On this and some of the other sites I habituate, I often hear references to 2chan. I haven’t got a clue to what it is, but I vaguely remember that it was pressure from 2chan that brought down the English version of Mainichi and changed my morning routine forever. So the impression I have of 2chan is that it’s some kind of Internet pressure group. I suppose I could Google it, but I’d rather get the info from you folks: are they of the Devil, or what?
The chans are popular forums where most posters are anonymous and everyone shares a lot of pictures and talks crap. 
2chan’s japanese, 4chan is an english one.
There are a LOT of people on those boards, and sometimes they decide to act together and bombard things they like or don’t like.
Something similar, yes.
MASTER OF THE MASSIVE UNDERSTATEMENTS- Oh man I don’t even know where to begin. Just read that wiki and look up 4chan and hell- visit the damn place. At the time of this posting I believe it’s down though.
Anyways, there’s a lot of sub-sections on 4chan. The community is always warping and so is it’s content so it can’t be summed up into a short description such as “people sharing pictures and talking crap” and the massive understatement was “…bombarding things they don’t like.”
Not exactly false though. It’s like asking someone what’s an American. No matter how descriptive someone is, it will always be a summary of what they think the place is. Samething with 2chan or 4chan. Generally I describe 2chan and 4chan as highly populated forums, where the jerks are frequently better known than the upstanding members. That too is an understatement, but not falsehood. 2chan and 4chan have a stereotype associated to them - whether they want it or not.
Same goes for the Peach Princess community. Or the Warseer community. Or the Smogon University community.
Now now, read carefully. I never said anything about “false”, lets not go adding words or assuming things. This is why when someone asks me what time it is I say “Yes”.
Although his description was correct albeit the massive understatements I simply implied that the wiki be thoroughly checked and the website visited, that is all. You can take that up with your twin waifus nargh, if you wish. So…What time is it?
Not a he! And that’s why I posted the link as a good place to start looking for more info after my very brief intro.
Which is a wrong answer. 
No matter when or where you are reading this, it is exactly:
? - M + ?
? is the Sun’s right ascension. M is the mean anomaly. ? is the angle from the periapsis to the vernal equinox.
That is of course, you’re asking what time it is on any given location in the Universe, that’s on planetary body which orbits a stellar mass, under the perceptions of how humans interpret time. If you want to know the universal constant, then you might want to use the inverse of the Hubble parameter:
In this situation time being any unit of measurement (not just temporal – spatial works just as well thanks to expansion), starting with the birth of timespace itself. Even time dilation can’t argue with that (see redshift).
Don’t mock my twins: they’re very smart. 
I digress, excuse me then.
I’ll just skip saying how nobody likes a smart ass out of the assumption that you understood fully what I meant by saying “Yes” instead of simply giving the time.
I tip my hat to thine research BUT this is far from over my good sir/mam. Tell the twins I said “EY” like Fonzie.
But math is so much more fun, because it’s hard to argue with truthful logic.
[attachment=0]math.jpg[/attachment]
I wonder what would compel someone to write a check like that. Was it the bank that pissed him off, or the phone company?
You…I’ll play along. For now.
Oh Nargh, if only you could comprehend the fallacy. There’s too much noise in your words, that is a key difference between you and I.
But again we digress from the subject, this is the “otaku culture” discussion thread and It seems we have each had input on just what is “the chans”. Now then, would you like honey or pine apple in your tea?
Play time! Play time! :mrgreen:
Careful with that word, and know how to use it, for I will challenge you on that. Under what criteria do you make that accusation? Causality, interlocutor, logical step, or verbosity?
You need not give a long explaination, as when making a fallacy claim, it’s best to not create openings of more fallacy. Just one of the four will suffice. We’ll start from there.
Don’t try to use the “fallacy is a fallacy” argument, for that is the domain of rhetoric.
Of course there is: Johnson¬ñNyquist afterall. It’s all in proportion. 8)
Ignore this pun if you want. I couldn’t help it.
Alas you may not get this… but there’s still an absolute answer to that question.
Much like time, even simple carbohydrates have definitive properties that cannot be denied.
