It's all fiction!
mike3
Well, it is! Why do you get so mad when something someone says
contradicts whatever, it's all FICTION! You can believe whatever you
want, and make up whatever you want! It can be this, it can be that...
it has no impact on your real life -- it won't KILL someone just to
not accept the EUs or whatever for nothing but a silly, stupid movie.
That's all it is -- just a movie! (Or a book, or whatever, but you get
the drift!) It's not like pretending your car won't crash if you hit a
wall -- as that's real life, this is just a silly fiction. Sure, it
might not be the "official universe" then that is being described, it
would be someone's personal universe, but hey! It's fiction, and we
can all have whatever universe we want out of it. You cannot say
someone is "stupid" for having their own universe. There's no point in
"arguing" this whole thing, except maybe as a sort of fun game. If
someone veers off from something, why must you take it so darned
SERIOUSLY as to go and insult and break them down? It's just a movie,
folks, you don't have to be that serious like the World Will End(TM)
just because someone decides to play with a different rule than you do
or something. Like for example, my choice of using the films-only
universe for debating Star Wars in certain subjects. I remeber the
debates I had with the Death Star -- you'd call me "st00000pid" for
"ignoring evidence", despite that in those debates I was deciding to
choose that specific universe of films, and only films, for
discussion. I'm not "st0000000pid" as you like to say, I just decided
to use a different worldview. It's fiction, we can use whatever
worldview we want, it does not do anyone any harm.
Maybe this message was a little harsh and "whiny", but the point still
remains. It's all fiction, why must you be so frigging serious that
you must stop at all costs someone ho has a different interpretation
of things than you do, it's not going to hurt anyone, it's just
fiction, movies, books, art -- to go so far as to *insult* them? For
me, I don't need anything to "beat" anything else with "big guns", I
can enjoy everything based on it's artistic value alone. Maybe Star
Wars does have bigger guns than Star Trek. Does that make it BETTER?
No way! I could write a crap story about some guys with bigger guns
then everything else -- big guns that have barrels the size of whole
galaxies! But if the story sucks, the writing sucks, etc. it would
still be crap! I like *both* Star Trek *and* Star Wars *just as much*
simply because they're FUN! They are good art. It's like looking at a
nice wall painting. I could have a beautiful wall painting that
features a small gun (Painting #1), and a crappy wall painting that
features a huge gun (Painting #2). The "universe" in Painting #2 has a
gun that could blow Painting #1's gun to dust, but Painting #2 is
still crap. If both paintings were well-done, though, I would still
not prefer #2 over #1 just because it's gun is so much bigger.
You may go ahead and debate, but I would advise you just to take it a
little less seriously -- you take this stuff soooo seriously that you
think it is necessary to attack each other with insults and other
dirty talk and vitriol. I don't think vitriol-flinging is a good
thing, especially not with a topic as frivolous as this. It's not a
life-and-death matter, or even _any_ real-world matter in general!
It's not going to help or hurt anyone. It's just fluff, okay? Why do
you feel such a need to boast your egos or whatever with it, call
people st00pid, etc.? To me that implies a level of seriousness about
this whole thing that is simply unwarranted.
Aron Kerkhof
>Maybe this message was a little harsh and "whiny",
IT'S ALL FICTION, JACKASS! Why are you getting so worked up about it?
mike3
> On 13 Mar 2007 01:57:16 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Maybe this message was a little harsh and "whiny",
>
> IT'S ALL FICTION, JACKASS! Why are you getting so worked up about it?
>
> !AKhttp://www.neolith.org
Perhaps maybe because of just how darned SERIOUSLY you take it?
The way you guys argue over this thing is terrible! You just go and
INSULT (like you did above) and BEAT the opposition, like you have to,
like they're going to go on a killing spree and you've got to stop
'em.
Notice how in the post I made I did not include personal attacks, it
was
purely a critique of your methodology and "debating" techniques.
Nobody is going to get hurt or killed just because someone has a
different opinion of some fictional movie. There's no need to just
fling
vitriol. It's not talking about fiction I object to -- it's getting
*rabid* about
fiction -- rabid to the point of personal attack -- that I object to.
That is
totally uncalled for when dealing with nothing but fiction!
Graeme Dice
> On Mar 13, 8:44 am, Aron Kerkhof <n...@thanks.com> wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2007 01:57:16 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe this message was a little harsh and "whiny",
>> IT'S ALL FICTION, JACKASS! Why are you getting so worked up about it?
>>
>> !AKhttp://www.neolith.org
>
> Perhaps maybe because of just how darned SERIOUSLY you take it?
> The way you guys argue over this thing is terrible! You just go and
> INSULT (like you did above) and BEAT the opposition, like you have to,
> like they're going to go on a killing spree and you've got to stop
> 'em.
We insult people because their arguments are stupid. It wouldn't matter
what we were arguing about, if you made just as many idiotic statements,
then you'd get treated just as badly. We don't have any need to pretend
that everybody's opinion is equally valid.
> That is
> totally uncalled for when dealing with nothing but fiction!
