Jump to content

ktarthan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ktarthan

  1. ktarthan

    Of Trolling

    HoT, I can't really tell who you're responding to so I'll just ask: who do you think called you an idiot? Other than Mr. Uruk here, I can't see anyone singling you out.
  2. ktarthan

    Of Trolling

    Oh I'm well aware. I was attempting to not get lengthy about this, but I guess the distance between what I said and what I meant was a bit too far and most people came to the conclusion that I'm trying to admonish people who troll. This is not the case. My OP carries two main ideas, and I'll try to break them down: "Attempting to convince the world that you're an idiot and succeeding" The basis of making someone dislike you is to be disagreeable. Whether by disagreeing directly with what they say, by espousing ideas that they strongly disagree with, or by acting in a way they strongly disag
  3. ktarthan

    Of Trolling

    Substitute "idiot" for any other derogatory term, really. It's trivial to get people to dislike you for any number of reasons. Simply saying that it was your intention to get them to dislike you doesn't lend the act any worth.
  4. This is a bit of a departure from the regular theme of this blog as it doesn't exactly address an argument per se, though it often comes up argument adjacent. I'll make it short and sweet: Attempting to convince the world that you're an idiot and succeeding is a victory neither hard won nor worth merit.
  5. ktarthan

    Raiding.

    I thought this was an interesting anecdote until you came along with "it's unnecessary and more detrimental to the game then a lot of things" to which I'm going to call bull. Do you know what hurts the game more than raiding? Complaining about things that you think hurt the game.
  6. I'm inclined to agree. I think a lot of us are in the same boat that we want to make things more interesting, but we find it hard to put this into words that both makes things both fun/lighthearted for "RL friend" or casual players and more challenging/realistic for the more politically interested players. There are also a lot of in-game factors that heavily disincentivize any form of war as action. And that is, for most, the primary way of affecting change. This is why I add the caveat about reducing potential for future changes. Without the NS to back it up, it's difficult to make chang
  7. Seriously though, I don't know if MK could have a unifying dogma due to the mixed nature of its members. My own personal dogma is to support any and all change so long as it does not significantly reduce potential for change in the future.
  8. Everything. Must. Die.
  9. ktarthan

    Analogies

    Analogies are indeed incredibly important in how we learn about the world. This is why I specifically made the case against analogies being used in arguments, and prefaced everything by saying that analogies can be incredibly useful. Also I think you missed the point.
  10. ktarthan

    Analogies

    Actually if you replace whale turds with month-old mouse turds it's a lot closer to the truth, and this really only works if it's 1930's India.
  11. Part I Analogies can be a good thing. They can be incredibly useful in education; when trying to explain an unfamilliar concept by relating it to something familliar. This is a completely neutral action and I urge you to use them in this manner whenever you wish. You have my blessing. Analogies used in an argument are nearly always utter crap. But even when a great analogy is used, it more than likely shouldn't have been. There are many issues, but they all stem from one thing: analogies are not equivalencies. Meaning that even in a great analogy, the situations will always have differences.
  12. Oh this brings back memories of when we needed our allies FOK and Kronos to help us out during Roguefest.
  13. Wow, did you really miss the point by that much?
  14. Also it should be noted that no proof has been presented of Roq's allegation that RoK was spied on. We clearly don't know what Nagasaki will bring, but I prefer not to count my chickens before they hatch.
  15. My friends have nothing to do with my own integrity.
  16. This isn't exactly addressing a bad argument per se, but I reserve the right to depart from this blog's theme whenever I damn well please. Also it follows along the general theme of elevating the level of discourse. I'd just like to speak a bit on a piece of my personal philosophy. It's very simple, and I'm sure you've heard it before, but its implications are wide and honestly it can be more difficult to follow than you'd first imagine. Err on the side of caution. This is a very useful thing to keep in mind whenever making risky decisions, but I think that it's something that can be viewed
  17. I said "this" blog post meaning its specific contents; not just "a" blog post. It's mostly for my own reasons though, so I don't expect everyone else to get it.
  18. Fair enough, the names are perhaps warranted. But my contention is that while you say we must "examine just who these supposed raving morons are," but you didn't do much of that. All you did was list their past credentials, and as I pointed out, credentials tell you nothing about the person. You could have made a much more solid and substantive point if you had simply singled out a good 5-10 members and elaborate in a verifiable way on how their specific history refutes mrwuss's point. And honestly I believe that you could have done this. I think that you're technically correct in refuting mr
  19. Appeal to popularity, appeal to authority, you don't state how long any of them remained in the cult, leadership background does not imply sound reasoning, past actions do not imply future motivations, you don't have any direct testimony from any of these members so apparently you can read their minds. Can you make this argument again without the gigantic namedrop?
  20. ktarthan

    Ad Hominem

    Actually, none of those are completely ad hominem. The first one is just abuse. The second one might be ad hominem, but it lacks the context it'd be used in. The third is, again, just abuse.
  21. ktarthan

    Ad Hominem

    Please, as I've asked, demonstrate the reasoning. What are the steps he used to have an insult reinforce the point that refutes what you said? No, not like that at all. Demonstrate the reasoning he used to reinforce the point that refutes what you said. "To reinforce his point" is the why. I'm asking for the how. Potato has in this very thread said that his point was "You don't know what ad hominem means." "You used it incorrectly" is in support of his point, not the point itself.
  22. ktarthan

    Ad Hominem

    Actually yes that's exactly what I'm arguing, and I'm correct. As I've said: an ad hominem is a kind of fallacy used to refute an opponent's argument. And a fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Thus, if the insult is not used in the reasoning behind the refutation an argument, it's not an ad hominem. Unless you can demonstrate how 1337 used any of his insults to reason that your post was wrong, then you have been proven incorrect. No, it isn't. Potato specifically has said that it wasn't meant to insult anything. No matter how many times you say it, telling someone that they do not know wha
  23. ktarthan

    Ad Hominem

    Responding to this point, as that's the key point of your paragraph. This is incorrect. His argument is that you are incorrect about everyone ignoring Rampage's post because he did not ignore it. Everything else in his post follows from this argument. None of it is used to support this argument. Zero ad hominems are present. "You really shouldn't use words when you don't know what they mean." at face value is a claim. Even if we infer one step past face value, "You don't know what ad hominem means" is still just a claim. Claiming that someone doesn't know what a term means is not an insult.
  24. ktarthan

    Ad Hominem

    Alright let's back this up. I feel like I'm repeating myself (because I more or less am) but herein lies the crux of why you're wrong. A fallacy is faulty reasoning. If no reasoning or argument stems from the insult, it isn't a fallacy. Also because this seems to be what you're trying to get at: "Gaining the advantage in a debate" does not immediately costitute "reasoning". You can call your opponent a !@#$-head to your heart's content, but if you don't use his !@#$-head status as part of your argument's reasoning, it's not a fallacy. Even if calling your opponent a !@#$-head somehow results
  25. ktarthan

    Ad Hominem

    Weird, I had a post before, but it got removed. Or never posted? Anyways. Myth. You just ignored my entire argument. "An insult that follows from a claim cannot be an ad hominem." Do I have to continue to help you figure out how to argue with me? Choices A) Demonstrate that an insult that follows from a claim can be an ad hominem. B) Demonstrate that the insults in that post didn't follow from the claim. C) Continue to spout the exact same thing over and over in different words. (this is the wrong one. don't pick it)
×
×
  • Create New...