If you’re going to ask a philosophical question, keep away from anything that can be defined under hard science. Reason and Logic do not mix, which is why Aristotle classified them differently.
HA, well then I accept your challenge. Now then, where to begin.
Ah yes, how about everything you have accounted so far. Lets begin:
Really? That must be a very OBJECTIVELY-claimed subjective for you- Hell, this entire thing might as well be but that wouldn’t be a very logical guess of me to form assumptions.
So your explaining that a person will ALWAYS do this because (X) reason? I leave this one alone simply because I understand what you meant but suffice it to say we both know how ridiculous it sounds.
I have no idea where you’re going with this. My first guess is that I’m “wrong” because I don’t know the exact time according to the scientific equations you followed up with ( a rather pompous move in my opinion, If your being an ass because I made a stab at your waifus you should chill out bud It isn’t supposed to come out as a trolling attempt. Just remember who started adding words.) My other guesses involve me being “wrong” either through your personal, social,etc…-concepts. Perhaps you don’t believe it to be socially correct? But then naw that couldn’t be ole’ Narghs’ view on this.
You love equation charts so much, here’s one for you. When you made an assumption that I outright claimed the comment was “false” you added your numbers/changed numbers in the equation (R) thus it is now (Rn). If I was some sort of ancient mathematician and I claimed I came up with something awesome that would advance our civilization and then you come on over and do the (N) thing and then claim my “awesome advancement” is incorrect it would be somewhat like what happened here. Of course, it could of been that my equation (R) was based on principals that Narghecles Great Thinker understood better than I and decided to fix/test it by adding his corrections (N) to the (R) and when reviewing the combination (Rn) concluded that the advancement had no viable results but…now I’m just reaching.
I had made a comment that I would skip explanation as to why I say “Yes” instead of give the time on the basis or ASSUMPTION (SILLY ME) but just for the record: It is simply an introverted tactic but I also use it as a metaphor for the way we give information or communicate. When someone asks if you know the time, look at your watch and then answer “Yes” and now the follow up is usually the question “What time is it?” and now you can go ahead and decide on that but It just means to be vigilant with your words around people who might want to give or take on what you say.
Also, before you use that against me I’ll give my regards to papillon. As I stated early, we digressed heavily (as we are doing now) and I made the assumption she was a man simply because when writing I decided to go with the likely “his” instead of using her, it, or typing out papillon. So being half assumption/half lazy I must agree that a brow beating was in order and since I already somewhat apologized (I don’t really feel I or anyone can truly apologize for something already said, you can’t take back a message that was already received to the brain) I would like to extend it into another direction by commending the lady for standing up to a defense, I don’t see a whole lot of that done in a logical manner. By that I mean she simply stated her gender without adding an extra unnecessarily rant-like comment to it. (OR EQUATIONS CHART NARGH)
I’d agree with you completely…If I was a child and couldn’t read between the lines there. Other than that, good show sport.
The next part of my post is brought to you by the word FALLACY, its like angel dust for grammer nazis. ANGALLACY.
WHY SO GIDDY?
It is truly delicious irony now, when you adopted your flawed position on my comments your reasoning became incorrect committing a fallacy and yet there you stand with your equations and your “play time” attitude as if nothing were wrong with the way you blatantly waved things off. I expected a true gentleman, those expectations of you were not based on assumptions but clearly I am at a loss…now then, your retort.
EDIT
I added more to this post after originally posting it… so if you read it soon after I made it, please read it again.
Not at all. You’re still incorrectly using the function of fallacy analysis. What is an American? There is no strict logical answer. An objective question which can interpret objective and non-objective answers without requiring definitive logic to be correct, does not work in fallacy argumentative, which you are attempting to do so here. Let me reword the statement with mathematics: It’s like asking someone what’s a+b=c. No matter how descriptive someone is, it will always be a summary of what they think the values are.