Flaming is completely called for when dealing with idiots online. After
all, there's absolutely no better way to get them to stop posting, since
it's impossible to convince an idiot to change their mind.
mike3
> mike3 wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 8:44 am, Aron Kerkhof <n...@thanks.com> wrote:
> >> On 13 Mar 2007 01:57:16 -0700, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Maybe this message was a little harsh and "whiny",
> >> IT'S ALL FICTION, JACKASS! Why are you getting so worked up about it?
>
> >> !AKhttp://www.neolith.org
>
> > Perhaps maybe because of just how darned SERIOUSLY you take it?
> > The way you guys argue over this thing is terrible! You just go and
> > INSULT (like you did above) and BEAT the opposition, like you have to,
> > like they're going to go on a killing spree and you've got to stop
> > 'em.
>
> We insult people because their arguments are stupid. It wouldn't matter
> what we were arguing about, if you made just as many idiotic statements,
> then you'd get treated just as badly. We don't have any need to pretend
> that everybody's opinion is equally valid.
>
Then you insult the ARGUMENT. That's all that matters. And besides,
who
cares if any opinion is valid? It's all fiction! It's not going to
hurt anyone. If
you do not think their opinion is any good, then just don't accept it.
Why do
you feel the need to attack the _person_?
ARGUMENT does NOT equal PERSON. Why bother hurting someone's
feelings, anyway? What good does it do? What GOOD?
> > That is
> > totally uncalled for when dealing with nothing but fiction!
>
> Flaming is completely called for when dealing with idiots online. After
> all, there's absolutely no better way to get them to stop posting, since
> it's impossible to convince an idiot to change their mind.
If someone does not wish to change their mind, then flaming sure isn't
going to help the situation. It's just a way to start punching each
other's
lights out. That is unwarranted for fiction. Furthermore, what you may
consider a "stupid" argument may not be stupid in reality, and to
assume
that you are always right (or at least 99.9999999999% right) is silly.
What would you do if you got into an actual, face-to-face discussion
with somebody about this fiction stuff, and they came up with a
"stupid"
argument? Would you scream "YOU'RE
STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in their
face so loudly it wakes up the neighbors? "You're stupid" hurts
feelings
either way -- there are real people here, you know. Real people means
real respect for their feelings is required. The Internet is a
communication
medium, it doen't make the people any less "real". Would you scream
at someone "YOU'RE A STUPID LITTLE BITCHTARDER!!!!!!" over the phone
and then slam the reciever down? The phone is a communication medium
just the same.
And who cares if they keep acting "stupid"? Who is it going to _harm_,
since all this is FICTION? You can be as stupid as you want with
fiction.
It is just fiction. It's not anything real, it has NO connection to
reality at
all -- it's all made up fantasy lands.
That's the question: Why do you _need_ to "stop" them, anyway? It's
just fiction. It's not going to kill somebody. It's Just Fiction!
Fakery. Made-
up. Lies. Pure lies. Stories. Jokes. Bull. Fairy tales. Non-events.
Didn't
happen. Imagination.
Graeme Dice
<snip>
>> We insult people because their arguments are stupid. It wouldn't matter
>> what we were arguing about, if you made just as many idiotic statements,
>> then you'd get treated just as badly. We don't have any need to pretend
>> that everybody's opinion is equally valid.
>>
>
> Then you insult the ARGUMENT. That's all that matters.
No, you explain why the argument is incorrect, then insult the person
who made that argument for being an idiot.
> And besides,
> who
> cares if any opinion is valid? It's all fiction!
You certainly care enough about the topic to keep coming back to a
newsgroup that doesn't want you over the past couple of years.
> It's not going to
> hurt anyone. If
> you do not think their opinion is any good, then just don't accept it.
> Why do
> you feel the need to attack the _person_?
Because it's fun, and because it might make the idiot go away.
> ARGUMENT does NOT equal PERSON. Why bother hurting someone's
> feelings, anyway? What good does it do? What GOOD?
Wrong. A person's arguments are a very good way to determine how
intelligent a person is. As for your feelings, why should I care
whether you claim that your feelings are hurt?
> If someone does not wish to change their mind, then flaming sure isn't
> going to help the situation. It's just a way to start punching each
> other's
> lights out.
So? There's nothing wrong with insulting stupid people. Flaming helps
to make the person leave the newsgroup or stop posting, which is the
desired outcome as the person has nothing of value to add to the discussion.
>Furthermore, what you may
> consider a "stupid" argument may not be stupid in reality, and to
> assume
> that you are always right (or at least 99.9999999999% right) is silly.
Why is it silly? I'm definetly smarter than you are, I'm more educated,
and unlike you, I'm not the laughingstock of every single newsgroup I've
ever posted in.
> What would you do if you got into an actual, face-to-face discussion
> with somebody about this fiction stuff, and they came up with a
> "stupid"
> argument? Would you scream "YOU'RE
> STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in their
> face so loudly it wakes up the neighbors?
No, but I either wouldn't associate with them anymore if they were truly
stupid, or I simply wouldn't discuss the topic with them.
Unfortunately, there's no way to ban you from this newsgroup, which is
the equivalent to what would happen in the real world.
>"You're stupid" hurts
> feelings
> either way -- there are real people here, you know. Real people means
> real respect for their feelings is required.
The fact that you are a person does not mean that I am required to
respect your feelings. You have not earned that respect, so you don't
get it.
