Why does this guy have a wikipedia page?
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
Kalistean wrote...
animefreak_usa wrote...
Callonia wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
SLAYER NEXUS wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Thoctar wrote...
Different but related question: why does fakku not have a wikipedia page? Because it's pretentious and will draw unnecessary attention onto the site?
Like the CIA who might already be watching.
Or worse, more 4chan idiots.
I want cia to be watching so i can badmouth government all day long and there's nothing they can do about it.
it the FBI but close enough
How do you know! Maybe the CIA considers h-manga to be a potential risk to the safety of the country as a japanese invasion.
they should of thought about that before everything we own was made in japan
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
animefreak_usa wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
animefreak_usa wrote...
Callonia wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
SLAYER NEXUS wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Thoctar wrote...
Different but related question: why does fakku not have a wikipedia page? Because it's pretentious and will draw unnecessary attention onto the site?
Like the CIA who might already be watching.
Or worse, more 4chan idiots.
I want cia to be watching so i can badmouth government all day long and there's nothing they can do about it.
it the FBI but close enough
How do you know! Maybe the CIA considers h-manga to be a potential risk to the safety of the country as a japanese invasion.
they should of thought about that before everything we own was made in japan
I thought that was china?
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Kalistean wrote...
Thread of forums were blogs actually. And I was saying that based on the definition, the pretty broad one, you could considering them along the lines of blogs. This is because of the overlapping occurring from them having similar functions.Oh god, no. I also explained concrete definitions to you, you just ignored them.
Kalistean wrote...
I'm not saying it's not at the discretion of the debaters. Not once have I disagreed with that. But that still doesn't change the fact that the environment doesn't promote them to do anything for an actual debate.I actually think a forum is a perfectly proper venue for discussion. So it's just in the eye of the beholder, then. Oh wait, look, it's user discretion again.
Kalistean wrote...
Want an example to help? Alright, consider the reverse. A venue that does promote proper debating. Say, a debate competition in high school.It's still at the discretion of the debaters to properly provide sources and such. But there are things such as judges and school pride that can promote them to properly do it.
A venue can, and will affect how things go. It's not the ONLY influence. But it IS an influence.
That's what I'm saying.
Not wanting to disappoint judges or your school is also, incidentally, your own discretion. Conversely, you could "actually" debate properly on a forums because you want to have a good argument that will unequivocally illustrate your point.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Thread of forums were blogs actually. And I was saying that based on the definition, the pretty broad one, you could considering them along the lines of blogs. This is because of the overlapping occurring from them having similar functions.Oh god, no. I also explained concrete definitions to you, you just ignored them.
Kalistean wrote...
I'm not saying it's not at the discretion of the debaters. Not once have I disagreed with that. But that still doesn't change the fact that the environment doesn't promote them to do anything for an actual debate.I actually think a forum is a perfectly proper venue for discussion. So it's just in the eye of the beholder, then. Oh wait, look, it's user discretion again.
Kalistean wrote...
Want an example to help? Alright, consider the reverse. A venue that does promote proper debating. Say, a debate competition in high school.It's still at the discretion of the debaters to properly provide sources and such. But there are things such as judges and school pride that can promote them to properly do it.
A venue can, and will affect how things go. It's not the ONLY influence. But it IS an influence.
That's what I'm saying.
Not wanting to disappoint judges or your school is also, incidentally, your own discretion. Conversely, you could "actually" debate properly on a forums because you want to have a good argument that will unequivocally illustrate your point.
You mean the concrete definitions that talked about how generally things were like that.
Yeah, real concrete there.
*sighs* You really don't read what I'm saying.
I am NOT saying it's not at the user's discretion. But that doesn't mean there is no effect from the venue.
To say that the environment has no effect on the situation, is an entirely naive point that is crossing into the point of stupidity.
Again, are you suggesting that you would only loosely provide so so credible proof in a proper debate at a debate club like you are doing here on these forums?
You can cry about discretion all you want, but how people go judging the situation will depend on the environment, the venue.
Yes, you CAN have a proper debate on the internet, but it's not conducive to it.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Kalistean wrote...
