Miburo

You can't exactly do that if you turn the engine off either...

So no matter how you try to weasel out of it, the statement you made doesn't make sense. You can't stop you car/engine/whatever and dodge.

Not knowing basic things about an 800lb machine that you travel around in at 60mph, things that could easily get you killed for not knowing, is pretty fucking stupid.

That's like saying someone who put on lead boots and decided to take stroll at the bottom of a lake without an oxygen tank isn't stupid. What? He didn't know he couldn't breathe underwater. No biggie, nothing to call a guy stupid for, amirite?

Also, I said he was stupid. You know, foolish, careless. He was stupid, foolish, careless. Was he not? Of course he was, so it's perfectly justifiable to say so. I didn't say anything about him being completely stupid in every aspect of his life, ever. Brush up on your reading comprehension before trying to call people on shit, slick.

Freshgrease

When in in Tasmania, watch out for Tasmanian devils.

__________________

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fayrra There's obviously more than one way to use the word stop in this situation. I was using it in the sense that the car was turned off, it stopped running (not moving, running. As in when something is on, like a fucking engine). I obviously didn't mean putting the brake on your car and stopping it completely. Because right after, I stated "try to dodge cars moving at 60-70 miles per hour." You can't exactly do that if your car isn't moving in the first place.

So then he stopped the engine, not the car.

Scientia

Which is the problem with the fucking plan in the first place. Holy shit. I only said try to dodge it. I never said actually dodge it. My main point was that I couldn't stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible. But while the car is fucking moving still (even with the engine off), I still have a chance to dodge it (it just depends on the direction my car is moving). I'm not trying to weasel out of shit. I know what the fuck I meant when I said something. And I know it made sense when regarding the original action of the kid. Fucking hell tarts.
Correction. It was only ONE basic thing. Not "basic things."
No you aren't. To not know that you cannot breath underwater must mean that person is retarded (or that person received no education in his enitre life). But to not know that the steering wheel locks up after taking the keys out of the ignition really isn't that bad in comparison to the first.
.........wow.

In any case, there's a difference between someone doing a stupid act for one time and being stupid in the first place. If you call someone stupid, especially when you use the words "extra strength", that means you are saying he has low intelligence. Low cognition. He has a slow mind. And, maybe he actually does. But from one stupid decision you cannot decide that. Justifiably, at least.
Holy shit. Seriously? This is just dumb ass semantics. Do I really even need to get specific? Do I?

It could mean the same thing both ways. When I say stop a car, it can rightfully mean stop the car from running. Such as the engine. YOU just got it confused. For some reason, you didn't consider the alternative meaning to my statement. Why you didn't, I have no idea. Did you think I didn't read the article? Of course I did. I knew exactly what I was typing. So of course my statement would be corresponding to exactly what the kid did. Since I'm saying the idea would be fun. And that's where I got it from, the article. You underestimated me, thinking I made some kind of mistake. But I didn't. My meaning is there. It's just not a specific one. The engine is part of the car. By stopping the car from running, I am stopping the engine. It can make sense. But you should know that based on logical reasoning. Why would I mean stopping the car from moving? 1.) That isn't what the kid did, and 2.) I would have no chance of dodging. Come on now, Mal.

__________________
------------------------------------------

"There was a footpath leading across fields in New Southgate, and I used to go there alone to watch the sunset and contemplate suicide. I did not, however, commit suicide, because I wished to know more of Mathematics."

Mal

I have never heard anyone refer to shutting off/"cutting"/stopping the engine as "stopping the car", and suspect the only kind of people who would are the same people who assume Asians are all the same, and that there is no difference between a donkey and a mule.

Note how I used a donkey and a mule instead of a supercharger and turbocharger, despite the subject being cars. Why? Because I wouldn't expect people to know the difference unless they knew stuff about cars. I do expect people to know the difference between stopping a car and stopping the engine.

Miburo

Wait, wut? You just said you couldn't "stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible." (And you specifically specified to Mal that you meant stop the engine when you say 'stop the car') And then later in the same paragraph said that it would be possible.

Contradict yourself much? And you wonder why people don't get what the fuck you're talking about? Or why people say you're trying to weasel out of shit when you talk yourself in circles? Wow.

Correction: You're wrong, again. Stopping your engine for a few seconds and then starting it again doesn't save gas, as starting your engine consumes about as much gas as idling for a minute. And you can't steer a car while the engine is off and the keys are out of the ignition. Even if he didn't know the latter, he would have been fine since he wouldn't have turned off the engine and taken out the keys in this particular scenario if he had known the former.