Without additional input for definitive values in the question (i.e. 1 + b = 3), there is an infinite combination of results, which could be correct and incorrect. Your fallacy argument fails, because it is not psychologically persuasive (ironically your reply there is, and thus a fallacy). It’s a statement of fact. I should also point out to you that assumptions can be logical. It’s called natural deduction. Asking a question which could have different or complex answers, is not a fallacy. Asking, “is it true that Americans are no longer self righteous wingnuts,” is a fallacy (it makes the illogical conclusion Americans were or still are wingnuts). Asking “what is an American,” is not a fallacy (it is the answer that could be).
You’re wrong because your answer to what time is it was: yes. That is NOT what time it is, neither logically or reasonably. What I gave you, was the equation to time. Look it up if you like. Therefore when you asked me what time it is, I gave you the correct answer: ? - M + ?
That is exactly what time it is, at any given location at any given moment, and is absolutely correct at the moment it is given. It’s not what Narg thinks: that is the empirical truth to the question you posed. Don’t be angry with logic. I also provided one form of a universal constant, in case you wanted to argue what time it is outside of subjective terms. Which does not disprove the first equation I proved and actually supplements. Again maintaining logic and not creating a fallacy. Whether you were aware of it or not, time is a measurement, and thus solvable through mathematics. I can answer “what time is it” in absolute terms. That’s how we know what time it is: it is not arbitrary except when it is wrong.
That’s not how mathematics works. If you were incorrect with the equation, you were just that: incorrect. If R is the absolute truth, and Rn is a proven equational method to reach R, then R and Rn are equal. If N does not equal R, then it cannot equal Rn in this statement. If someone comes behind you, and fixes your equation of N so that it does equal R, then yes it will equal Rn. However the original proposal of N you made is completely incorrect. Even if N equaled R, if it did not equal Rn - which has been proven to equal R - then N is still wrong. Thus the entire statement is wrong. And of course if N equals Rn as well as R, then your scenario makes no sense (just stating the obvious for the sake of argument).
Einstein did exactly what your example states, with quantum equations. He was dead wrong for it. It doesn’t matter what you, some ancient mathematician, myself, or Einstein think of an equation. Either it is right or it is wrong. Math is absolute in that regard. There was once a time when people thought . 100 pages of math proved it was right, and the smartest man in the world backed up those claims. Well it was dead wrong. is the correct answer. Mathematics was never flawed - it was always the second answer - and that’s why the second answer was figured out in short order despite strong protest, because the first equation is NOT what reality is (in short: total make believe).
Your bit about fallacy is somewhat amusing. If fallacies cannot be identified and then used to discount an argument, then there is no such thing as logical discourse, and no such thing as an argument. This recourse would allow the denial of everything in existence, with or without evidence or observation. Even pure Reason would be irrelevant. That’s metaphorical chaos and insanity.
It was you who brought up fallacy: I merely pointed out you’re using it wrong. It’s like using the term mathematician to describe a transitive verb. Fallacy indicates there’s a logical error. There is none in the answer I gave. You are using the accusation without showing proof. I merely wish to see it. If you’re using the “ANGALLACY” statement as the defense, that is ironically an ambiguity fallacy, and the “grammar nazi” part is a fallacy due to irrelevant premise and ineffective rebuttal. 
If you’re going to accuse someone of a fallacy, you have to provide evidence to completely prove the assertion, or indicate the logic failure so they can clarify if there is error in interpretation. Merely telling someone they should “comprehend the fallacy” (your own words), does neither, and is in fact a form of negative debating procedure called poisoning the well - and incidentally an argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
I’m not trying to be a dick: I’m just someone who feels the word “fallacious” is thrown around, without any regard for what it’s used for. If you’re going to call something a fallacy, be ready to provide the reasoning, and be absolutely certain your argument can be proven logically. Otherwise don’t dip in the bowl, because you’ll be boxed in by logic pointing out why.
Actually I have not, as I’ve explained above. Since you said you wanted to play along, I figured you wanted to have a debate, which I honesty enjoy having. No need to get insulting. I never said you weren’t a true gentleman, as you’re insinuating I am not. I merely stated you were wrong, and why so. It is not insulting to say someone is wrong about something. Einstein was wrong about Quantum physics: it’s not insulting in pointing out where his equations and theories failed in that regard. You’re taking all this way too personal. Take a step back, one deep breath while imagining sexy twincest, and take a second look.