>Would you scream
> at someone "YOU'RE A STUPID LITTLE BITCHTARDER!!!!!!" over the phone
> and then slam the reciever down? The phone is a communication medium
> just the same.
If I had never met the person, and they were trying to insult my
intelligence? Then I would certainly do just that.
> And who cares if they keep acting "stupid"? Who is it going to _harm_,
> since all this is FICTION? You can be as stupid as you want with
> fiction.
The arguments are not fiction. They are debates about a particular
topic. Unfortunately, you aren't smart enough to figure out what that
means.
> That's the question: Why do you _need_ to "stop" them, anyway?
Why do I want to stop them? Because stupid people insult every single
intelligent person who has to listen to them when they communicate.
> It's
> just fiction. It's not going to kill somebody. It's Just Fiction!
> Fakery. Made-
> up. Lies. Pure lies. Stories. Jokes. Bull. Fairy tales. Non-events.
> Didn't
> happen. Imagination.
Then perhaps you shouldn't make such a big deal of it.
Oh by the way, I love how you're still trying to pretend that everyone's
opinion is valid.
mike3
> mike3 wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 7:38 pm, Graeme Dice <grd...@NOSPAM.sasktel.net> wrote:
> >> mike3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> We insult people because their arguments are stupid. It wouldn't matter
> >> what we were arguing about, if you made just as many idiotic statements,
> >> then you'd get treated just as badly. We don't have any need to pretend
> >> that everybody's opinion is equally valid.
>
> > Then you insult the ARGUMENT. That's all that matters.
>
> No, you explain why the argument is incorrect, then insult the person
> who made that argument for being an idiot.
>
You explain why the argument is incorrect. That's it. That's what I
would
do.
> > And besides,
>
> > who
> > cares if any opinion is valid? It's all fiction!
>
> You certainly care enough about the topic to keep coming back to a
> newsgroup that doesn't want you over the past couple of years.
I don't really care too much about it anymore. I'm more interested in
your
attitudes you have taken to this topic.
> > It's not going to
>
> > hurt anyone. If
> > you do not think their opinion is any good, then just don't accept it.
> > Why do
> > you feel the need to attack the _person_?
>
> Because it's fun, and because it might make the idiot go away.
>
"Fun" = sadism.
Hmm.
> > ARGUMENT does NOT equal PERSON. Why bother hurting someone's
> > feelings, anyway? What good does it do? What GOOD?
>
> Wrong. A person's arguments are a very good way to determine how
> intelligent a person is. As for your feelings, why should I care
> whether you claim that your feelings are hurt?
>
Because, for one, I am a human being.
> > If someone does not wish to change their mind, then flaming sure isn't
> > going to help the situation. It's just a way to start punching each
> > other's
> > lights out.
>
> So? There's nothing wrong with insulting stupid people. Flaming helps
> to make the person leave the newsgroup or stop posting, which is the
> desired outcome as the person has nothing of value to add to the discussion.
>
Then if the argument is not of value but also not stupid, then it is
also bad?!
What happens if someone presents something that doesn't have any
value,
but is also logically valid -- like 1+1=2, for example?
> >Furthermore, what you may
>
> > consider a "stupid" argument may not be stupid in reality, and to
> > assume
> > that you are always right (or at least 99.9999999999% right) is silly.
>
> Why is it silly? I'm definetly smarter than you are, I'm more educated,
> and unlike you, I'm not the laughingstock of every single newsgroup I've
> ever posted in.
>
For one, I'm not as "educated" because I don't have as much money
as you might to get it. How could I get out of poverty?
And it does not matter how many people laugh at somebody, what
matters is the validity of the argument. I concede that I may have
been wrong on some points with this Star Trek argument, but I can
also see where _you_ were wrong. And I can also see the mistakes
I made with the TCHUNK thing, too, however YOU do not want to see
that I did. That was out of pure ignorance, and there was not
malicious
intent in it.
YOU, though, do not want to admit it. So BOTH sides of this got stuff
wrong. BOTH of them.
> > What would you do if you got into an actual, face-to-face discussion
> > with somebody about this fiction stuff, and they came up with a
> > "stupid"
> > argument? Would you scream "YOU'RE
> > STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in their
> > face so loudly it wakes up the neighbors?
>
> No, but I either wouldn't associate with them anymore if they were truly
> stupid, or I simply wouldn't discuss the topic with them.
> Unfortunately, there's no way to ban you from this newsgroup, which is
> the equivalent to what would happen in the real world.
>
> >"You're stupid" hurts
>
> > feelings
> > either way -- there are real people here, you know. Real people means
> > real respect for their feelings is required.
>
> The fact that you are a person does not mean that I am required to
> respect your feelings. You have not earned that respect, so you don't
> get it.
>
Everyone deserves to be respected by everyone else, as everyone
is a human being. And how would I "earn" this respect?
> >Would you scream
>
> > at someone "YOU'RE A STUPID LITTLE BITCHTARDER!!!!!!" over the phone
> > and then slam the reciever down? The phone is a communication medium
> > just the same.
>
> If I had never met the person, and they were trying to insult my
> intelligence? Then I would certainly do just that.
>
Or maybe they just didn't see what was wrong with their argument. See,
the problem lies in an assumption of malice.
