Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Us government's trick to violate civil liberties
View Single Post
Old 12-17-2011, 07:21 PM   #41
Writing speed: snail
Numinous's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties

Sorry for shortening quotes, but I had to to avoid a damn triple post

You mistakenly accused (...) have misinterpreted me.
I’ll ask to everyone else, what does the final quote of the string I’ll post sound like? (I’ll remove the narutard terms since this is not the section to have them)

I remember reading somewhere that these were the names of A, along with B, and that because of this supposedly every B uses these A. Though I can't recall where at the moment.
You would recall wrong. C is the sole possessor of all A. They aren't attached to all B variants. D and E versions of B have not shown A1 or A2 (the F that D used to G was H manipulated into a F).
We haven't seen what each of the I of either of those B do either, so since each I has a different J, you can't say for sure that they aren't.

E having access to one of A lends credence to the theory.
To me and kael (and logic, for that matter), it was an argument from ignorance. But since I’m so unable to see the “truth”, can someone kindly point what kind of argument is being made in that quote?

Yes I remember YOUR inability to admit you were wrong here very well.
Yes, because using logic as it is it’s clearly something wrong.

Even after clarification, you still insisted that I had a different meaning to my words.
Yes, because clarification =/= backpedaling. Here’s what was said after the fact:

So far only C has demonstrated using A, saying that the other [versions of B] have A but didn't show it yet is making an argument from ignorance.
It's not an argument from ignorance, it's an argument based on the real-life (well, close enough) versions [of A] that the narutoverse ones are based on.


i. Argument from ignorance
Occurs when someone appeals to the unknown nature of the matter being argued instead of providing propositions about it.
As you can see, I'm not accusing you of making stuff up, I'm pointing out you're appealing to the lack of info on all B’s techniques to make your case.
As for the argument from ignorance statement I never used the lack of evidence as proof of anything, I was merely pointing out that certain evidence was lacking when someone else presented it, in other words, no I wasn't lol.
Clarification means “to make clear”, it does not mean “to retreat from a position” like you clearly did. That would be backpedaling, my good sir.

There are more pages to the novel, but it can be pretty much resumed to me saying “Yes, you did” and you going “nuh-uh!”

This right here (...) than you are.
Seeing yourself in the mirror, are we?

Unless you see (...) I am bringing up.
Then you’re a contradicting pussy. You said that you tried to use the theory to evade speeding tickets (that I still don’t know how they fit in this mess) and even researched on it and said it was backed up.

Just because you don’t explicitly say you consider the probability of this theory being high enough to be considered, it doesn’t mean you aren’t taking a stance of such.

Hence why I (...) arguments or debates.
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
1. (colloquial)
a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.
b. A quarrel; a dispute.
c. Archaic A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument" (Shakespeare).
2. (academic)
a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.
b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.
c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.
Now that we know you don’t know your English all that well, if you were not to take a stance you’d either go with neutrality (“I don’t know”) or you’d present both sides of the issues (the conspiracy theory per se and what could falsify it). You did not.

I've told you (...) believe in it.
If you bring something up and you proceed to defend it (blindly) after someone correctly refutes it as incorrect, you’re taking a stance in favor of what has been brought up. If you were truly dropping the trivia for the sake of dropping the trivia, as soon as someone discredits it with much more valid points, the correct response would be something on the lines of “oops, my bad, thanks for the correction.”, which was not your response.

To which I (...) tells you different.
If that “different” saying actually is the same as the previous one but in other words (clearer or more detailed). If you outright deny what you clearly have done, then you aren’t really taking away my justification to call on your shit.

You may piss (...) about the matter.
You mean manipulative, not reasonable.
This is just a barrel of laughs. First, if I piss you off so much, there’s the ignore list, that way those nasty “debates” can go away. Second, manipulative? Am I inducing you to something you don’t want to do or you’re doing it while blaming me for it? Last time I checked, my last name isn’t Yahweh and you love to divert blame off of you.

Apply this to (...) been intentionally obtuse.
That mirror is looking nice, isn’t it?

you said Albert Einstein was hospitalized in a loony bin due to the theory of relativity and wanted to divert blame off of yourself
Which is actually a common rumor.
It is so common that Google doesn’t even know it! You know, the same search engine that can fetch the most obscure of things. Really, finding a link to a gay furry slashfic of a 80’s cartoon somehow is easier that finding a link to this “common rumor” that doesn’t redirect to this very forum.

As I stated (...) things to respect him.
He was the president of the German Physics society in the same year he presented the theory of relativity, he won the 1921’s Nobel Prize of Physics and he won the Copley Medal of the Royal Society in 1925. I did not tell this once, not twice, this is the third fucking time I tell you this. There’s no logical way Albert Einstein was deemed crazy for the theory of relativity knowing the facts about his life.
Also, about the Christopher Columbus example, both stances (he discovered the word wasn’t flat vs. he didn’t) were acknowledged by many and, as you pointed out, there’s at least a canonical source of the (erroneous) stance of him discovering such fact. The stance of “Albert Einstein was in a loony bin” is, you guessed it, your creation. And you said “oh, it was some people who told me” to avoid being ridiculed for it.
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3

Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
ask me anything (12-17-2011), kael03 (12-17-2011), Mal (12-18-2011), Miburo (12-18-2011)