I’m not making fun of you, just pointing out I’ve answered your questions (what time is it; would you like honey or pine apple in your tea), and why they are correct: because it’s logical truth. There is no fallacy. Prove them wrong. Your repeated answer of “yes” is neither logical or reasonable. It’s not even metaphysical (and that’s pure philosophy).
Now if you want to play the fallacy game: I’ll make the assertion that your use of “yes” for those questions are fallacious (irrelevant conclusion). Show me that it’s not. I have provided you the proof why mine are not, and await your evidence proving them wrong. I’ll let your “Math Joke” image slide, because I’m sure it was just only that: a joke. If not, that’s another argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
While I’m with you on this argument Narg, I just wanted to point out that your equation for what time it is on a planetary body orbiting a stellar mass, while applicable, isn’t very accurate by today’s standards of time keeping. This is precisely why we use atomic clocks now to mark the passing of time. In fact, due to various factors such as wind pushing against the earth’s surface, the length of a day is different every single day. (Oddly enough, it was a program on the Science Channel called “What time is it?” that I learned about this.) Also, when taken to larger scales, asking someone about when it is is slightly subjective, depending on culture. For example, compare the answer given by someone in a western culture to an answer from someone in an Islamic culture, and you’ll get different answers in regards to the year.
As for the question that brought on this whole debate, the answer wouldn’t be wrong if the question were slightly different. Instead of using “What time is it?”, Rorokenu, you should have used the question, “Do you know what time it is?” instead. Most people would reply with the time if they knew, but simply answering, “Yes” as you did before would also work. I don’t know, is English your first language? If not, that might explain your not understanding the problem with what you said. It is possible that the subtlety between the two different sentences is something that a non-native speaker might miss.
Finally a logical challenge. :o
This is very true. However the calculations used to set the atomic clock, were derived from this equation, and were the components of all atomic clocks somehow destroyed (improbable of course), can be used to help find it again. Because the formula is an astronomical one - the Earth’s position in the solar system and at what angles relative to the Sun ¬ñ its really not the formula that’s incorrect per se, but the values used to derive the ultimate answer: for example 356 for days. It’s possible to get a more accurate value by using 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes and 3.4 seconds with a variance of +/- 4.3 seconds every 100 years. We know EVERYTHING about external influence, so they can be taken into account. Of course mathematicians used values even more exact and numerically insane for the atomic clock. Also while the equation is predominantly used to reach a Gregorian value, because that can serve as a base, one can still calculate a value for other calendars using it.
Time is largely subjective anyways¬Ö but of course there’s formulas for that too.
I picked the general time equation, vice the atomic clock equation, because a defense explanation of the atomic clock dips into chemistry and physics, and were Rorokenu going to argue about the scientific method, it would get more complex that necessary. So I picked the easiest method to give an answer, and also one he could look up and understand without being a math enthusiast. Not perfect, but not wrong either, and thus sufficient.
But if he wants to argue time to the billionth of a nanosecond, I’ll be more than happy to substitute with the Caesium and Rubidium standards. We’ll just be here all day reading equations. Especially if someone wants to be difficult, and challenge the whole frequency thing. In fact, my retort posts would have to be telling someone to read certain books and science journals, then comeback after reading them to argue what they find wrong with it, because nitpicking would take more than a simple forum.
Agreed. That would be a “loaded question” as it were. That of course makes it a fallacious question (plurium interrogationum), but then I couldn’t have gone Mr. Spock on him, without being pulled into a fallacious argument, thus he’d clearly be in the right as I’d be caught in the trap.
This all reminds me of a, “if a tree falls in a forest” question that a guy asked, and then I explained how sound is mechanical energy. So the answer is obviously, yes, unless he could disprove the entire observational methods of mechanical energy to be flawed - and that’s not possible without proving the entire scientific method is wrong (which geniuses far beyond our minds have argued and defended). Then the guy went ballistic, and I kept burying him under his own fallacies. He then tried to go all metaphysical with religion, which again logic can slam around, since religion doesn’t follow the scientific method unless it’s convenient, and that is a fallacy (a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter… and that’s just for starters). If something has a logical answer, then it can be answered logically. That’s why I love using logical arguments with rhetorical questions, and it’s interesting how people get upset over the simple truth of things.