Way to try and nitpick, and still fail. Next time try using a bit of logical reasoning before trying to call people on stupid shit.

The analogy is perfectly fine. In both cases a person didn't know something VITAL TO THEM NOT DYING. Hell, I could probably argue that not knowing your car's steering wheel locks when you take the keys out is worse. It's easier to test on your own. I do it accidentally when reaching for something in the other seat sometimes. How would I figure out that I need to breathe to not die? Hold my breath? I'll just pass out and wake up. All I learn directly is that I need to breathe to not pass out. Tape a bag over my head or stay underwater? I'll die and won't learn anything.

Or I could look it up somewhere. Same thing I could do if I was trying to save on gas. If that kid typed "gas saving tips" in a google search he'd know turning his car off wouldn't save gas, since that's exactly what I just typed in to learn that myself (Though, not being an idiot, I already assumed as much.). And he wouldn't have died, just like my hypothetical lead boot guy wouldn't die if he did an ounce of research.

tl;dr=The analogy is fine. And you're stupid.

Oh, so you're telling me what I meant now? I had to have meant that the person has low intelligence overall? I couldn't have possible been using the definition that I provided which makes a fuckload more sense given the context? No way he was "extra strength" careless, foolish when he did something that got himself killed and seriously injured other people? Saying that doesn't make any sense at all? Completely ridiculous and totally unjustifiable, right?

Get real. You're so bad at the whole logic and reasoning thing. Pathetic wouldn't even be close to describing how horrible you are. It would be absolutely laughable if you really thought you didn't suck at this. Your location is exactly right. You're fucking submerged in the vast, manly seas of reasoning that Mal and I are dumping all over you. Too bad none of it is rubbing off.

If you meant that you engage the study of reasoning whole-heartedly, however, LOLOLOLOLOL. Wow, indeed.

Kina

Just so that other dude knows, your steering locking up is really, really basic car knowledge. Sort of like knowing that if your battery goes dead, you're going to need a jump. I mean, I'm a woman and I know that shit.

__________________

Scientia

Well I did. And I don't assume Asians are all the same. And I know the difference between a donkey and a mule. Because I learn stuff. What's your point? It doesn't mean what I said was wrong. It still makes sense. And my meaning is still there. If it was said in any other context then I can understand how it was an unclear satement (but that doesn't exclude it from one that makes sense) however, I said it when directly referencing how I thought HIS original action would be fun. So you should have known what I was talking about. Since HIS original action was to take the keys out the ignition. Not to stop the car via brake. And once again, just because it is an uncommon statement, does not mean it doesn't make sense. Making your whole:

"1.) His car wasn't stopped."

wrong. Because it did stop......running, that is. It was turned off while still in motion. I obviously didn't mean that it the car stopped moving. So the only other conclusion would be that the car stopped running. I just left out the whole "running" part. But I didn't say "moving" either. I just said "stop the car." Which can mean any of the two. In normal context it would obviously mean to stop the car from moving. But I already told you why you should assume "running" instead of "moving." Big deal. Let's move on with our lives now.


Looks like you misunderstand. Or you are just trolling. I really don't give a fuck. I'll explain my logic anyway:

I was explaining to Mal that it would be impossible to dodge a car if I literally stopped the car I was in from moving. Therefore, I wouldn't want to do that as my goal is to dodge it. So, I couldn't possibly have meant that I wanted it to literally stop its motion completely. Instead, I would stop the car, by turning it off (taking the keys out and stopping it from running) yet it still being in motion. Giving me a bit of a chance for the dodge. Get it now? Jesus crap.

Yes. It's probably my favorite word. But you can almost always find a way to contradict human's actions. That's just how humans are. It's like wanting to die, yet not wanting to. You want to die because you feel pain in this world. Yet at the same time you have physical attachments to it. So you don't want to die. Isn't that a contradiction? Yet, isn't it an okay one? A reasonable one?
Okay, then, I was wrong. So two things he didn't know.
I was simply helping to prove my point.
It isn't the fucking same. Holy shit. You are just sugar coating it to make it sound the same. Observe:
Majority of the time you would let go of your breath before even getting that far. Why is that? Even a retard would do it as well. Why? Well, it's simple. Instinct. You start to feel this incredible pain in your chest, you start to panick. Even without any kind of knowledge you know your body needs the air. You breath air instinctively. Without even thinking about it.

So judging from that, you would know not to go into that situation again (even animals would). Unless you were a psychopath or retarded on high levels (or couldn't feel pain). What probably killed the idiot that walked into the lake was the lead boots. Because I'm sure he would have tried to gone up otherwise, even without the knowledge of needing air to live.