You mean the concrete definitions that talked about how generally things were like that.Yeah, real concrete there.
I never used "generally" or "probably" in my definitions. You assumed they were there because that is how YOU view the definitions. Also, I don't think anyone here would agree with you that forums and blogs are the same.
Kalistean wrote...
To say that the environment has no effect on the situation, is an entirely naive point that is crossing into the point of stupidity.And to generalize that the environment would have a negative impact on the quality of the argument is just as stupid.
Kalistean wrote...
Again, are you suggesting that you would only loosely provide so so credible proof in a proper debate at a debate club like you are doing here on these forums?You can cry about discretion all you want, but how people go judging the situation will depend on the environment, the venue.
I haven't loosely provided so-so credible proof anywhere. You're the one doing that, when you do provide proof.
Kalistean wrote...
Yes, you CAN have a proper debate on the internet, but it's not conducive to it.Having a proper debate on the internet is not conductive to having a debate on the internet? What?[i]
0
animefreak_usa wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YudkowskySeriously, what the fuck is this self pretentious piece of crap.
http://yudkowsky.net/
He even named his blog Less Wrong.
everybody has a wiki page.
here mine
Im guessing you're a fan of sonic brain farts XD
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
You mean the concrete definitions that talked about how generally things were like that.Yeah, real concrete there.
I never used "generally" or "probably" in my definitions. You assumed they were there because that is how YOU view the definitions. Also, I don't think anyone here would agree with you that forums and blogs are the same.
Kalistean wrote...
To say that the environment has no effect on the situation, is an entirely naive point that is crossing into the point of stupidity.And to generalize that the environment would have a negative impact on the quality of the argument is just as stupid.
Kalistean wrote...
Again, are you suggesting that you would only loosely provide so so credible proof in a proper debate at a debate club like you are doing here on these forums?You can cry about discretion all you want, but how people go judging the situation will depend on the environment, the venue.
I haven't loosely provided so-so credible proof anywhere. You're the one doing that, when you do provide proof.
Kalistean wrote...
Yes, you CAN have a proper debate on the internet, but it's not conducive to it.Having a proper debate on the internet is not conductive to having a debate on the internet? What?[i]
No, it's because the thing that you provided that you said "Is basically what I said" used words like that. I never said you used generally in your definitions. But you did use descriptors that mean along the same lines. But no, let's turn the result into a popularity contest instead, good idea. One of the usual way debates end up on the internet anyways.
I generalized that the environment had a negative impact? No, I did suggest that the internet environment had a negative impact on it though. Which has been shown to be true from past experience. Or are you saying that the majority of internet debates are actually ran just like a real debates are? Heck, is there even an internet debate you've been in that has really ran like a real debate?
Yes you have, at best, loosely provided proof for what you say. You are doing it currently in this argument right now. I'm not disagreeing that I haven't been. But you need to accept that you do it too.
Well first off, I said conducive, not conductive. But I can see how you might be confused by that. They are both words and mean different things.
And being conducive to it applies to just the internet part of it doll, not the entire phrase. I didn't think your comprehension was that bad to read something like that wrong, since the rule of the English language would imply the noun internet only on the receiving in of the phrase. But hey, you learn something new everyday.
0
animefreak_usa
Child of Samael
Kamina#1 wrote...
animefreak_usa wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YudkowskySeriously, what the fuck is this self pretentious piece of crap.
http://yudkowsky.net/
He even named his blog Less Wrong.
everybody has a wiki page.
here mine
Im guessing you're a fan of sonic brain farts XD
come on everybody love Juuulie
Behold, the Mistake of God: Christian Weston Chandler.
0
For pathetic "bait" it sure worked well Kalistean. Neither of you are right, but because of the venue of which you're arguing in, I will not provide any proof, because the venue affects it in such a way that I do not have to. Much like both of you have already done throughout this and yesterdays arguments.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Virality wrote...
For pathetic "bait" it sure worked well Kalistean. it was troll bait, as in getting me to troll back.
This isn't trolling.
Logic fail.
0
Kalistean wrote...
Virality wrote...
