I believe this is true, so let me find things I believe is evidence, that makes my conclusion true
vs
This is what we know as facts, what conclusion can we make based off this
Modifié par Meltemph, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:12 .
Why the catalyst won't surrender.
Débuté par
teh DRUMPf!!
, janv. 18 2013 07:53
#301
Posté 20 janvier 2013 - 10:11
Meltemph
-
- Members
- 3 892 messages
ITT:
I believe this is true, so let me find things I believe is evidence, that makes my conclusion true
vs
This is what we know as facts, what conclusion can we make based off this
I believe this is true, so let me find things I believe is evidence, that makes my conclusion true
vs
This is what we know as facts, what conclusion can we make based off this
Retour en haut
#302
Posté 20 janvier 2013 - 10:38
silverexile17s
-
- Members
- 2 547 messages
And which is which? Like I said, from what we see, the Codex isn't the be-all, know-all when it comes to accurate information on the Reapers.Meltemph wrote...
ITT:
I believe this is true, so let me find things I believe is evidence, that makes my conclusion true
vs
This is what we know as facts, what conclusion can we make based off this
Modifié par silverexile17s, 21 janvier 2013 - 12:30 .
#303
Posté 21 janvier 2013 - 05:18
Rasofe
-
- Members
- 1 065 messages
What?silverexile17s wrote...
True. Although, given what they became, it's argueble that they would likely be begging to die, had they seen what would happen to them.Rasofe wrote...
Indeed. If you define "killing" as something else, you can easily avoid it when commencing galactic genocide.
Murder isn't about killing the body, at least not legally, it's killing the mind. But the catalyst would make a poor lawyer.
After all, it would be simpler and easer to just die, instead of living on forever as part of a hybrid being like that.
It would be no different then, in no uncertin terms, being condemned to a living hell for all eternity.
Look, the minds of the sapient life is gone. You can't experience being a Reaper without a mind to experience it with.
#304
Posté 21 janvier 2013 - 06:14
silverexile17s
-
- Members
- 2 547 messages
One Ship. One Will. Many Minds.Rasofe wrote...
What?silverexile17s wrote...
True. Although, given what they became, it's argueble that they would likely be begging to die, had they seen what would happen to them.Rasofe wrote...
Indeed. If you define "killing" as something else, you can easily avoid it when commencing galactic genocide.
Murder isn't about killing the body, at least not legally, it's killing the mind. But the catalyst would make a poor lawyer.
After all, it would be simpler and easer to just die, instead of living on forever as part of a hybrid being like that.
It would be no different then, in no uncertin terms, being condemned to a living hell for all eternity.
Look, the minds of the sapient life is gone. You can't experience being a Reaper without a mind to experience it with.
I have a theroy (unconfimed. No plausible way to test it), that every being used to create the Reaper - their minds are all melded into that of the Reaper. The "programs" may be the preserved minds of the original beings used to make it, which join to form the "nation" mind of the Reaper.
I have no proof of it though. It's just a personal speculation.
It sure would make them even more lovecraftian-style horrifying to think about, though.
But again, it's only my personal idea. I don't know, or really think, the writers thought of it that way when writing the Reapers. But it's a twist to the story I personally would have added.
Modifié par silverexile17s, 21 janvier 2013 - 06:15 .
#305
Posté 22 janvier 2013 - 07:09
silverexile17s
-
- Members
- 2 547 messages
1. You do realize that NONE of that points out anything regarding ME3. Point out the flaws in the GAME. Don't give these asspuls about fallicies existing, then conviently leave them out.Maxster_ wrote...
http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallaciesDragoonlordz wrote...
Maxster_ wrote...
Prove that. Otherwise you lost the debate.Dragoonlordz wrote...
Maxster_ wrote...
-snip-
Your reply is filled with so much nonsense and inaccuracies it would produce a quote pyramid so long it would take someone an hour to read to two hours to write. So instead I will just reply with your excuses are bad, your logic is flawed and your entire post is filled vast amounts of fallacy. Those who come after can read it and see for themselves without the need of me quoting every other sentence and pointing out why each is wrong. Now you can view that as me not being able to counter the really bad, false and innacurate statements of yours if you wish, but in reality I merely see how stupid your counters to my last post were that I assume everyone else can too. You even contradict your own comments in your own reply.