The key/wheel thing however, is not something you can assume upon instinct. All it takes is just one moment where he was not paying attention (basically whenever he learned or came across the info that the steering wheel locks before) and he could have missed that VITAL INFO TO THEM NOT DYING that you so graciously talked about. Does that really make him super strength stupid? Nah. Not on my account. Definitely not a way to accurately judge such a thing.
Oh, well sorry for assuming you would use the actual definition for stupid. And FYI: Foolish is too light a word to be interchangable with stupid. Stupid means lacking intelligence. Slow of mind. It can also mean unintelligent or careless decisions. But that simply means the decisions were stupid. That is how you use it in that context. It's not for the person himself. Know the difference. Because, there is one.

lulz.
This supposed to make me feel bad or something? Is it supposed to discourage me to keep responding? lol. And I keep telling you I'm crazy, but you just don't want to listen. And this "manly" shit makes me want to puke. It sounds so homoerotic. Not to mention sexist. "Gentlemen," now that's a word I can can understand. The type that love the ladies. And don't treat them like a douche would. Yet still have class and style.

@Kina, it is basic, you are right. He was either very stupid or he just missed the info somehow (aside from stupid being the reason he missed it).

__________________
------------------------------------------

"There was a footpath leading across fields in New Southgate, and I used to go there alone to watch the sunset and contemplate suicide. I did not, however, commit suicide, because I wished to know more of Mathematics."

Miburo

I misunderstood nothing. I said you contradicted yourself. You did. No misunderstanding on my part.

I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about your argument. Contradictions in an argument make for a poor argument.

Apology accepted.

Are you aware of what an analogy even is? Of course they're not exactly the same in every aspect. If they were, they'd be the same damn thing. There would be no analogy.

In both cases, the person is lacking vital basic knowledge that is key to him not dying in a particular scenario. You cannot argue against that fact. They are comparable in that respect, and that the only thing I'm using to compare the two. Making it a perfectly accurate analogy.

Also, what you said is pretty dumb. Breathing is an automated process of the body similar to how your body pumps blood throughout itself. You can manually breathe, but you can't hold your breath and die. You'll pass out and your body will start breathing automatically again. And holding your breath, feeling pain, and then not doing that again is the exact opposite of instinct. It's a learned behavior. No matter what, you cannot logically come to the conclusion that you need to breathe to live based on those factors alone.

Pain =/= death. I could lightly bite down on my thumb until I felt pain all I want and I won't die. Your body craving air doesn't prove that you need to breathe to live either. Withdraw symptoms from various drugs can be extremely violent and painful. If someone quits smoking after doing it for 25 years he's going to be hurting a fuckload, and his body is going to be craving nicotine. Yet he doesn't need to smoke to live. Again, you cannot make a logical argument that you need to breathe to live based on the things you listed alone. Not that any of that even matters in relation to how my analogy is perfectly fine, of course. I just like pointing out how stupid you are.


I did use the actual definition: acting in an unintelligent or careless mannerhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

It's an adjective. I used it to describe a noun. So I'm good there. I used the term to describe a person who acted in an unintelligent and careless manner. So at least one definition of the word applies within the context used. I'm good there too. So looks fine to me. Then again, I'm not an idiot. I don't need grammatical lessons from you, of all people, that's for sure. Isn't this like the third time I've had to bust out the online dictionary for you? lulz indeed.


Don't flatter yourself. I don't give a shit about how you feel or what you do. I just call things as they are.

And of course you hate our manliness. You're a pussy. And if I would limit myself to just words you can understand then I wouldn't be able to say much, for obvious reasons to those who aren't stupid.

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fayrra Well I did. And I don't assume Asians are all the same. And I know the difference between a donkey and a mule. Because I learn stuff. What's your point? It doesn't mean what I said was wrong. It still makes sense. And my meaning is still there. If it was said in any other context then I can understand how it was an unclear satement (but that doesn't exclude it from one that makes sense) however, I said it when directly referencing how I thought HIS original action would be fun. So you should have known what I was talking about. Since HIS original action was to take the keys out the ignition. Not to stop the car via brake. And once again, just because it is an uncommon statement, does not mean it doesn't make sense. Making your whole: "1.) His car wasn't stopped." wrong. Because it did stop......running, that is. It was turned off while still in motion. I obviously didn't mean that it the car stopped moving. So the only other conclusion would be that the car stopped running. I just left out the whole "running" part. But I didn't say "moving" either. I just said "stop the car." Which can mean any of the two. In normal context it would obviously mean to stop the car from moving. But I already told you why you should assume "running" instead of "moving." Big deal. Let's move on with our lives now.

