364 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

Erixxxx wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

He presents an appeal to probability folks. That alone means he has nothing to contribute to the conversation.

As does anyone else who accepts his appeal to authority, yet another logical fallacy.

And you provide absolutely no arguments at all, hence you have nothing to contribute to this conversation.

Funny how that works.

That was mature. I would have thought you would have been a little more receptive to things that challenge your opinion. I was wrong.

A is possible/therefore A is absolute. This is his fallacy.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 25 juin 2012 - 12:52 .

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

No, his logic is not contradicted by ours.  We lack the context of his logic, which is why we don't understand it.

Do you even understand how logic works?

Yeah, I understand that no matter how logical someones actions are, or are not, without context I will most likely never understand them.

[Taboo]

Without context, it is a fallacy. If he could provide an accurate percentage to the probability of the singularity, this wouldn't be an issue. Probability is not fallacious. An appeal to it however, is.

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

No, his logic is not contradicted by ours.  We lack the context of his logic, which is why we don't understand it.

Do you even understand how logic works?

Yeah, I understand that no matter how logical someones actions are, or are not, without context I will most likely never understand them.

No, I mean, do you even understand how base logic works?

This, therefore that.

See Taboo's post--the Catalyst argues that a is possible, ergo a will occur. That is a logical fallacy.

Modifié par The Revolut, 25 juin 2012 - 12:57 .

[darthoptimus003]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

firstly the starbrat is wrong on so many levels
the geth DID NOT start the war and depending on how you played the geth ended the war
and the whole "i created synthetic to kill organics so organic would not be killed by synthetic" is as stupid as you can get
and who in the hell gave him the right to do this NO ONE
tht sob reminds me of a group bak in the 30s and 40s who did the same damn thing

to update
they also thought the where doing what they thought was right
no diffrence then the little star b******
its still wrong

[Edrick1976]

xMellowhype wrote...

It's not logically sound when the Reapers have been saying it's beyond our comprehension. And the galactic dark age part kills it for everyone. Oh and the part where none of our choices did squat.

So I will give it to BioWare. They have the abiltiy to ruin something so epic in such a short amount of time. It's actually quite appalling.

This

[darthoptimus003]

Erixxxx wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

Did you agree with Hitler's logic that the Jews should be wiped out, too?

Hitler wanted the jews gone. The Reapers want the species preserved in immortal shells in order to save them from complete annihilation.

i dont see a diffrecne between the two
killing is still killing

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

No, his logic is not contradicted by ours.  We lack the context of his logic, which is why we don't understand it.

Do you even understand how logic works?

Yeah, I understand that no matter how logical someones actions are, or are not, without context I will most likely never understand them.

No, I mean, do you even understand how base logic works?

This, therefore that.

See Taboo's post--the Catalyst argues that a is possible, ergo a will occur. That is a logical fallacy.

Ok.  Humans have wars.  Humans will always have wars.  If I say this, historically, I'm right.  Semantically, It's a logical fallacy, but the historical evidence proves that it is a very high probability.  If historically, synthetics always warred with organics, and the probability is high enough to enact the cycle, then while technically a logical fallacy, it is still logical to prevent an occurance with such high probability.

Once the cycle was enacted, any occurence which could contradict historical evidence is irrelevent as it never happened, and historically, synthetics always warred with organics.

If you want to sit here and claim that the Catalyst is dumb because he lacks logic, then you ignore the context of his past where the probability of a synthetic-organic war was too high to ignore.

[thisisme8]

darthoptimus003 wrote...
i dont see a diffrecne between the two
killing is still killing

One was to eradicate, the other to preserve a doomed civilization.  While both monstrous, the reason is still different.

[Taboo]

Hey. Pay attention. He provides no information as to probability. That is fallacious.

Synthetics have been show to be capable of coexisting with Organics. Unless you played a separate game.

You base everything on a fallacy.

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

Ok.  Humans have wars.  Humans will always have wars.  If I say this, historically, I'm right.  Semantically, It's a logical fallacy, but the historical evidence proves that it is a very high probability.  If historically, synthetics always warred with organics, and the probability is high enough to enact the cycle, then while technically a logical fallacy, it is still logical to prevent an occurance with such high probability.

