Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 that particular scale is widely recognized as representing "justice". if you say the word scale in general then the majority would not recognize the word as representing justice.

"That particular scale?" You mean the one I found quickly by Google Imaging "scales"? And of course the word "scale" doesn't make everyone think "JUSTICE". The word doesn't represent justice, the image does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 capital letters represent importance more than yelling. the red letters, ya would more than less symbolize anger. but they should have fired her on the grounds of unprofessionalism not confrontational behavior.

Full capitalization of a single word or phrase represents importance. Full capitalization of an entire email is understood to be indicative of yelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 either way she won the suit because it was found as wrongful termination. which proves my point that they should have not fired her for being confrontational, because it was too much of an opinionated reason

And it was an opinionated reason that the court awarded her the victory in the case. Try to come up with real evidence that she was "wrongfully terminated", instead of fallacious arguments like "Person A's opinion is wrong because Person B's opinion is that Person A's opinion is wrong".

balmung5000

HEYO THATS MY SISTER

cpas

uchihademon91

yes that particular scale..... not every scale looks like that, its a specific type of scale and that specific type of scale is used to symbolize justice. if you put a picture of a scale that people weigh themselves on, then nobody would relate that to justice in any way or form.

single words or phrases in all capitalization are more common, but an email in all caps or any message in all caps can still be used to signify importance.


they weighed opinion a against opinion b. and they decided what was morally right in their eyes. most of court hearings are decided on opinion if not all. most things in life are opinionated. thats the justice system.

__________________
"We define reality as what we accept as truth and correct. What is truth, what is it to be correct."- Itachi Uchiha

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 yes that particular scale..... not every scale looks like that, its a specific type of scale and that specific type of scale is used to symbolize justice. if you put a picture of a scale that people weigh themselves on, then nobody would relate that to justice in any way or form.

What relevance does this have to that argument? Why have you attacked my rhetorical question and not even attempted to counter my actual argument?

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 single words or phrases in all capitalization are more common, but an email in all caps or any message in all caps can still be used to signify importance.

Capitalization is used to emphasize individual, key points in a message. Not that it can't be done your crazy way, it's just incredibly stupid to think full capitalization of an entire message is anywhere near the correct way to signify a message's importance. Honestly, I find it very hard to argue against this because it just seems to me that this should be common sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 they weighed opinion a against opinion b. and they decided what was morally right in their eyes. most of court hearings are decided on opinion if not all. most things in life are opinionated. thats the justice system.

Well you've changed the definition of Opinion B, so I guess I'll have to adjust for this:
"...they decided...in their eyes." It's still Opinion A vs. Opinion C, and still logically fallacious to say "Opinion A is wrong because Opinion C says so." You're completely missing the point of my argument.

uchihademon91

the relevance of that is that not all scales are seen as symbolizing justice, just as not every capitalized word is seen as signifying yelling. which is what you implied,

"Capitalization is used to emphasize individual, key points in a message." maybe she thought that every thing in the message was important. i never said she was the smartest bitch in the strip club. maybe she had no common sense. they shoulda fired her for incompetence then.

opinion a is the opinion of the workplace that fired the woman, opinion b is the opinion of the women. "they" are the court system. "they" weighed opinion a against opinion b. in their eyes they saw that opinion b was in the right. who cares if it was logically fallacious, thats how the justice system works.

what is the point of your arguement. my point is that the workplace should not have fired the woman for sending an e-mail in all caps and in red, because they thought it was confrontational. they should have fired her on different grounds. from what was said in the first post, she did not actually say anything confrontational. it just "looked" confrontational. they should have fired her for incompetence or unprofessionalism, not being "confrontational".

__________________
"We define reality as what we accept as truth and correct. What is truth, what is it to be correct."- Itachi Uchiha

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 the relevance of that is that not all scales are seen as symbolizing justice, just as not every capitalized word is seen as signifying yelling. which is what you implied, "Capitalization is used to emphasize individual, key points in a message." maybe she thought that every thing in the message was important. i never said she was the smartest bitch in the strip club. maybe she had no common sense. they shoulda fired her for incompetence then.