Lol, would you look at this now. Again with assumptions, although it seems highly otherwise I will have to just take this at face value. I will withdraw for now, let it be known your ability to google graphs and spout textbook knowledge does not color me impressed. You got too much noise my good sir, you seem to refuse to see the full spectrum.
Edit-> I kinda skimmed through it cause I was in a hurry, let me un-withdraw cause I just noticed something odd here.
Actually I am very fluent, according to my life progression academically anyways but I won’t use any type of status as a defense/offense because there is a certain etiquette to what we’re doing here. Something which you seem to have perhaps unbeknown to you ignored when you immediately took sides how you did, as well as Nargh who likes to throw in charts that although are relevant scientifically are irrelevant to the matter at hand which is “raising irrelevancy FALLACY” if memory serves. Sorry if I don’t open a textbook or link to a graph of some sort but I’m sure you’d be happy to google that and add a witty come-back followed by a distracting graph. (How many Narghs does it take to screw in a lightbulb?) Please I know you can figure ALL of this out along with the joke.
Oh yes, it really shows your problem solving skills when you search the internet and quote textbook information. On a side note, I don’t believe Mr.Spock would be impressed by this which begs the question of your quoting- “…going Mr.Spock on him…” I’d like to think we would agree that GOING SPOCK on anyone is out of character but if not we could agree to disagree.
Ok now then to call them up:
non-sequitor: yes this definitely does not throw off the topic which began with you assuming what I meant and then as I respond begin adding equations that are only relevant to you because we both know I was never discussing math or science in the first place.
raising irrelevancies: distracting attention from the immediate issue, kinda like above.
Let me get you some denotations: fallacy is a mistake and logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning which is what I am claiming.
On this note, why the hell do you keep claiming ad hominem argumentative. I’m not attacking any arguments based on your persona or any type of argument, hell- I’m not even on the attack here. Most of the stuff you have a problem with are non-argumentative and thus not subject to a fallacy claim, the fact that you turned to science and math suggest you are “reaching” and seeing as how the medium you chose was science/math as you’ve said “logic and reason” It is suggestive to a trolling expert but easy to spot because you automatically decided my comments were arguments (something which consists of one or more premise but ONE conclusion) and thus subject to the childish act you displayed in my opinion when you pulled up equations instead of taking into account (again I am assuming the best in you, a fatal flaw in my part because facts seem to point otherwise) that you definitely know what I mean by my comments. Oh I forgot to add a bit up there about my “arguments” but not only did you decide on them so but added words to my account.
Ok I also just noticed you keep mentioning there is no proof so it seems you really want me to get a magnifying glass here or something.
This is where it began, I was stating how much of an understatement it was from experience and then told the person asking about 2chan/4chan to look it up and even check the site out followed by my take on what it is comparing it to the original comment by paillon.
Now heres you:
Now lets magnify:
LOL its like if I had said:
Anyways I followed with:
Lets magnify:
Lol yes something you shoulda been doing but just to clarify I never implied it was false, you just assumed what I meant. Because then you implied to thinking that I was calling her on an incorrect statement (which it isn’t, it’s her opinion) I decided to further clarify with “Although his (her) description was correct albeit the massive understatements I simply implied that the wiki be thoroughly checked and the website visited, that is all.”
Your logic was almost like a begging the question fallacy, please find me the right term but I want to describe it as if you thought we shared exactly the same meaning on the sentence structure or/and perhaps of words.
Anyways after this I made the mistake of leaving an opening with my comment “So…What time is it?” which you decided would make a perfect set up and so purposefully took it literally and gave me what now appears to be the Nargh standard behavior of abusing logic via supplying graphs instead of taking my comment at face value which is exactly what I meant. I had mentioned my little tactic of answering yes instead of giving too much information (in this case the time) which is like an exercise to avoid people adding or taking words from what you say or in this case adding “false” to my comments. Anyways, you threw in a graph and and I felt right away that it was meant as a counter attack BUT as you can see:
I took it like a man (according to me) because although I couldn’t resist calling you a smart ass I gave you a tip of the hat and TOOK YOUR COMMENTS AT FACE VALUE or in this case not a comment but an equation that I agree with. I did not add any words to your statements and you decided to add:
Which again feels like some sort of stabbing out, almost as if hinting that classic “I am right you are wrong” type even though clearly math and science wasn’t the topic here.