If, however, the Humans created a cycle which developed along inherently similar lines over a long period of time, warred, and continually destroyed one another, it would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Which is still a logical fallacy.

Once the cycle was enacted, any occurence which could contradict historical evidence is irrelevent as it never happened, and historically, synthetics always warred with organics.

If you want to sit here and claim that the Catalyst is dumb because he lacks logic, then you ignore the context of his past where the probability of a synthetic-organic war was too high to ignore.

Which then is another facet of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm calling the Catalyst stupid because his argument is full of logical fallacies, which you are parroting with zero problem.

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...
i dont see a diffrecne between the two
killing is still killing

One was to eradicate, the other to preserve a doomed civilization.  While both monstrous, the reason is still different.

No, one was to cleanse, the other to preserve.

If we're going to take one at face value, we must take the other.

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

I'm calling the Catalyst stupid because his argument is full of logical fallacies, which you are parroting with zero problem.

Humans will always have wars with each other.

The probability for what I just said is so astronomically high, that it is almost a damn absolute.

BUT!  You would rather argue over your english text-book and your astute understanding of debate than simply say, "yeah, humans have not only always warred with each other, they have actually never once in any period of our existance not warred with each other."

So when I say, "we should enact a measure to prevent war, since humans will always war with each other," you would cut me off and say, "hold on there, buddy.  That's a logical fallacy.  You are dumb.  Let's debate this," instead of agreeing that the most logical action would be to try and prevent what is almost 100% likely to happen.

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...
i dont see a diffrecne between the two
killing is still killing

One was to eradicate, the other to preserve a doomed civilization.  While both monstrous, the reason is still different.

No, one was to cleanse, the other to preserve.

If we're going to take one at face value, we must take the other.

Wow.  Look at my above post.  You just want to show how smart you are.

[Erixxxx]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Synthetics have been show to be capable of coexisting with Organics.

Once. In the 13.4 billion years the universe has existed, we have one recorded occurence of organic-synthetic cooperation.

[thisisme8]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Hey. Pay attention. He provides no information as to probability. That is fallacious.

Synthetics have been show to be capable of coexisting with Organics. Unless you played a separate game.

You base everything on a fallacy.

Right, and in the one cycle where they co-exist, the Catalyst agrees to end it.

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

Humans will always have wars with each other.

The probability for what I just said is so astronomically high, that it is almost a damn absolute.

Contextless, therefore irrelevant.

BUT!  You would rather argue over your english text-book and your astute understanding of debate than simply say, "yeah, humans have not only always warred with each other, they have actually never once in any period of our existance not warred with each other."

Contextless, therefore irrelevant.

So when I say, "we should enact a measure to prevent war, since humans will always war with each other," you would cut me off and say, "hold on there, buddy.  That's a logical fallacy.  You are dumb.  Let's debate this," instead of agreeing that the most logical action would be to try and prevent what is almost 100% likely to happen.

So, you'd be willing to impose, not willingly, a cycle upon humans and Earth, thereby wiping out life every so often?

Just so we wouldn't have the possibility of war in the future? That's absurd.

Modifié par The Revolut, 25 juin 2012 - 01:21 .

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...
i dont see a diffrecne between the two
killing is still killing

One was to eradicate, the other to preserve a doomed civilization.  While both monstrous, the reason is still different.

No, one was to cleanse, the other to preserve.

If we're going to take one at face value, we must take the other.

Wow.  Look at my above post.  You just want to show how smart you are.

Umm, no. You have yet to apply a single standard to two horrific instances.

[darthoptimus003]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...
i dont see a diffrecne between the two
killing is still killing

One was to eradicate, the other to preserve a doomed civilization.  While both monstrous, the reason is still different.

No, one was to cleanse, the other to preserve.

