The Argumentaly crippled

DSQrn, you sound like a freakin music snob, like barry from high fidelity. -:- You wanna revolution?

Oh, i know how that feels, you get a bunch of slurs strung at you nonsensically, and your attacker has neither the intelligence, nor the patience to listen to your comeback. Aranic Rules of Engagement, although primarily designed for capship combat, do serve well in these situations: 1. Ignore incoming fire if it is innefective. If enemy continues firing, a single shot as a warning will show them who´s boss 2. Unless in Wartime, do not fire unless fired upon, shooting without provocation just creates more problems 3. In wartime, Do not fire unless target is either a logistical or tactical threat, or Target Fired First If they persist, just slam him up against a wall and curse at him a bit, then release him, and walk off camly. Worked wonders for me, The guy didn´t expect it at all!

i´m not a music snob, i jsut get annoyed when people talk to me about music or anything when they have no idea what they are saying. I mean if he gave a constructive proper reason why Dimmu was goth it would be different. Besides i dont like Goth´s and i dont like My music being called Gothic Actualy working on your idea i did something nasty but incerdibly funny to a bloke once. he was annoying me so i raised my finger in that han solish way. Walked five paces over picked up some windex and sprayed it in his eyes. It was rather amusing Edited by - DSQrn on 3/20/2005 6:22:05 AM

ROFL... The problem is, most people can´t accept that they´re wrong (I know I have some trouble with this too <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>, I´m working on it). It´s a pride issue, and one of fear of the unknown--if you seriously challenge a person´s beliefs, they will naturally feel threatened by the fact that the foundations of their thoughts are under threat, that what they have been believing and basing lives on might be <i>wrong </i>. So it is a wrong but natural instinct to argue back in such a way that they blind themselves to reason and only use the argument that they themselves know they are right, regardless of rational and empirical evidence to oppose that--and of course, this impulse of blind faith spreads to much less serious topics of argumentation, such as which genre Dimmu fits into. It´s disgusting. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_dead.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Wilde on 3/20/2005 7:10:16 AM

I´m never wrong. Everthing i say is gospel.

wow...me too. im the modern day prophet. -arc

You two may be prophets, but I´m The Lord Himself.

Codename: What if I told you I´m an atheist? <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> (No, really, I am... ) Anyhow... About pride and such... I have so hard to admit I´m wrong. When I think I am right, then Damn I´m Right... And it get´s a really big problem. Maybe I can just admit im wrong... Yes, I´ll do that instead... But, then again, reality is what you make it <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <img src=´http://img135.exs.cx/img135/3004/kaworu1uy.jpg ´> <img src=´http://img135.exs.cx/img135/3066/evaseries5gg.jpg ´> <img src=´http://img135.exs.cx/img135/9940/asuka7rs.jpg ´>

ARRGGH! Sophist!!! Get out of my house! <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Seriously, rational evidence in cases of the intangible trumps empirical evidence. Therefore, if someone describes to you a valid and factual, thereby sound, argument, one should be inclined to submit, not hold on to one´s fragile view of reality. Subject A, Moron: I just saw the gigantic hippopotamus man! Subject B, rationalist: <i>Well you see, due to the fact that such an organism would defy the very laws of nature and genetic heredity, and given that you have not produced any evidence for this creature other than your word, it can´t possibly exist and you´re either on serious narcotics, an idiot, insane, or some combination of the lot. </i> Moron: BAAAA!!! You´re wrong! *runs off wildly shouting* (Wow, I really HAVE gone insane <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>. But you can all see the horrible idiocy of this kind of person...you know, the kind every day we´d just love to grab by the neck and ram repeatedly into telephone poles <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>). Edited by - Wilde on 3/20/2005 2:06:07 PM

Er, all the &quot;moron&quot; said was that he <i>saw </i> the hippo-man. He never asserted existence. And you can´t tell him he saw wrong, can you? So it´s actually the rationalist in this case who´s the idiot for acting as though he assumes percerption must always equal reality. And Orillion, don´t worry. I´m not a wrathful guy. No lightning bolts for you, don´t worry. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Codename on 3/20/2005 2:33:35 PM

Za-Zing! and Codename SCORES! sorry i had to do that. But just becuase you beleieve it exists doesnt make it exist, believe your wall doesnt really exist, now bang your head against it <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Dilbert author Scott Adams devoted an entire chaper of his book &quot;The Joy of Work&quot; to this topic (that is, arguing with irrational people). The most timeless classic amongst these is: &quot;I´m correct because I´m smarter than you. And, I must be smarter than you because I´m correct.&quot; To me, the most annoying people are those that try to argue a complex point (scientific for example) with inferior knowledge, or incorrect assumptions. I frequently have to reach out and slap people when they try and reconcile what I´m trying to explain about potential difference and the electric field with what they know about cooking spaghetti. Cooking spaghetti is a wonderful skill to have, its just irrelevant. <A href=´http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v322/sarafijdawg/legoguy.JPG´ Target=_Blank><img src=´http://img78.photobucket.com/a…2/sarafijdawg/legoguy.jpg ´></a>

Basically, DSQrn said what I was trying to say, in a more coherent and shorter form. Thanks <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> And Code, don´t be a pedant, you knew what I meant <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Edited by - Wilde on 3/21/2005 8:18:32 AM

&lt;whine&gt; But I like being a pedant. &lt;/whine&gt; <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> And DSQ isn´t quite right. Belief cannot negate existence but belief does lead to existence. Now this existence isn´t corporeal, certainly, but existence as a product/reflection of a mental state/belief is still existence. Edited by - Codename on 3/21/2005 3:42:08 PM

Do you mean psychoneurosis...? Or something else, such as perception of reality in the mind of the observer being reality in and of itself, regardless of how much this differs from actual physical reality.

The second one, sort of. I´d change it ever so slightly though: Perception of reality in the mind of the observer is <b>A </b> reality in and of itself, regardless of how much this differs from actual physical reality. All we really have to work with are perceptions. Since this is the case, we have to be willing to say that they reflect some sort of existence if we´re going to take the notion of existence of other things seriously.

poom, my brain just explode<img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> but yeah rememberthe famous sig, <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to there level and beat you with experience <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2>

&quot;All we really have to work with are perceptions. Since this is the case, we have to be willing to say that they reflect some sort of existence if we´re going to take the notion of existence of other things seriously.&quot; quite right, Code. well done on pointing that out. it moves the debate on quite nicely.

We also have other things to work with beside perception--reason, for example. Logic, which comes naturally to some.