It is not a productive debate for me to continually counter why you are wrong word by word, sentence by sentence when you blatently ignore reality and common sense then subsitute it with your own false and inaccurate version of reality.
And, saying that i "blatantly ignore reality and common sense and then subsitute it with my own false and inaccurate version of reality" is not proving it.- Joseph Goebbels.“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Well, anyway, if you can't even understand that appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to the masses - that is pointless.
You lost
2. Appealing to probabilaty is YOUR mo, not his.
And you can't tell HIM he lost, when again, YOU PROVIDED NO HARD PROOF THAT BACKECD YOUR CLAIMS.
#306
Posté 22 janvier 2013 - 07:10
silverexile17s
-
- Members
- 2 547 messages
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Dragoonlordz wrote...
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Dragoonlordz wrote...
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
Well, anyway, if you can't even understand that appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to the masses - that is pointless.
You lost
[/quote]
I suggest you read up on both deductive logic and subjective abduction logic.
[/quote]
You lost because you refused to prove your points, and presented some unproved assertions as a proven facts. And refused to continue debate because of those unproven assertions.
You are refusing to admit that you constantly using logical fallacies - like appeal to probability. Instead, you just tried to prove that this logical fallacy is not one.
By using another logical fallacy, appeal to the masses.
You know, citing terms, having no idea of their meaning - is not proving something.
[/quote]
No, I just refuse to take part in your shotgun argumentation. I mentioned those forms of logic because that is what I was using not appeal to probability.
[/quote]
Really?
[quote]The premise about synthetics wiping out organics is a conclusion it
reached based on it experiences and is already being debated with no
proof it is wrong and no proof it is right. Neither you or I have
hundreds of thousands of years worth of knowledge spend in the ME
universe across many cycles, it does theoretically.[/quote]
Appeal to probability, crossed with appeal to authority.
[quote]
Firstly once technology is shown to exist any race evolved enough
can replicate it very easily. That is why all races that have reached
such a level to make use of such technology are culled why all those
which cannot or are not that evolved are left alone.[/quote]
Appeal to probability.
[quote]The rest of the galaxy fears synthetics and this is shown time and time
again by what you hear in the games so even if the Geth or synthetics
wanted to be alone they organics would not let them be so and their
constant fear of them could lead eventually to probably the synthetics
reverting to the human idiology similar to real world past being if will
not stop attacking us then we should make them stop ourselves, remove
the threat[/quote]
Appeal to probability.
[quote]
Kings and Queens, Governments and Military have wiped out whole
villages, towns and cities, families, species of animal or citizens to
prevent backlash or based on a percieved threat based on possiblity not a
certainty that something might happen. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan
as example are similar to such a situation, one group hurt another so
the other seeks to remove the threat of it happening ever again even if
never did happen again it was a war to prevent the threat or possiblity
of it happening again.[/quote]
Appeal to the masses.
[quote]The catalysts is drawing a logical conclusion whether it is a good one
or not does not change that it is based on logic (a logical conclusion
based on potential flawed data is stil a logical conclusion if he
believes the data to be accurate), if there is a probability of even
0.0001 still means there is a possiblity of occurence (regardless of how
slim). Such might happen and we in this world have many such low chance
of probability events occur all the time some of which people just call
miracles like a man surviving fall from aeroplane which has happened in
the real world, such unlikely probabilitys happen therefore it is never
impossible. [/quote]
Attempt to "prove" that logical fallacy of the Catalyst is correct.
[quote] The catalyst is a flawed construct so it might consider that
probability to be higher than it may be to us but it is logical that it
could/might happen. It's flaw is in believing the possiblity is higher
than it may be, but it is logical to it to prevent an event (it
believes) to be very possible even if we believe the possiblity is
lower. If we believed that probability was higher then we too would act
on it as shown in this world we do all the time both acting out of fear
of a probable event even though it is not a certainty such will occur.