> > And who cares if they keep acting "stupid"? Who is it going to _harm_,
> > since all this is FICTION? You can be as stupid as you want with
> > fiction.
>
> The arguments are not fiction. They are debates about a particular
> topic. Unfortunately, you aren't smart enough to figure out what that
> means.
>
How could I become smart enough to figure it out?
Also, regardless of the "fictionality" of the arguments, the argument
may not be fiction, but it does not concern matters relevant to the
real world in any way, shape, or form, and thus I see no reasons to
get bent out of shape over it.
> > That's the question: Why do you _need_ to "stop" them, anyway?
>
> Why do I want to stop them? Because stupid people insult every single
> intelligent person who has to listen to them when they communicate.
>
Well, I wouldn't consider it an insult. I consider saying to somebody
"you're stupid" an insult. If someone says "1+1=3" and they keep
posting
it again and again, I would not feel insulted by it even though I know
that
1+1=2 instead.
Surlethe
><snip>
> Everyone deserves to be respected by everyone else, as everyone
> is a human being.
Why?
>And how would I "earn" this respect?
You would presumably earn it by (a) learning from your mistakes and
(b) not being a whiny bitch.
Graeme Dice
<snip>
>> No, you explain why the argument is incorrect, then insult the person
>> who made that argument for being an idiot.
>>
>
> You explain why the argument is incorrect. That's it. That's what I
> would
> do.
We did explain it. You refused to listen after the first explanation,
so you get insulted.
>>> ARGUMENT does NOT equal PERSON. Why bother hurting someone's
>>> feelings, anyway? What good does it do? What GOOD?
>> Wrong. A person's arguments are a very good way to determine how
>> intelligent a person is. As for your feelings, why should I care
>> whether you claim that your feelings are hurt?
>>
>
> Because, for one, I am a human being.
So?
>> So? There's nothing wrong with insulting stupid people. Flaming helps
>> to make the person leave the newsgroup or stop posting, which is the
>> desired outcome as the person has nothing of value to add to the discussion.
>>
>
> Then if the argument is not of value but also not stupid, then it is
> also bad?!
> What happens if someone presents something that doesn't have any
> value,
> but is also logically valid -- like 1+1=2, for example?
Could you at least try not to present red herrings?
> And it does not matter how many people laugh at somebody, what
> matters is the validity of the argument.
Yep. And yours has been shown to be incorrect. It's not only
incorrect, but it's not even your argument. It's just your parroting of
a person who's too much of a coward to have his ideas smashed in public
yet again.
> Everyone deserves to be respected by everyone else, as everyone
> is a human being. And how would I "earn" this respect?
No, everyone certainly does not deserve everyone else's respect. I have
no obligation to listen to your viewpoint simply because you are also a
human.
> Or maybe they just didn't see what was wrong with their argument. See,
> the problem lies in an assumption of malice.
If a person isn't smart enough to see what's wrong with their argument,
and isn't capable of accepting correction from smarter people the first
time they are corrected, then no, I really don't want much to do with them.
>> The arguments are not fiction. They are debates about a particular
>> topic. Unfortunately, you aren't smart enough to figure out what that
>> means.
>>
>
> How could I become smart enough to figure it out?
You can't. You weren't born with sufficient intellect, and whatever
training you could have attempted would have had to have occurred long
before adulthood.
> Also, regardless of the "fictionality" of the arguments, the argument
> may not be fiction, but it does not concern matters relevant to the
> real world in any way, shape, or form, and thus I see no reasons to
> get bent out of shape over it.
Which is one of the reasons why we don't wish to associate with you.
>>> That's the question: Why do you _need_ to "stop" them, anyway?
>> Why do I want to stop them? Because stupid people insult every single
>> intelligent person who has to listen to them when they communicate.
>>
>
> Well, I wouldn't consider it an insult. I consider saying to somebody
> "you're stupid" an insult. If someone says "1+1=3" and they keep
> posting
> it again and again, I would not feel insulted by it even though I know
> that
> 1+1=2 instead.
That's because you are particularly intelligent, and don't realize how
frustrating it is to have to deal with the same arguments that people
with the same average intellect make on a constant basis.
mike3
> mike3 wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 8:13 pm, Graeme Dice <grd...@NOSPAM.sasktel.net> wrote:
> >> mike3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> No, you explain why the argument is incorrect, then insult the person
> >> who made that argument for being an idiot.
>
> > You explain why the argument is incorrect. That's it. That's what I
> > would
> > do.
>
> We did explain it. You refused to listen after the first explanation,
> so you get insulted.
>
I attempted to rebut the explanation. So, a debate.
> >>> ARGUMENT does NOT equal PERSON. Why bother hurting someone's
> >>> feelings, anyway? What good does it do? What GOOD?
> >> Wrong. A person's arguments are a very good way to determine how
> >> intelligent a person is. As for your feelings, why should I care
> >> whether you claim that your feelings are hurt?
>
> > Because, for one, I am a human being.
>
> So?
>
Then I have feelings, and one must respect everyone's feelings.
> >> So? There's nothing wrong with insulting stupid people. Flaming helps
> >> to make the person leave the newsgroup or stop posting, which is the
> >> desired outcome as the person has nothing of value to add to the discussion.
>
> > Then if the argument is not of value but also not stupid, then it is
> > also bad?!