I don't believe I implied any such thing, and I certainly didn't intend to. Just as there is a difference between scales, there is a difference between capitalization of key points and capitalization of an entire message. Where I to read a message from someone who felt their articles, prepositions, and conjunctions were "important", I would interpret it as yelling, as would most people. Again, the issue here isn't how it can be interpreted, it's how the majority will interpret it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 opinion a is the opinion of the workplace that fired the woman, opinion b is the opinion of the women. "they" are the court system. "they" weighed opinion a against opinion b. in their eyes they saw that opinion b was in the right. who cares if it was logically fallacious, thats how the justice system works.

And Opinion C is "their" opinion, the opinion of the court.
You've terribly misunderstood me. You are the one making fallacious arguments, not the court. Would you like me to try and explain this to you? I don't want to have to go to all that trouble if I don't have to, as it will be difficult to explain something so simple in even simpler terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 what is the point of your arguement. my point is that the workplace should not have fired the woman for sending an e-mail in all caps and in red, because they thought it was confrontational. they should have fired her on different grounds. from what was said in the first post, she did not actually say anything confrontational. it just "looked" confrontational. they should have fired her for incompetence or unprofessionalism, not being "confrontational".

My "argument" is that you're dumb, and attempting to defend a defenceless argument.
My opinion on the matter is that the court was correct. As stupid as she is, the woman shouldn't have been fired immediately, but been put under review and warned that her behaviour was unprofessional.

uchihademon91

your going by your own opinion. how do you know the majority would interpret capitalization of a whole message as yelling. i would certainly find it wierd, but wouldnt take it as them yelling.


the whole opinion a against opinion c arguement. i dont see where your going with that. your saying its wrong that the courts opinion said that the workplaces opinion is wrong, and that in itself is worng, is that what your saying? well thats basically how the world works, its opinion vs opinion all the time.


your arguement is that im dumb....ok. how is that. because your interpretation of capitalization is different from mine, so your opinion is right and mine is wrong, so that makes me dumb. thats what you are saying. you have no proof that the majority of people would interpret capitalization of an entire message as yelling. just cuz her workplace did, doesnt mean the majority of the populous does. as that was decided indirectly by the courts opinion.

__________________
"We define reality as what we accept as truth and correct. What is truth, what is it to be correct."- Itachi Uchiha

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 your going by your own opinion. how do you know the majority would interpret capitalization of a whole message as yelling. i would certainly find it wierd, but wouldnt take it as them yelling.

It's not my opinion that the majority would interpret it as yelling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 you have no proof that the majority of people would interpret capitalization of an entire message as yelling. just cuz her workplace did, doesnt mean the majority of the populous does. as that was decided indirectly by the courts opinion.

"Proof" cannot exist for inductive conclusions, but I do have evidence:

Quote:

This form of typography also appears in on-line forums. It was once an inevitable byproduct of using machines with limited support for lowercase text (such as certain dumb terminals, early Apple II models), but as full support of ASCII became standard, it became solely identified with "shouting" or attention-seeking behaviour. As a result, netiquette generally discourages the use of all caps. via Wikipedia

Don't try any tired argument like "Wikipedia isn't an accurate source!!!!1!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 your arguement is that im dumb....ok. how is that. because your interpretation of capitalization is different from mine, so your opinion is right and mine is wrong, so that makes me dumb. thats what you are saying.

The fact that you're dumb has nothing to do with my opinion of you, but your complete inability to argue and understand basic logical fallacies, an excellent example of the latter being:

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 the whole opinion a against opinion c arguement. i dont see where your going with that. your saying its wrong that the courts opinion said that the workplaces opinion is wrong, and that in itself is worng, is that what your saying? well thats basically how the world works, its opinion vs opinion all the time.

Here's the breakdown of your initial argument in this portion of the issue:
"Opinion C says Opinion A is wrong, therefore Opinion A is wrong."
It's not the court that is logically fallacious, it's you.
Your argument is similar to:

Albert says '3' is the number "three"
Courtney says '3' is the 7th moon of Jupiter
Courtney is infallible
---------------------------------------------------------
Therefore Albert is wrong.