For pathetic "bait" it sure worked well Kalistean. it was troll bait, as in getting me to troll back.
This isn't trolling.
Logic fail.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you are obviously upset over what she has said. Not only that! But she got you into an extensive argument. Put them together and I believe you come out with, oh my, trolling.
I like how you just affixed a property to something that can be taken any way I want it to be because the way it was posted was so vague. Who's to say it was bait to get you to troll back? You? I think not my good sir, this is the internet.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Virality wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Virality wrote...
For pathetic "bait" it sure worked well Kalistean. it was troll bait, as in getting me to troll back.
This isn't trolling.
Logic fail.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you are obviously upset over what she has said. Not only that! But she got you into an extensive argument. Put them together and I believe you come out with, oh my, trolling.
I like how you just affixed a property to something that can be taken any way I want it to be because the way it was posted was so vague. Who's to say it was bait to get you to troll back? You? I think not my good sir, this is the internet.
You think I'm upset because I'm calmly debating?
I once debated a guy for over an hour on the principals of hypocrisy, for shits and giggles.
So because I said bait, instead of troll bait, you immediately assume that instead of the most proper usage for the word bait on the internet, that I was totally meaning something else.
Especially when I posted a picture of a troll right after it?
You're stupid aren't you.
0
NEXUS
Since 2010
Virality wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
Virality wrote...
For pathetic "bait" it sure worked well Kalistean. it was troll bait, as in getting me to troll back.
This isn't trolling.
Logic fail.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you are obviously upset over what she has said. Not only that! But she got you into an extensive argument. Put them together and I believe you come out with, oh my, trolling.
I like how you just affixed a property to something that can be taken any way I want it to be because the way it was posted was so vague. Who's to say it was bait to get you to troll back? You? I think not my good sir, this is the internet.
.....And then from the mist a challenger appears.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Kalistean wrote...
No, it's because the thing that you provided that you said "Is basically what I said" used words like that. I never said you used generally in your definitions. But you did use descriptors that mean along the same lines. But no, let's turn the result into a popularity contest instead, good idea. One of the usual way debates end up on the internet anyways.No, the source I provided was this. I don't see a single instance of "generally" or "probably" in this article. But I also told you to take a look at the Google search, but you apparently ignored that.
Kalistean wrote...
I generalized that the environment had a negative impact? No, I did suggest that the internet environment had a negative impact on it though.Yes, you DID. You sardonically said that our discussion was taking place on an internet forum, the implication of which is that it automatically is a detriment to the quality of our discussion. That is a GENERALIZATION.
Kalistean wrote...
Heck, is there even an internet debate you've been in that has really ran like a real debate?I have, incidentally.
Kalistean wrote...
Yes you have, at best, loosely provided proof for what you say. You are doing it currently in this argument right now. I'm not disagreeing that I haven't been. But you need to accept that you do it too.The only proof I needed to provide was proof of something you said. I could fetch it for you, but I honestly hope you remember your own arguments.
Kalistean wrote...
Well first off, I said conducive, not conductive. But I can see how you might be confused by that. They are both words and mean different things.Indeed, they do, one is an adjective and the other is a verb.
Kalistean wrote...
And being conducive to it applies to just the internet part of it doll, not the entire phrase. I didn't think your comprehension was that bad to read something like that wrong, since the rule of the English language would imply the noun internet only on the receiving in of the phrase. But hey, you learn something new everyday.Arguing on the internet may not be conductive to proper debate, but it isn't automatically a detriment to it either.
Kalistean wrote...
Especially when I posted a picture of a troll right after it?Is THAT what that was? You see, I totally missed that, because it looked nothing like a troll. It looked like someone used the Liquify tool on a picture of a baby.
Virality wrote...
Much like both of you have already done throughout this and yesterdays arguments.Kalistean previously insisted that forums can be blogs and blogs can be forums. If I'm not right in telling him he's wrong, well, what do?
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean wrote...
No, it's because the thing that you provided that you said "Is basically what I said" used words like that. I never said you used generally in your definitions. But you did use descriptors that mean along the same lines. But no, let's turn the result into a popularity contest instead, good idea. One of the usual way debates end up on the internet anyways.No, the source I provided was this. I don't see a single instance of "generally" or "probably" in this article. But I also told you to take a look at the Google search, but you apparently ignored that.