If we're going to take one at face value, we must take the other.

liquafing=death
a horible death that was shown in 2
the jews burnt alive
there is NO diffrence and the reapers have done this for 1000000+ yrs
they eradicate organic life i dont care what they say they still MURDER countless people before they start their "PERSERVATION" process
the reapers are just like the **** party
besides how are we a doomed civilazation anyway because some mass murdering ass who think its his place to play god
sorry try again i dontbuy that at all

[The Revolut]

darthoptimus003 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...
i dont see a diffrecne between the two
killing is still killing

One was to eradicate, the other to preserve a doomed civilization.  While both monstrous, the reason is still different.

No, one was to cleanse, the other to preserve.

If we're going to take one at face value, we must take the other.

liquafing=death
a horible death that was shown in 2
the jews burnt alive
there is NO diffrence and the reapers have done this for 1000000+ yrs
they eradicate organic life i dont care what they say they still MURDER countless people before they start their "PERSERVATION" process
the reapers are just like the **** party
besides how are we a doomed civilazation anyway because some mass murdering ass who think its his place to play god
sorry try again i dontbuy that at all

I don't care how badly I violate Godwin's law.

They are both horrific.

[darthoptimus003]

The Revolut wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

darthoptimus003 wrote...
i dont see a diffrecne between the two
killing is still killing

One was to eradicate, the other to preserve a doomed civilization.  While both monstrous, the reason is still different.

No, one was to cleanse, the other to preserve.

If we're going to take one at face value, we must take the other.

liquafing=death
a horible death that was shown in 2
the jews burnt alive
there is NO diffrence and the reapers have done this for 1000000+ yrs
they eradicate organic life i dont care what they say they still MURDER countless people before they start their "PERSERVATION" process
the reapers are just like the **** party
besides how are we a doomed civilazation anyway because some mass murdering ass who think its his place to play god
sorry try again i dontbuy that at all

I don't care how badly I violate Godwin's law.

They are both horrific.

agreed

[thisisme8]

The Revolut wrote...

thisisme8 wrote...

Humans will always have wars with each other.

The probability for what I just said is so astronomically high, that it is almost a damn absolute.

Contextless, therefore irrelevant.

BUT!  You would rather argue over your english text-book and your astute understanding of debate than simply say, "yeah, humans have not only always warred with each other, they have actually never once in any period of our existance not warred with each other."

Contextless, therefore irrelevant.

So when I say, "we should enact a measure to prevent war, since humans will always war with each other," you would cut me off and say, "hold on there, buddy.  That's a logical fallacy.  You are dumb.  Let's debate this," instead of agreeing that the most logical action would be to try and prevent what is almost 100% likely to happen.

So, you'd be willing to impose, not willingly, a cycle upon humans and Earth, thereby wiping out life every so often?

Just so we wouldn't war? That's absurd.

Exactly.  You refuse to discuss the logic of a being that would enact such a thing so you completely ignore it with excuses of semantics under the guise of logic. Then you take an example, completely ignore its purpose, attatch ridiculous accusations on it, and again, completely ignore the real question:
What is so illogical about the Catalyst and the Cycle?  It was a method of control put in place by beings millions of years ago to fix a problem we don't fully understand.

[The Revolut]

thisisme8 wrote...

Exactly.  You refuse to discuss the logic of a being that would enact such a thing so you completely ignore it with excuses of semantics under the guise of logic. Then you take an example, completely ignore its purpose, attatch ridiculous accusations on it, and again, completely ignore the real question:
What is so illogical about the Catalyst and the Cycle?  It was a method of control put in place by beings millions of years ago to fix a problem we don't fully understand.

There is no logic to enact such a thing.

It is predicated upon the appeal to probability, therefore a logical fallacy. That is the point you have been missing the entire time.

What is so illogical about the Catalyst and the Cycle is that it too is based upon the appeal to probability being absolute; also, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What part of this are you not getting?

Modifié par The Revolut, 25 juin 2012 - 01:29 .

[darthoptimus003]

the reapers are evil and need to be eradicated
and the three choice we have = gallatic dark age
not much of a choice there

[Erixxxx]

If something has occured 100% of the time over the course of several million years, perhaps billions, you will assume that events will continue to play out this way. And you will act on the information you have.