See how ridiculous your argument looks in that form?

uchihademon91

well since the american standard code for information exchange says that all caps symbolizes shouting, then i guess the majority sees it as shouting. that makes sense. just cuz they think that it SHOULD represent shouting doesnt mean the majority see's it that way.

again the opinion a vs opinion c thing. still not following you with this. the court said that the workplace was wrong. i didnt say that. thats what happened. im not saying that the court was 100% in the right, but thats what happened. you keep saying that im the one whos saying this, but thats what happened. i dont see your argument here. you keep saying im being logically fallacious, but thats what happened, im just repeating it. so how am i being logically fallacious by repeating the scenario that actually happened. its not my arguement, thats the way it happened.

__________________
"We define reality as what we accept as truth and correct. What is truth, what is it to be correct."- Itachi Uchiha

zer0systm

Silly bitch should have got on her knees if ya know what I mean ;D


IF not, I'm saying she should of given the boss some gobbie to keep her job

and by that i mean suck a dick

and that means put a penis in her mouth.

and if you still don't get it.....well your just a fucking retard...

__________________
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 well since the american standard code for information exchange says that all caps symbolizes shouting, then i guess the majority sees it as shouting. that makes sense. just cuz they think that it SHOULD represent shouting doesnt mean the majority see's it that way.

Because I'm a nice guy, and like to repute everything in it's best possible form, I'll pretend your argument made sense in some way or another: ASCII is for character encoding only. There are no "rules" for ASCI; it does not "say" anything concerning spelling, grammar, punctuation or anything related to any rules of any language. Tthere is absolutely no regulatory group of any kind that says "All Caps means shouting." Nobody thinks that full capitalization of a message "should" represent shouting, they accept that it does represent shouting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uchihademon91 again the opinion a vs opinion c thing. still not following you with this. the court said that the workplace was wrong. i didnt say that. thats what happened. im not saying that the court was 100% in the right, but thats what happened. you keep saying that im the one whos saying this, but thats what happened. i dont see your argument here. you keep saying im being logically fallacious, but thats what happened, im just repeating it. so how am i being logically fallacious by repeating the scenario that actually happened. its not my arguement, thats the way it happened.

The fact that something happened is irrelevant to your fallacious argument. Let's go back to my example:

P1) Albert says '3' is the number "three"
P2) Courtney says '3' is the 7th moon of Jupiter
P3) Courtney is infallible
---------------------------------------------------------
C) Therefore Albert is wrong.

P1-3 are the "premises". In any valid argument, if all the premises are true then the conclusion is also true.

P1) Albert says '3' is the number "three"
Even if what Albert says is false, this premise remains true, because what Albert says is independent of what actually is. In this case, however, surely we can agree that Albert is correct.
This Premise is representative of Opinion A - that of the business - on the assumption that the business is correct. The fact that the business' decision wasn't necessarily correct has no impact on the analogy.

P2) Courtney says '3' is the 7th moon of Jupiter
This premise, like the first, is true regardless of what the facts are, because this is what Courtney is saying. Obviously, '3' is not the 7th moon of Jupiter.
This premise is representative of Opinion C - that of the court, deciding that Opinion A is wrong and substituting their own answer.

P3) Courtney is infallible
This is your assumption, that the court's decision is the be all and end all. Your argument was that the business was wrong because the court said so, basically: The court can't possibly be wrong, so obviously the business is wrong.

C) Therefore Albert is wrong.
The conclusion is the same as your own conclusion, that the business (Albert) was wrong - regardless of what they had done - simply because the court (Courtney) said so, and is believed to be infallible.

I'm assuming you still don't get it, so let's try another analogy: First, the basic idea of the fallacy: "You can't use evidence of a certain type to disprove evidence of the same type."

Person A argues "God exists because I can feel that He does."
Person B argues "God does not exist, because I cannot feel anything."

Obviously, "feeling" isn't any kind of evidence, but we'll ignore that fact for the sake of the analogy.
Person B has not disproven Person A. Still don't believe me? Let's make it a little more "real":

Person A argues "I believe Scott exists because I have seen him."
Person B argues "I believe that Scott does not exist because I have not seen him."


Seriously, if you don't see the problem with any of the arguments given above, you should just give up entirely. I mean, arguing anything. Ever.