> > What happens if someone presents something that doesn't have any
> > value,
> > but is also logically valid -- like 1+1=2, for example?
>
> Could you at least try not to present red herrings?
>
It's not a rebuttal -- it's a question about what you are saying.
> > And it does not matter how many people laugh at somebody, what
> > matters is the validity of the argument.
>
> Yep. And yours has been shown to be incorrect. It's not only
> incorrect, but it's not even your argument. It's just your parroting of
> a person who's too much of a coward to have his ideas smashed in public
> yet again.
>
I'd therefore be curious as to a good explanation of the present
Leland Chee quotes as asked about in another post here. I'd like
to know how it fails to prove the existence of a continuity where
only the films are valid evidence.
> > Everyone deserves to be respected by everyone else, as everyone
> > is a human being. And how would I "earn" this respect?
>
> No, everyone certainly does not deserve everyone else's respect. I have
> no obligation to listen to your viewpoint simply because you are also a
> human.
>
You do not have to listen to my viewpoint, but you also have no
rights to just attack me, myself. That's what I mean by respect --
it has nothing to do with accepting a viewpoint, it has to do with
treating a person a certain way. You have to learn to be able to
separate these two concepts -- viewpoint and person.
> > Or maybe they just didn't see what was wrong with their argument. See,
> > the problem lies in an assumption of malice.
>
> If a person isn't smart enough to see what's wrong with their argument,
> and isn't capable of accepting correction from smarter people the first
> time they are corrected, then no, I really don't want much to do with them.
>
But you suggested that they had malicious intent, that they were
_trying_
to "insult your intelligence" as you put it.
> >> The arguments are not fiction. They are debates about a particular
> >> topic. Unfortunately, you aren't smart enough to figure out what that
> >> means.
>
> > How could I become smart enough to figure it out?
>
> You can't. You weren't born with sufficient intellect, and whatever
> training you could have attempted would have had to have occurred long
> before adulthood.
>
If that is so, then why would you choose to insult me for it? If it is
something beyond my control, what wrong has been done?
> > Also, regardless of the "fictionality" of the arguments, the argument
> > may not be fiction, but it does not concern matters relevant to the
> > real world in any way, shape, or form, and thus I see no reasons to
> > get bent out of shape over it.
>
> Which is one of the reasons why we don't wish to associate with you.
>
You mean that you WANT to get bent out of shape over it? That you WANT
to make it "real" and darned serious?
Well perhaps maybe that's another reason why I don't want to associate
with YOU either.
> >>> That's the question: Why do you _need_ to "stop" them, anyway?
> >> Why do I want to stop them? Because stupid people insult every single
> >> intelligent person who has to listen to them when they communicate.
>
> > Well, I wouldn't consider it an insult. I consider saying to somebody
> > "you're stupid" an insult. If someone says "1+1=3" and they keep
> > posting
> > it again and again, I would not feel insulted by it even though I know
> > that
> > 1+1=2 instead.
>
> That's because you are particularly intelligent, and don't realize how
> frustrating it is to have to deal with the same arguments that people
> with the same average intellect make on a constant basis.
I thought you thought I was NOT particularly intelligent. Weird...
And why insult people with this so-called "average" intellect? Then
you might as well insult 99% of the people around you. There's a
reason that extreme pride is considered a bad thing in many religions
and moral systems.
mike3
If by my "mistakes" you mean my argument, well, the thing is
that I do not see that your argument is valid. I cannot accept
an argument I do not see is valid.
Surlethe
You may need to get your eyes checked. I said "mistakes", not "your
arguments". When people point out mistakes in any of your arguments,
as they invariably occur, you would have earned respect if you'd been
honest enough to admit mistakes existed and then learned not to repeat
them.
Oh, and if you think my argument's invalid, why don't you go ahead and
tell me why you *wouldn't* earn respect from these qualities. I also
like how you ignored my questioning of your fundamental premise.
mike3
> On Mar 18, 5:12 am, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 4:20 pm, "Surlethe" <coleman.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 15, 7:50 pm, "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > ><snip>
> > > > Everyone deserves to be respected by everyone else, as everyone
> > > > is a human being.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > >And how would I "earn" this respect?
>
> > > You would presumably earn it by (a) learning from your mistakes and
> > > (b) not being a whiny bitch.
>
> > If by my "mistakes" you mean my argument, well, the thing is
> > that I do not see that your argument is valid. I cannot accept
> > an argument I do not see is valid.
>
> You may need to get your eyes checked. I said "mistakes", not "your
> arguments". When people point out mistakes in any of your arguments,
> as they invariably occur, you would have earned respect if you'd been
> honest enough to admit mistakes existed and then learned not to repeat
> them.
>
Because I did not see a mistake. Furthermore, if there is a mistake in
my
argument, does not that make the argument invalid? If so, then this
_does_
relate to the validity of the argument. That's what I was talking
about.
What mistakes, exactly, are you referring to the most? The ones in the
argument itself I do not see(*). Are you perhaps referring to my style
of debate, civility, morals, presentation of argument, etc.? Perhaps,
say,
the constant posting of 10 new threads with all the same thing, saying
"goodbye I'm leaving", then popping up the very next day?