Kalistean wrote...
I generalized that the environment had a negative impact? No, I did suggest that the internet environment had a negative impact on it though.Yes, you DID. You sardonically said that our discussion was taking place on an internet forum, the implication of which is that it automatically is a detriment to the quality of our discussion. That is a GENERALIZATION.
Kalistean wrote...
Heck, is there even an internet debate you've been in that has really ran like a real debate?I have, incidentally.
Kalistean wrote...
Yes you have, at best, loosely provided proof for what you say. You are doing it currently in this argument right now. I'm not disagreeing that I haven't been. But you need to accept that you do it too.The only proof I needed to provide was proof of something you said. I could fetch it for you, but I honestly hope you remember your own arguments.
Kalistean wrote...
Well first off, I said conducive, not conductive. But I can see how you might be confused by that. They are both words and mean different things.Indeed, they do, one is an adjective and the other is a verb.
Kalistean wrote...
And being conducive to it applies to just the internet part of it doll, not the entire phrase. I didn't think your comprehension was that bad to read something like that wrong, since the rule of the English language would imply the noun internet only on the receiving in of the phrase. But hey, you learn something new everyday.Arguing on the internet may not be conductive to proper debate, but it isn't automatically a detriment to it either.
Virality wrote...
Much like both of you have already done throughout this and yesterdays arguments.Kalistean previously insisted that forums can be blogs and blogs can be forums. If I'm not right in telling him he's wrong, well, what do?
"Used words like that" not "Used those words" Off the top of my head, often is a word like generally.
So I agreed that I generalized the internet environment, not the environment. And you go and say, that I generalized the internet environment? Umm, congrats?
Well good for you, you have apparently found one of the few forums that have seem to have such a debate. That still doesn't change the fact that as a general rule, you won't find such.
See. This is why you're a hypocrite. "I could fetch it for you, but I thought you would remember your own argument." This is not how you would try and "prove something" in a real debate. And this is not the only instance you have down this. You have also done so in other arguments. You are defeating that point of your own argument. Congratulations.
Indeed, Conducive is an adjective describing the internet in this case. Good for you? It's like saying This girl is not pretty. Pretty is not a verb, is it? It is an adjective. It's so nice to see you have a proper lesson in English.
For something to not be conducive to the argument, means it is a detriment to it. Even if it has a neutral effect. If you don't argue properly. Then something that isn't neutral won't make you argue better.
Well actually, you were trying to hop onto my thread and trying to bait me by "shoving my words back at me" with something you "thought" was a contradiction.
Except I didn't state anything that was a contradiction, and what I stated in this thread that you tried to "shove back down my throat" did not contradict what I stated before.
But that's nice you think you did.
edit: Oh, btw, you keep mistaking that I said forums could be considered blogs because of the broad definition. I said threads could be. Threads.
0
Tegumi wrote...
Kalistean previously insisted that forums can be blogs and blogs can be forums. If I'm not right in telling him he's wrong, well, what do?It wasn't right for me to tell you that it was not right in telling him that he is wrong. You have all the right to do anything you want as does he.
If I may rephrase what I said: I do not believe either of you are right from my perspective. If it were me, I would not have even tried to tell him he was wrong because it (probably) would never get through to him much like anything he has said would get through to you.
Both of you have a wall of concrete surrounding your minds. It's as if you are arguing with yourselves. Is there really a point in arguing if neither of you will be empathetic to the other's opinion?
I do see how Kalistean came to the conclusion that forums are like blogs, however; they are most certainly not blogs. It's true that one can speak of themselves on a forum for the same reason (most) people do on blogs, that being for attention and feedback on themselves. However; a forum directly allows the input of an others opinion from the view of a large community in which the original poster does not own the domain in which it is being said. It gives the people the ability to have the same amount of viewing as others, while a blog places everyones opinions in a (generally) small comment box that can be overlooked and more often than not has a maximum character limit (note that, that comment can also be deleted by the blog owner). A blog is one persons personal space where he craves the attention of others and wants feedback. A forum is a community space where individuals come together with a common interest and discuss. It has variety and multiple purposes, whereas a blog does not.