I then followed by playing along and got the first image in my folder I could find under math and threw it in- OH now I see what this part is all about. Wow I didn’t even notice the captions there…you know what those captions go perfect I really don’t feel like taking that one back now. Not that the captions are ABSOLUTE or anything(I think they’re 'aight) and I certainly didn’t mean for that to come out as an attack on the person but that truly seems to go along quite well now BUT this is irrelevant.
Man I gotta eat, let me know if I need to magnify anything else for you.
Here I go then…
Actually no. Providing “charts” as you call them, is proving the argument: that I’m not making it up. When arguing a case, it’s considered a curtsey in providing the validity and foundation of their statement. Much as how when someone makes a fallacy accusation, identification of the fallacy is provided, so that it can be confirmed or refuted. Now what you call “raising irrelevancy FALLACY” is known as ignoratio elenchi. Again you are incorrect in its use. The definition for ignoratio elenchi is as follows: the fallacy of proving a conclusion not pertinent and quite different from that which was intended or required. I took that definition from a textbook of mine, rather than memory, just so there wouldn’t be confusion or misinterpretation.
Now then. Your accusation fails because the “charts” and information I provided to you, ARE pertinent and DO provide the required answer. You asked what time it is, and I provided the equation of time, thereby answering the question. No fallacy and no failure of logic. The time equations were my proof, so that you couldn’t say I made it up (which some people might think).
No graph required this time. I actually don’t have to Google these things. I’m not a math genius, but I know the equations I’m using well enough, to find them in one shot on Wikipedia or a math repository. You just happen to run into someone who recalls a lot of this, because it’s something they like.
I cite argumentum ad hominem as a fallacy to this comment. See below for an explanation.
Actually I know this stuff off hand and very intuitively. I use it for logic programming almost on a daily basis. Spellcheck makes sure I get the Latin right.
“Going Spock” is a term I coined in response to Kimuzukashii MEIJI’s comments. I fail to see how this has any bearing on the debate I’m having with you, as it was addressed specifically to him. But arguing this would waylay the conversation, so for the sake of keeping on topic, I’ll agree to disagree.
Non sequitur fallacies are when the conclusion is drawn from premises which aren’t logically connected to the conclusion. To your question of, “what time is it,” I gave the answer of “? - M + ?”
The premise is indeed logically connected to the conclusion, because it is indeed giving the time, thus answering the question. Math and science were used to illustrate why, and prove the statement as factual.
This is ignoratio elenchi, which I addressed earlier above.
A fallacy is not simply a mistake - it must include an argument or inference as part of the error. In the grand scheme of things however, I’ve got no problem with how you’re defining that. However a logical fallacy is a not just a mistake in reasoning, but a mistake that uses the reasoning to support a conclusion.
In your question, “what time is it,” your conclusion of yes is the fallacy (irrelevant conclusion). In your question, “would you like honey or pine apple in your tea,” the entire statement itself is a fallacy (plurium interrogationum), however because of the nature of the question, it can be answered with an all inclusive logical answer, as it gave definitive choices (both contained sugars). Not always possible, but that one happened to be. What should have been asked is: What would you like in your tea? Still a fallacy, but one that couldn’t be answered logically.
Because they are. Argumentum ad hominem does not have to be directly scathing. In your own words: “Oh Nargh, if only you could comprehend the fallacy.” This is an argumentum ad hominem fallacy because it insinuates that either I cannot comprehend the fallacy and I am wrong, or that I do comprehend the fallacy and I’m still wrong.
And of course the “Math Jokes: if you get them, you probably don’t have friends”, is a fallacy because if I get them I probably don’t have friends, but if I don’t get them I probably do have friends. Since I do get it, I probably don’t have friends. I’m assuming this one was purely a joke, but just in case it’s not, there it is.