If this is so, I will concede a mistake here. I was in fact, obsessed
with
you guys -- that's why I kept coming back for more after saying
"Goodbye". I could have simply just walked out, or not give the leave
the air of *certain* finality when I know the leave may not be final
and/or permanent.
(*) An example. I dug this up:
"Me:
And therefore, if the EU deviates
from the movies, then in those parts, you must use the movies.
Edam:
yep.
Me:
Portions referring to movie events must be ignored unless the movies
agree.
Edam:
You're contradicting yourself here. Above you say the EU is
acceptable
unless it contradicts the movies. Here you say it must be supported
by
the movies. You can't have both."
I, for one, do not see a mistake here. I do not see a contradiction
as Mr. Fromage points out, rather I see a misinterpretation of my
post. First, I did not declare the EU was fact "unless it contradicts
the movies". What the debater here did not realize was that my bit
about the EU "deviating" was that I was *assuming for the purpose
of argument*, that the EU was valid material and that only one
universe existed, composed of the films, plus the EU (although the
new Leland Chee quotes, together with the 2005 Starlog George
Lucas quote, show that a universe of only the films exists as well.).
I may have been poor in _presenting_ this argument, but the
argument _itself_ was not touched by the rebuttal here. The true
intention of the argument is what I've given above, and I should
know, after all aren't I the one who posted it?
Yes, I will confess that I made some mistakes, and I may have
been off in some places, but I am not going to say my whole
argument was totally, irredemably wrong. None of your evidences
have shown that, in my view. I am reasonably certain that I am right
in that there exists a "universe" of Star Wars in which only the films
are relevant. Especially with the new quotes.
I will _not_ admit a mistake by "ignoring evidence" when not
using the EU. The fact was that two universes existed, and I chose
to use the one where only the films mattered. There's no evidence
to ignore then. If the mistakes you are referring to include these,
then you would also be suggesting that in order to not do them again,
my _views_ would have to change (to that only one universe
exists), and thus you would continue "disrespecting" me if I did not
change my views. But respect, etc. has nothing to do with views,
it has to do with behavior.
> Oh, and if you think my argument's invalid, why don't you go ahead and
> tell me why you *wouldn't* earn respect from these qualities. I also
> like how you ignored my questioning of your fundamental premise.
What is this questioning? You mean, questioning the "why people
deserve to be respected?" The answer is that if we do not respect
each other, then that leads to fighting, hurt feelings, etc. Those
things are not good. Tell me, why is it good to hurt another person in
this case? If it is not good, then why would you do it?
Graeme Dice
<snip>
>>> Because, for one, I am a human being.
>> So?
>>
>
> Then I have feelings, and one must respect everyone's feelings.
Really? Where is it determined that I have to respect your feelings
just because you're human?
>> Could you at least try not to present red herrings?
>>
>
> It's not a rebuttal -- it's a question about what you are saying.
Do you even understand what the term "red herring" means?
> I'd therefore be curious as to a good explanation of the present
> Leland Chee quotes as asked about in another post here. I'd like
> to know how it fails to prove the existence of a continuity where
> only the films are valid evidence.
You've been provided with a good explanation by Lord Edam. I'm not
about to waste my time by providing yet another one to somebody who
refuses to learn.
>>> Everyone deserves to be respected by everyone else, as everyone
>>> is a human being. And how would I "earn" this respect?
>> No, everyone certainly does not deserve everyone else's respect. I have
>> no obligation to listen to your viewpoint simply because you are also a
>> human.
>>
>
> You do not have to listen to my viewpoint, but you also have no
> rights to just attack me, myself.
Of course I do. That's called freedom of speech.
>> If a person isn't smart enough to see what's wrong with their argument,
>> and isn't capable of accepting correction from smarter people the first
>> time they are corrected, then no, I really don't want much to do with them.
>>
>
> But you suggested that they had malicious intent, that they were
> _trying_
> to "insult your intelligence" as you put it.
They are. A person who is willfully ignorant is incredibly malicious,
because they refuse to correct their beliefs.
>> You can't. You weren't born with sufficient intellect, and whatever
>> training you could have attempted would have had to have occurred long
>> before adulthood.
>>
>
> If that is so, then why would you choose to insult me for it? If it is
> something beyond my control, what wrong has been done?
You have the ability to shut up and follow people who are smarter than
you. You choose to pretend that you have a worthwhile opinion, so you
get insulted.
>>> Also, regardless of the "fictionality" of the arguments, the argument
>>> may not be fiction, but it does not concern matters relevant to the
>>> real world in any way, shape, or form, and thus I see no reasons to
>>> get bent out of shape over it.
>> Which is one of the reasons why we don't wish to associate with you.
>>
>
> You mean that you WANT to get bent out of shape over it? That you WANT
> to make it "real" and darned serious?
Yes, I want to have a serious argument about a non-serious subject. If
you can't see the point of that, then I'll just direct you back to my
earlier comments.
> Well perhaps maybe that's another reason why I don't want to associate
> with YOU either.
But you clearly _do_ want to associate with us, since you continually
come back here parroting Darkstar's arguments.
> And why insult people with this so-called "average" intellect? Then
> you might as well insult 99% of the people around you. There's a
> reason that extreme pride is considered a bad thing in many religions
> and moral systems.