If I have to assume anything about your statement, it is plagued by ambiguity that should have been fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fayrra This supposed to make me feel bad or something? Is it supposed to discourage me to keep responding? lol. And I keep telling you I'm crazy, but you just don't want to listen. And this "manly" shit makes me want to puke. It sounds so homoerotic. Not to mention sexist. "Gentlemen," now that's a word I can can understand. The type that love the ladies. And don't treat them like a douche would. Yet still have class and style.

Why do you assume "manly" and "gentlemanly" are antonymous or mutually exclusive? You can certainly be a faerie "gentleman" without being manly, but it is impossible to be manly without being a chivalric gentleman. Ignorant feminists may try to tell you it's sexist, but chivalry is the peak of manliness. And knife fighting with grizzly bears.

Kina

I consider myself an independent, modern woman, but I still think it's so damn nice when a guy opens the door for you. Or feels the need to protect you.

__________________

Jaxon

Surf's up.

Scientia

I already explained how I didn't.

If you won't understand that then cool for you.

If you can't understand that then still cool for you. You probably have something "wrong" with your ever-so-cognitive brain.
And I'm talking about how people make contradictions all the time. lol. It wasn't exactly part of the argument. It branched from "contradiction" being my favorite word. But you could always answer the question: "Is it a reasonable one?"
I wasn't apologizing.
I wasn't saying it was not an anology. Yes there is a similarity between the two. But it doesn't prove anything.

What were you trying to prove from the statement? That not calling someone who didn't know about the steering wheel thing stupid is like not calling someone who doesn't know you need to breath air stupid. Yet, when I question this flawed statement, you counteract with saying: "In both cases they didn't know something vital to their survival." And that, proves the similarity.....which proves that it is an analogy. But it was still a simple minded, logically flawed statement. As there is a considerable difference between not knowing that you need air to live and not knowing that a steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that only when using certain breaks? Making it even more plausible that this info could have passed by him without him knowing. Unlike the breathing air thing. What I'm saying is, if you see a teenager who doesn't know that humans need to breath air to live, you have much more of a right to call him stupid than someone who didn't know some basic info on a car. Why is that? Because it is a commonly known fact that you need air to breath. You'd have to really be stupid not to know. And while this lock up thing might be common, it isn't nearly as common as the breathing thing. Not NEARLY. Therefore, Not knowing you need to breath air = More stupid than not knowing that the steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. Definitely wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more stupid. And remember, I was going under the assumption that you were using that definition of stupid. The more harsher one.
Oh, how wrong you are. I simply got sidetracked, that's all.
Yeah but didn't you use extra strength stupid? Isn't that supposed to apply to the other definition: people with low cognitive processess, and a slow mind? The more harsher one, I would presume.

And yeah, funny how almost all our "arguments" end with a definition.
Never have.
I never actually cared. And just because something makes me puke (which I lied about), doesn't mean I psychologically hate it. Though that is the more common case.
Hmmm. Can't say that I am.
I don't see ambiguity as a plauge. And I already proved why it was more logical to assume my choice of the two right off the bat. As far as I'm concerned ambiguity is like diversity. A sentence that can have different meanings.
I don't, I'm sure that there are manly men who are also gentlemen. But 9 times out of 10, or maybe 8 times, gentlemen don't fight with grizzly bears. And 9 times out of 10, or maybe 7 times, a manly man, would rather fight, than hang out and please a girl. And from what I've seen from you "manly" trolls, you aren't gentlemen at all. At least not by my standards. Hardy harr harr.
That's definitely not true. You can be manly without being a gentleman. I would go further in-depth but we would just be arguing semantics.
And I know, then, that there are some girls who would completely hate it.

__________________
------------------------------------------

"There was a footpath leading across fields in New Southgate, and I used to go there alone to watch the sunset and contemplate suicide. I did not, however, commit suicide, because I wished to know more of Mathematics."

Miburo

And I already explained how you did. It here, I'll show you again:

See that last paragraph in the last quote there? That's what I was talking about. I was perfectly correct. It's not us being incapable of understanding something. It's you sucking at communicating. You go and tell us "Stopping the car = turning the engine off" then in that last quoted post of yours you say "I couldn't STOP THE CAR (Which you, as you can see, stated to mean turning the engine off) and try to dodge as that would be impossible." And in that same paragraph talk about how it is possible to do exactly what you just stated to be impossible.