You have lots more, but I’ll just leave it at that to move along, because I’d be here for quite awhile.
Not all at. I explained this above. I didn’t turn to science and math, simply to “reach” as you put it. I did so because they prove the logical answer I made to those questions.
See? This is why I use argumentum ad hominem. There are several in there: predominantly that if I don’t act like you expect me to, I’m being childish; and since I’m not, I am so.
Regardless you are mistaken on my intentions. You asked a rhetorical question, which you provide a rhetorical answer. However I stated that it was wrong (because the answer is a fallacy) and there is a logical answer to it. I did so to illustrate there is a true answer to the question, so that in your own words, “when someone asks me what time it is”, you could provide an answer that was logical and counters he rhetorical question. Ironically that makes a person trying to defend the logical answer, in a position that you’re in: proving the logic wrong, which it is not. Thus driving philosophers crazy, because logic is hard to argue against, since it only introduces more logic and less rhetoric… the antithesis so it were.
It helps in clarifying your thoughts, so it’s helpful to me. Not being sarcastic: I mean that sincerely.
Which seems to me, was an incorrect extrapolation of the response. I never brought up 2chan or 4chan again. My response to your posting was entirely devoted towards your time question. I never argued against your answer towards the chan boards, because I largely agreed with it.
Not sure. Begging the question is the petitio principii fallacy. Doesn’t really apply here, since I’m not using circular reasoning to counter your response about 2chan or 4chan. I was concerned simply with the time query.
I wouldn’t call it a mistake. Maybe a misunderstanding. That why I put the emote, which I hoped indicated playfulness. You’ll have to admit that your, “so… what time is it” stinger, is a sarcastic response. Therefore I took it upon myself to give a sarcastic retort of a logical answer. Once again however, I was not using equations and formulas to abuse logic (which would have taken a different context if I had) - I was using them to PROVE the logic, therefore if you wanted to challenge it, you (and others reading the topic) didn’t have to search half the Internet to find them.
Aye. But your response included, " I tip my hat to thine research BUT this is far from over my good sir/mam", to which it indicated you wanted to continue further. Thus I replied how, “math is so much more fun, because it’s hard to argue with truthful logic.” Then I added the emote at the end, and the image about math (when you absolute, positively must piss someone off).
I honestly have no idea how you came up with that one. I simply said, “math is so much more fun.” I didn’t say you were wrong, just showing how one could be more sarcastic with hard logic (hence that image with the check). I was empathic in pointing out a wrong answer (which it is)… not that you the poster was wrong about asking what time it is. The question is phrased so a logical answer is permissible. Hence the difference between logic and reason: it’s reasonable that 0.999~ does NOT equal to 1 – however that’s wrong and it’s logical that 0.999~ DOES equal 1.
Actually the image has a lot to do with it, considering you also added that, I’ll play along. You see, your entire writing prose is sarcastic, intentional or not, so then you were challenging the answer I gave to your math question. Thus when you brought up the entire deal with fallacy, and since you said I couldn’t comprehend the fallacy, I wanted to know WHERE the fallacy was in my logic. Furthermore you were using the term fallacy incorrectly, and since the cat was out the bag, figured I just go with it. Then it all ended with the sarcastic tea question, which I responded with a logical answer, and ironically because of how logic works, isn’t sarcastic, but is often interpreted as. However I did so knowing that, because I wanted it to be sarcastic, in response to yours. It was one huge inside joke to me… which I’ve now revealed though.
I rarely use the fallacy accusation in debates unless someone else brings it up, because unless both parties are aware of how they work, the one knowing how fallacies work can create a logic trap. I was almost considering doing it to you, but relented because I was sincerely interested in the debate, and wanted to know where my logic failed (if at all).
See. That’s EXACTLY the sarcastic tone I’m talking about. It’s like ending a debate with, “see if you can do better” or “how about those apples?” You could have just ended it with, “Man I gotta eat”. When you add stingers like that, it leaves you open several counters in debate.