People of average intellect _are_ ridiculously stupid, and this should
hardly be a surprise to anybody.
mike3
> mike3 wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 7:26 am, Graeme Dice <grd...@NOSPAM.sasktel.net> wrote:
> >> mike3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> Because, for one, I am a human being.
> >> So?
>
> > Then I have feelings, and one must respect everyone's feelings.
>
> Really? Where is it determined that I have to respect your feelings
> just because you're human?
>
Well, not respecting them just leads to conflict, bad blood,
harming each other, etc. It's not conducive to a good world. To
me, that would definitely qualify as "wrong" in my view. Your
view, of course, may differ.
> >> Could you at least try not to present red herrings?
>
> > It's not a rebuttal -- it's a question about what you are saying.
>
> Do you even understand what the term "red herring" means?
>
Yes, it's an attempt to dodge around a point by going after some
sort of irrelevancy. But I had no intent to rebut your point at that
time, I was asking a question it brought up that I wanted an
answer to to satisfy my curiosity, namely, are those who do not
present "ignorant" arguments, but which still do not have value,
are still wrong.
If you want a real to-the-point rebuttal as it seems, then I will
give you one right here. You argued:
"So? There's nothing wrong with insulting stupid people. Flaming
helps
to make the person leave the newsgroup or stop posting, which is the
desired outcome as the person has nothing of value to add to the
discussion. "
My response, is then this. You flamed, and flamed, and flamed,
and I kept on coming. Now, the reason why was because my
feelings got hurt by the flaming, and I got angry and infuriated.
I also became obesessional. With me angered, I felt a burning
need to argue every more aggressively, and so I kept posting
threads. Sometimes I'd get fed up any say I'm leaving, but then
I'd glance at another insult, get angry again, and got sucked
back in. So your insults actually served to do the reverse of
what you hoped they would. The very experiences you had
with me are therefore the proof you need that insulting does
not make things better. I was hurt, and I may even have cried
some times, although you would not have seen it. And I was
angered. And thus I kept responding and debating, out of
anger. If you really are as intelligent as you claim, you should
be able to understand this.
> > I'd therefore be curious as to a good explanation of the present
> > Leland Chee quotes as asked about in another post here. I'd like
> > to know how it fails to prove the existence of a continuity where
> > only the films are valid evidence.
>
> You've been provided with a good explanation by Lord Edam. I'm not
> about to waste my time by providing yet another one to somebody who
> refuses to learn.
>
I read the explanation. It seems that he agrees that a film-only
universe exists, which is good. That's what my argument is
really about. I guess then there's nothing to argue. Do you
also agree? (that a film-only universe exists and is valid for
debating)
I do not see a problem with the viewpoint exrpessed in his
newest posts. Yes, there is the thing about a universe where
the EU exists along with the films, but there is also a fillm-only
universe. The idea that there was a universe where the EU
was acceptable was not what I denied. What I was really after
was the idea that one MUST use the EU otherwise one is not
following "official policy" (ie. that the film+EU universe is the
only valid one to use), even though official statements
have shown that two universes, not one, exist, and in one the
EU is _not_ valid (simple English: what else does "film-only"
mean?). It was the insistence that I _must_ use the
EU-containing universe, and that this was the _only_ correct
way to go, that I disagreed with. See below, where I quote
you in one of your posts, seemingly pushing the idea that I
must use the EU, period.
> >>> Everyone deserves to be respected by everyone else, as everyone
> >>> is a human being. And how would I "earn" this respect?
> >> No, everyone certainly does not deserve everyone else's respect. I have
> >> no obligation to listen to your viewpoint simply because you are also a
> >> human.
>
> > You do not have to listen to my viewpoint, but you also have no
> > rights to just attack me, myself.
>
> Of course I do. That's called freedom of speech.
>
Freedom of speech does not override moral rights and wrongs.
Just like the freedom to bear arms does not automatically grant
one the right to shoot and kill people on a whim. What I'm saying
is that just because the Constitution says X is not legally
restricted does not mean you have an unbridled right to hurt
people. "Rights" are not just set out by some government's laws.
I find it interesting -- you said that you have no obligation to
listen
to my viewpoint. Then would not it also make sense for me to
declare that I also have no obligation to listen to your viewpoint?
> >> If a person isn't smart enough to see what's wrong with their argument,
> >> and isn't capable of accepting correction from smarter people the first
> >> time they are corrected, then no, I really don't want much to do with them.
>
> > But you suggested that they had malicious intent, that they were
> > _trying_
> > to "insult your intelligence" as you put it.
>
> They are. A person who is willfully ignorant is incredibly malicious,
> because they refuse to correct their beliefs.
>
They are personal beliefs. What sort of harm do they cause to
you? If they cause no harm to you, there is no malice. See, malice
implies that I wish to _hurt you_. But I do not wish to hurt you, I
just do not agree with your argument. Malice relates to harming
or doing wrong to others. My viewpoint is my viewpoint, and I do
not see how it harms you. How does it? I'd like to know.
I do *listen* to your argument, but I do not *believe* in it, because
I see it is wrong. You seem to keep insisting that using the EU is
the only good way to go (in the debates with, say, the Death Star,
you'd often cite me for "ignoring evidence" because I was not
accepting the EU), even though the quotes prove that a film-only
universe exists. You saw the 2005 Lucas Starlog quote, and you
did not concede (at least not explicitly) then that a film-only
universe existed, despite the direct and clear statement that "two
universes" existed.
