full bloom because this is the point that indoctrination looks its most appealing. Hence bright alive trees.

...is probably the reason. Is it fullproof? Course not. But discarding the blatent symbolism because they're not the EXACT trees in the dream is pigheaded at best. They share a common theme and are hidden for no discernable purpose.

[Dwailing]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

You didnt answer his question.

I explained why his logic was faulty, that is a sufficient answer

>You said the trees point to something other than IT.
>He asks what they point to.
>You tell him he is illogical.
>You claim this answers his question.

Thats not how answering questions works.

I have already answered, I don't know. I'm just saying the argument that it supports IT is shaky

You don't have an answer for the trees, we are at least trying to find out. So what other fallacies are you going to present to us today?

How exact is what I said a fallacy?

Well, it sounds as if you're commiting the fallacy of Argument from Personnal Incredulity, in which you deny something because you cannot explain it.  It's a common trap that Creationists fall into, which is kind of ironic since you would appear to be an atheist.