Now not to be a hypocrite or anything… but I just wanted to point out again that answering yes to your time or tea questions ARE fallacies. I can give both of them a true logical answer. Not made up or utterly insane. That’s been the only thing I’ve pointed out this entire time. You brought up the fallacy thing, which means there’s a logical error. You brought up a few of them, and I’ve argued against those. I still don’t think you should continue arguing about fallacies, and if you want to stop that, then I’ve got no problems with it. We can continue the debate without fallacy accusation. But if you still want to prove me wrong with them, then by all means I’m more than happy to continue with fallacy challenges. I don’t see how that can help you; but if you think you’re man enough, go for it (see how negative that sarcastic add-on is… I just threw that in there to show how it looks from the other side). However I’d like to stress that you shouldn’t be so free with the calling someone childish, not being a gentleman, or adding those stingers. Challenge my statements. Saying how I do things, or that I’m only copy pasting stuff off the Internet are not only bold wrong assumptions: they make your posts sound like an angry person who’s lashing back to be spiteful, and belittle your position when they’re proven wrong. I’m sure that’s not your intention.
EDIT
Actually having thought on it more… Earlier in this post I said: “What should have been asked is: What would you like in your tea? Still a fallacy, but one that couldn’t be answered logically.” It can still be answered logically, since all teas are derived from plant matter. If I really wanted to be a jerk, I could just use carbon. I almost though about water, but then someone might argue they’d take their tea dry, to entice a fallacy.
First of all, there is no reason to get indignant over my simple question. Just because you are fluent in a language doesn’t necessarily mean you can automatically pick up on subtleties. (Hell, I’m a native speaker, and I still miss subtleties sometimes.) It reminds me of the season finale of the show “Sanctuary”, where there is a puzzle in Latin:
Now before you go and start talking about how I’m obfuscating by bringing up something irrelevant, know that I’m simply using the above quote as an example of subtleties.
My second point of contention is your assumption that I took sides in this discourse haphazardly. If you look back, you’ll notice that I didn’t say anything until well in to the discussion. By that point, it was quite obvious in my mind who had the high ground in terms of logic. (Actually, it was evident to me quite early on in the discussion, but I figured it would be best to be courteous and give you a little time to make your case and finally make some sense to me.)
Lastly, I find it ironic that you talk about etiquette, and then go about using an underhandedly insulting Narg in the same paragraph by adapting a joke that I have only ever heard used to insult the intelligence of the joke’s subject (e.g. How many blonds does it take to screw in a light bulb?).
By the nine divine, this is borderline ridiculous now. Let me keep this as short as I can.
To Nargh: Yes I understand you responded to my time inquiry and as much as I hate how you decided to keep quoting equations instead of taking the comment like it was your equation is right and there’s no denying it unless as you mentioned someone decides to get technical in a sense. I am trying to get across that my claim was about what I magnified above. Whether you want to claim I pulled a bunch of attacks on you by using ad hominems is entirely up to you and I must disagree because as I’ve said the “argument” does not have ONE conclusion therefore it was not a stand alone argument or part of any argument because I had none against you to begin with thus my comments were as irrelevant and as much of a choice to just “throw it out there” as when you used equations which of course are nicer and fancier looking to me and probably any spectator. I never said anywhere in my posts that you are wrong, I am simply defending the fact that you added your own meaning to my response towards papillon and when I decided to clarify my meaning to avoid any further additions/subtractions I used an old tactic as an example which just means "To not give more information than is necessary.
Long story short, it seems you just don’t want to admit your wrong and so turned to science and math to completely derail the subject which I gladly played along with but as I’ve stated above its’ gotten ridiculous and we keep up with irrelevancies partly cause none of us want to give an inch. I applaud this and although your tactics hint of a sound academic mind they are also underhanded and so I withdraw.
to Meiji: Uhm…that joke was actually 2. 2 Narghs, one to screw in the lightbulb and the other to bust out an overly compensating equation about the science behind it. Lighten up, your the one stating who has the logical high ground and I will just take that as your opinion seeing as how its not an argument because his conclusion is not absolute and perhaps in time you’ll understand that all too well.
OK THEN now I withdraw. Your closing statement(s), the both of you might as well.