Perhaps my argument was not perfect and I wasn't quite on the
money with it, but I think the revised argument, namely, that the
"canon" of Star Wars comprises two "universes", namely a
"films-only" universe, and a "films and EU" universe. This agrees
well with the known quotes. Lucas has repeatedly said that two
universes existed, one of which contains just the movies. The
fact that you kept saying "You're Ignoring Evidence!" when I
tried to debate with only the films suggests that you denied the
existence of the film-only universe, contrary to explicit statements
from George Lucas and those at the Lucas Corporation.
You yourself, Graeme, said, explicitly, in one of my very first
threads here, called "CANON and the EU":
"You're being intellectually dishonest because you are ignoring
evidence.
The EU supercedes your assertions about the films, and you have not
included the EU as evidence, so you haven't included all the evidence.
"
But if I am choosing to debate in the "film-only" universe, then of
course I have not included it. If that is what I am debating in, no
"evidence" has been ignored, since there was none beyond the
films. You, meanwhile, seem to insist that I _must_ use the
"film+EU" universe or I haven't "included all the evidence". If I
was claiming to use the "film+EU" universe and THEN ignoring the
EU's evidence, then your argument would hold water, because
the EU IS valid evidence there. However, I was using the "film-
only" universe, and the EU need not be included -- in fact it
_cannot_ be included otherwise it would not be "film-only"! If I'm
using the film-only universe and do not include the EU, I have
still included all the evidence, since in the film-only universe,
only the films are evidence (what else can "film-only" mean?).
Does this make sense to you? If so, will you concede that you
erred in saying that by not including the EU I did not include
"all the evidence" even though I was debating in the film-only
universe (which is a real continuity as per the direct statements
of George Lucas, Leland Chee, and other Lucasfilm officials)?
> >> You can't. You weren't born with sufficient intellect, and whatever
> >> training you could have attempted would have had to have occurred long
> >> before adulthood.
>
> > If that is so, then why would you choose to insult me for it? If it is
> > something beyond my control, what wrong has been done?
>
> You have the ability to shut up and follow people who are smarter than
> you. You choose to pretend that you have a worthwhile opinion, so you
> get insulted.
>
I won't follow an argument I consider to be wrong. It does not
matter whether or not you think you are smarter than me, because
if the argument is wrong, all the brains in the world aren't going
to save it. I did not see the logic with this position. However, the
new position (at least Lord Edam's), seems closer to the money
-- as it finally admits the existence of the film-only universe. Do
you agree with this new position -- that a film-only universe does
in fact exist?
It is not good to insult people just because of an opinion: it's just
an
opinion. If you've ever seen a real debate, a true debate, you'll
often see that the involved parties do not snipe at each other.
And you also seem to hint that your view is so extremely subtle
it requires incredible levels of intelligence to comprehend. I do
not see why this is so. I can easily understand your argument, and
see it's flaws. Since it is flawed, I do not agree with it. It is that
simple.
> >>> Also, regardless of the "fictionality" of the arguments, the argument
> >>> may not be fiction, but it does not concern matters relevant to the
> >>> real world in any way, shape, or form, and thus I see no reasons to
> >>> get bent out of shape over it.
> >> Which is one of the reasons why we don't wish to associate with you.
>
> > You mean that you WANT to get bent out of shape over it? That you WANT
> > to make it "real" and darned serious?
>
> Yes, I want to have a serious argument about a non-serious subject. If
> you can't see the point of that, then I'll just direct you back to my
> earlier comments.
>
But why must it be *so* serious that disagreers you call "stupid"
must be stopped? What _real-world harm_ do they cause? It
sounds like you seem to think there is Real World(TM)
consequences of these debates on fictitious topics. I would like
to hear what that is.
> > Well perhaps maybe that's another reason why I don't want to associate
> > with YOU either.
>
> But you clearly _do_ want to associate with us, since you continually
> come back here parroting Darkstar's arguments.
>
Well, if you mean by "associate", "agree", I'm not sure. Your
logic for denying the explicitly stated, on multiple times, dual-
canon approach does not seem very sound.
> > And why insult people with this so-called "average" intellect? Then
> > you might as well insult 99% of the people around you. There's a
> > reason that extreme pride is considered a bad thing in many religions
> > and moral systems.
>
> People of average intellect _are_ ridiculously stupid, and this should
> hardly be a surprise to anybody.
So then you are basically saying just about everyone is stupid?
If you think that this "stupidity" is unchangeable, then am I right in
deducing that you also think that today's world-problems are
mostly unsolvable?
Crayz9000
> <snipped>
Jesus H. Christ riding on a B-70, I drop in to see how the group's doing
and all I see is mike3 still going at it.On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 01:57:16
-0700, mike3 wrote:
mike3
<crayz9000amishrakefight.removetheamishra...@foobar.homelinux.net>
wrote:
Actually I had been gone from this place for quite a while, and only
recently came back to it again when I realized the extreme amount
of seriousness (ie. that disagreers seem to be considered some sort
of threat to the real world itself) that was given to a fluff topic.
That's what all this is, fluff.