0
Takerial
Lovable Teddy Bear
Well Tegumi, as "vivid" as this argument has been. I must go to bed now as I have to wake up in about three hours for work.
0
Kalistean wrote...
Well Tegumi, as "vivid" as this argument has been. I must go to bed now as I have to wake up in about three hours for work.I look forward to seeing your response to my earlier post. Have a good sleep.
0
Tegumi
"im always cute"
Kalistean wrote...
"Used words like that" not "Used those words" Off the top of my head, often is a word like generally."Often" was never used in that article to define differences.
Kalistean wrote...
So I agreed that I generalized the internet environment, not the environment. And you go and say, that I generalized the internet environment? Umm, congrats?You didn't agree. But now you do. Okay.
Kalistean wrote...
Well good for you, you have apparently found one of the few forums that have seem to have such a debate. That still doesn't change the fact that as a general rule, you won't find such.Says you, generalizer.
Kalistean wrote...
See. This is why you're a hypocrite. "I could fetch it for you, but I thought you would remember your own argument." This is not how you would try and "prove something" in a real debate.Yes it is, actually. You would say, "This is what you said previously." The rest is up to their ability to recollect.
Kalistean wrote...
Indeed, Conducive is an adjective describing the internet in this case. Good for you? It's like saying This girl is not pretty. Pretty is not a verb, is it? It is an adjective. It's so nice to see you have a proper lesson in English.Well, you used it correctly. I was mistaken in that part. See, I have the grace to admit I made a mistake when I do. You, on the other hand, well...
Kalistean wrote...
For something to not be conducive to the argument, means it is a detriment to it. Even if it has a neutral effect. If you don't argue properly. Then something that isn't neutral won't make you argue better.How does that even make sense? Are you trying to say that in a proper debate forum, since the podium is neutral and doesn't actually help you argue better, it's a detriment?
Kalistean wrote...
Well actually, you were trying to hop onto my thread and trying to bait me by "shoving my words back at me" with something you "thought" was a contradiction.I didn't shove a contradiction back into your face. I shoved a clearly wrong statement back in your face.
Kalistean wrote...
Except I didn't state anything that was a contradictionOh, you do. You just cover it every time by claiming "vague" and "broad" as excuses.
Kalistean wrote...
edit: Oh, btw, you keep mistaking that I said forums could be considered blogs because of the broad definition. I said threads could be. Threads.Threads are not blogs.
Virality wrote...
If I may rephrase what I said: I do not believe either of you are right from my perspective. If it were me, I would not have even tried to tell him he was wrong because it (probably) would never get through to him much like anything he has said would get through to you.Both of you have a wall of concrete surrounding your minds. It's as if you are arguing with yourselves. Is there really a point in arguing if neither of you will be empathetic to the other's opinion?
I understand you're trying to be neutral, but there's simply not a middle ground here. I brought issue with his statements, and tried arguing against them from various standpoints. He continuously covers himself with vague responses and clearly fallacious logic which he refuses to back down on. The one with the wall of concrete is Kalistean here; I believe it has even been inferred to in a previous thread.
Virality wrote...
I do see how Kalistean came to the conclusion that forums are like blogs, however; they are most certainly not blogs. It's true that one can speak of themselves on a forum for the same reason (most) people do on blogs, that being for attention and feedback on themselves. However; a forum directly allows the input of an others opinion from the view of a large community in which the original poster does not own the domain in which it is being said. It gives the people the ability to have the same amount of viewing as others, while a blog places everyones opinions in a (generally) small comment box that can be overlooked and more often than not has a maximum character limit (note that, that comment can also be deleted by the blog owner). A blog is ones persons personal space where he craves the attention of others and wants feedback. A forum is a community space where individuals come together with a common interest and discuss. It has variety and multiple purposes, whereas a blog does not.This is exactly how I argued the day before yesterday, except more concise and definitive. As you can see, it had no effect.