Someone not getting on planes even though the probability is low will
crash, someone stocking up on food and buying a bomb shelter based on
the low probabaility of nuclear war, going to war or stocking up with
weapons based on small probability that another person or nation (might)
attack at some point.[/quote]
By appealing to the masses.
[/quote]
Look at all this. Your just saying he's wrong, without directly pointing out what parts are wrong. No underlining of the flawed parts. No coberating evidence to back your own claims up.
Stop with the vauge asspulls and give some PROOF.
[quote]Dragoonlordz wrote...
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
[quote]Dragoonlordz wrote...
[quote]Maxster_ wrote...
Well, anyway, if you can't even understand that appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, as is appeal to the masses - that is pointless.
You lost
[/quote]
I suggest you read up on both deductive logic and subjective abduction logic.
[/quote]
You lost because you refused to prove your points, and presented some unproved assertions as a proven facts. And refused to continue debate because of those unproven assertions.
You are refusing to admit that you constantly using logical fallacies - like appeal to probability. Instead, you just tried to prove that this logical fallacy is not one.
By using another logical fallacy, appeal to the masses.You know, citing terms, having no idea of their meaning - is not proving something.
[/quote]
No, I just refuse to take part in your shotgun argumentation. I mentioned those forms of logic because that is what I was using not appeal to probability.
[/quote]
Really?
[quote]The premise about synthetics wiping out organics is a conclusion it
reached based on it experiences and is already being debated with no
proof it is wrong and no proof it is right. Neither you or I have
hundreds of thousands of years worth of knowledge spend in the ME
universe across many cycles, it does theoretically.[/quote]
Appeal to probability, crossed with appeal to authority.
[quote]
Firstly once technology is shown to exist any race evolved enough
can replicate it very easily. That is why all races that have reached
such a level to make use of such technology are culled why all those
which cannot or are not that evolved are left alone.[/quote]
Appeal to probability.
[quote]The rest of the galaxy fears synthetics and this is shown time and time
again by what you hear in the games so even if the Geth or synthetics
wanted to be alone they organics would not let them be so and their
constant fear of them could lead eventually to probably the synthetics
reverting to the human idiology similar to real world past being if will
not stop attacking us then we should make them stop ourselves, remove
the threat[/quote]
Appeal to probability.
[quote]
Kings and Queens, Governments and Military have wiped out whole
villages, towns and cities, families, species of animal or citizens to
prevent backlash or based on a percieved threat based on possiblity not a
certainty that something might happen. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan
as example are similar to such a situation, one group hurt another so
the other seeks to remove the threat of it happening ever again even if
never did happen again it was a war to prevent the threat or possiblity
of it happening again.[/quote]
Appeal to the masses.
[quote]The catalysts is drawing a logical conclusion whether it is a good one
or not does not change that it is based on logic (a logical conclusion
based on potential flawed data is stil a logical conclusion if he
believes the data to be accurate), if there is a probability of even
0.0001 still means there is a possiblity of occurence (regardless of how
slim). Such might happen and we in this world have many such low chance
of probability events occur all the time some of which people just call
miracles like a man surviving fall from aeroplane which has happened in
the real world, such unlikely probabilitys happen therefore it is never
impossible. [/quote]
Attempt to "prove" that logical fallacy of the Catalyst is correct.
[quote] The catalyst is a flawed construct so it might consider that
probability to be higher than it may be to us but it is logical that it
could/might happen. It's flaw is in believing the possiblity is higher
than it may be, but it is logical to it to prevent an event (it
believes) to be very possible even if we believe the possiblity is
lower. If we believed that probability was higher then we too would act
on it as shown in this world we do all the time both acting out of fear
of a probable event even though it is not a certainty such will occur.
Someone not getting on planes even though the probability is low will
crash, someone stocking up on food and buying a bomb shelter based on
the low probabaility of nuclear war, going to war or stocking up with
weapons based on small probability that another person or nation (might)
attack at some point.[/quote]
By appealing to the masses.
[/quote]
Look at all this. Your just saying he's wrong, without directly pointing out what parts are wrong. No underlining of the flawed parts. No coberating evidence to back your own claims up.
Stop with the vauge asspulls and give some PROOF.