Now, if you meant "stopping the car" the way Mal was using stop the car as, which is actually stopping the car, then you were using the same phrase to mean two totally different scenarios. Of course we'll get confused, and at no fault of our own. That doesn't mean you didn't contradict yourself though. Because you did no matter what. You can't explain how you didn't, because you did. Only thing you can do is explain that you didn't intentionally do so, or why you mistakenly did, etc. You can't take back the contradiction from happening though. So I was right. You contradicted yourself. Game over.
Doesn't matter. All irrelevant. I was right. End.

You should. You're unjustifiably calling us tarts and overall being a douche, when we're right. So unless you want to be a little immature baby about it, along with being wrong, you definitely should apologize.


This doesn't prove anything. Even if what you're saying is true (Protip: It's not, but it doesn't matter so I won't waste time on it), and one is more stupid than the other, they're both still stupid. To what degree they're stupid would be irrelevant. If you can call one stupid, then you can call the other stupid. Just like if I put my hand in a 200 degree oven I can say it's hot, even though a 1000 degree oven is hotter. And the purpose of my analogy was to show both are stupid, making it an adequate analogy.

And you're even admitting to judging my statement based on a definition I wasn't even using to begin with.

Why? One can't be really fucking careless or really fucking unintelligent? You assumed wrong. Again.

You made a poor assumption and tried calling me on shit based off your shit assumption. Even going so far to insult my intelligence and whatnot. You're not only completely wrong, but you were being a douchebag about it as well. You blathered on about gentlemen. How about actually demonstrating some gentlemanly behavior by admitting you were in the wrong and apologizing?

Scientia

And I already explained how I didn't. Here, I'll do it again:


First of all, before I even get started, there are two ways to interpret "stop your car."

In this sentence, of course, I meant:

Wow, just wow. Lmao. In that statement, I was referring to why it would be more logical for Mal to assume that stopping your car meant "turning the engine off" in my original sentence. So, let me show you that sentence again:

Do you understand how I did NOT contradict myself? I was explaining to Mal why I wouldn't have meant that. Becuase using his assumption, stopping the car and dodging would be impossible. But using my "meaning", it IS possible to stop the car and dodge (because stopping the car doesn't mean to literally stop the breaks from moving, it means to stop the car from running, as in turning it off.) Do you see now? I love contradictions period, but because of that most of my contradictions are on purpose. I rarely contradict myself by accident. I know what I was saying. And it made sense.
I already explained above.
Even if I did misunderstand you, I don't deem it that much of a misunderstanding enough that I should apologize. And I was just saying "fucking hell tarts." Not calling you all hell tarts. Like when you say, "fucking hell!" when you are mad. I was simple saying a statement because I was "mad." Not calling you tarts. And wasn't I the one defending someone who died? And I'm the douche? Not in my book. And my book is the only one I read.
Ridiculous. There's no way that you can argue that now-a-days if someone (mainly a teen) were not to know they need to breath air to live it would be less stupid than someone (mainly a teen) who didn't know about the steering wheel thing. No way in hell. The info would just be too easily accessed. Like I said, that air thing is just a more common fact. To not know it would be way more stupid than to not know the steering wheel locks up. You are more likely to learn it by your parents telling you as you are growing up. Come on, now.
I knew you were going to say that, but I thought it would just be : "Both are stupid, and that is the similarity." Anyway, my response would be this:

I thought you meant the other definition, so it is only natural for me to assume the statement was flawed. Because when regarding the other def. the difference between how stupid they are does matter. lol. But it doesn't matter because:
Yes. Which is why there is not much more for us to argue about.
If he was really fucking unintelligent then most likely he has very low cognitive processes. = The more harsher one. Most likely the same with the really fucking carelessness too (though it could just be that he doesn't care and there isn't anything slow about his cognitive processess).
I was trying to defend the death of this teen. I could care less about "winning" against you.
What, because I said there is probably something wrong with you ever-so-cognitive brain? You can still be intelligent and have something wrong with your brain. Look at the Joker. Oh, wait, he isn't real. lol. I'm sure that you can be crazy and intelligent, though.
There's a problem with that, however. Number one, you supposedly aren't a girl. And two, even if you were, I'm not a gentlemen. I'll admit I made a wrong assumption. But that's all. I'm really not that bad of a guy, like I told sugoi. But that is left up to the individual person to decide (therfore, it'll change per person). So there's no point in arguing about that either. You'll always have your opinion about my personality, and there's no point in me trying to change that. Or rather, I don't think I should be trying to change it.

__________________
------------------------------------------

"There was a footpath leading across fields in New Southgate, and I used to go there alone to watch the sunset and contemplate suicide. I did not, however, commit suicide, because I wished to know more of Mathematics."