Is GGG ever gona make another black exile? (beside marauder)

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

…

I'm not making excuses - I was just raising the question if it was indeed a logical fallacy if he were right and just refused explaining why that was.
If I said "Viruses are plants, because I say so." that would be a just because fallacy. Because I didn't provide any evidence or explanation why this would be the case, and, well, because it is false.

If I said "PoE can be run on Linux, because I say so.", would that be a fallacy? The reason I give is surely not really a good one, yet PoE does run on Linux, so it's actually not a fallacy.

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

…

I'm not making excuses - I was just raising the question if it was indeed a logical fallacy if he were right and just refused explaining why that was.
If I said "Viruses are plants, because I say so." that would be a just because fallacy. Because I didn't provide any evidence or explanation why this would be the case, and, well, because it is false.

If I said "PoE can be run on Linux, because I say so.", would that be a fallacy? The reason I give is surely not really a good one, yet PoE does run on Linux, so it's actually not a fallacy.

Your ability to quote properly really LOL-ed me.

But your ability to say " There might also be underlying reasons as to why he did not provide evidence." as an excuse for 鬼殺し's "Just Because Fallacy" is even more LOL.

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

So what if 鬼殺し was actually right? Would it still be a Just Because Fallacy, just because he refused to explain why he was right?

Do you have trouble understanding the meaning of

Just Because Fallacy>>>>>>>

Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority on the matter

If you have understand the meaning of it, then you would have not ask the question whether if it is still considered Just Because Fallacy if 鬼殺し is actually right and thus reserve the right not to give any reasoning or explanation.

Regardless of whether if 鬼殺し is actually right or wrong, what has been observed from his first 2 initial post is.....

he argues that he is right and other people's opinion is patently wrong (makes me LOL) without giving any explanation or reasons to support his claim 2 times UNTIL someone made a post about logical fallacy or Just because Fallacy. >>>>>> THAT IS A FACT and that would fall under the category of Just because Fallacy.

Although, 鬼殺し did not explicitly says that he is the "the ultimate authority on the matter" , his choice of words and his refusal to give any reasoning upfront already implies that he thinks he is the "the ultimate authority on the matter" . And that would fall under the Just because Fallacy.

Thus, there is no need for you to ask that question in your post if you have understood the meaning of it.


And btw from your irrelevant and poorly constructed argument, you are using a "true" or "false" scenario to justify that no reasoning is required if that statement made is a FACT.

BUT BUT BUT, who are you and who is he to say that his claim is a fact and thus requires no reasoning or explanation to support that claim?

Please stop making any irrelevant arguments or excuses to embarrass yourself.

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

Your ability to quote properly really LOL-ed me.

It's really funny, yes. You of all people know that I can quote properly. I might have not been the one who taught you how to, but I did ask you to learn it. Well done.

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

But your ability to say " There might also be underlying reasons as to why he did not provide evidence." as an excuse for 鬼殺し's "Just Because Fallacy" is even more LOL.

I thought you might get the hint. You obviously didn't. Have you ever had a discussion with yourself?

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

So what if 鬼殺し was actually right? Would it still be a Just Because Fallacy, just because he refused to explain why he was right?

Do you have trouble understanding the meaning of

Just Because Fallacy>>>>>>>

Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority on the matter

I had, yes.

"

fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies

a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"

Logic
a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.
"Kraft exposes three fallacies in this approach"

I was unaware of the second. We live and learn.

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

Your ability to quote properly really LOL-ed me.

It's really funny, yes. You of all people know that I can quote properly. I might have not been the one who taught you how to, but I did ask you to learn it. Well done.

Nope i did not know that you know how to quote properly but everyone can sees it here. well done too lol

As a matter of fact you quoted nothing lol. Whether it was deliberately done or not it just puts you in a very bad light lol

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

But your ability to say " There might also be underlying reasons as to why he did not provide evidence." as an excuse for 鬼殺し's "Just Because Fallacy" is even more LOL.

I thought you might get the hint. You obviously didn't. Have you ever had a discussion with yourself?

Regardless of whether if 鬼殺し is actually right or wrong, what has been observed from his first 2 initial post is.....

he argues that he is right and other people's opinion is patently wrong (makes me LOL) without giving any explanation or reasons to support his claim 2 times UNTIL someone made a post about logical fallacy or Just because Fallacy. >>>>>> THAT IS A FACT and that would fall under the category of Just because Fallacy.

This argument alone defeats all your rubbish or your hints sorry

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

So what if 鬼殺し was actually right? Would it still be a Just Because Fallacy, just because he refused to explain why he was right?

Do you have trouble understanding the meaning of

Just Because Fallacy>>>>>>>

Refusing to respond to give reasons or evidence for a claim by stating yourself as the ultimate authority on the matter

I had, yes.

If you have trouble understanding it, then quit making any bold comments or arguments associating with it or pretending to know it. Might saves you a lot of times in particularly, embarrassment.

"

fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies

a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
"the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy"

Logic
a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.
"Kraft exposes three fallacies in this approach"

I was unaware of the second. We live and learn.

If you have trouble understanding it, then quit making any bold comments or arguments associating with it or pretending to know it. Might saves you a lot of times in particularly, embarrassment.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My replies in bold on top as well as below.

And btw, your irrelevant and poorly constructed argument involving the "false" or "true" scenario to justify your friend's right to provide no reasoning is really bad.

It's so bad that it gives me the impression that you are desperately trying to defend him at whatever costs or whatever reasoning you could think of, even if it's just some deceptive rubbish excuses to put him in a better light. Unfortunately, it just makes matters worse

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

And btw, your irrelevant and poorly constructed argument involving the "false" or "true" scenario to justify your friend's right to provide no reasoning is really bad.

I was actually not justifying. As you yourself wrote, it's his right not to provide any reasons why he is right or thinks he is. It's of course good practice to not just state that one is right, but to help others understand why this is so.

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

And btw, your irrelevant and poorly constructed argument involving the "false" or "true" scenario to justify your friend's right to provide no reasoning is really bad.

I was actually not justifying. As you yourself wrote, it's his right not to provide any reasons why he is right or thinks he is. It's of course good practice to not just state that one is right, but to help others understand why this is so.

Awww, please no more excuses ty.

Fact is that your argument and your examples you quoted is pure rubbish and irrelevant, which seems almost as if it is a joke.

Fact is that you have not fully understood a certain word or phrase before you made bold arguments/comments associating with it. (protip: I am not referring to the words or phrase highlighted in bold)
You almost give others the impression that you did not understand what you are writing or are pretending to know it when in fact you don't, which looks entirely comical when those nonsensical arguments started to unfold.

I already conceded that I wasn't aware of the second definition of fallacy.
Based on that I made a comment, which was not bold, but actually, tongue-in-cheek, raising the (philosophical) question whether saying something that is true can be a fallacy, just because no proof was given.
This has been rendered moot by the definition of logical fallacy, which does not take into account whether what was said is true or false, but whether you can use legitimately use it as an argument.
Joke failed. So be it.

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

I already conceded that I wasn't aware of the second definition of fallacy.
Based on that I made a comment, which was not bold, but actually, tongue-in-cheek, raising the (philosophical) question whether saying something that is true can be a fallacy, just because no proof was given.
This has been rendered moot by the definition of logical fallacy, which does not take into account whether what was said is true or false, but whether you can use legitimately use it as an argument.
Joke failed. So be it.

If you have TRULY conceded, then quit making any more rebuttals or arguments and stay low. Your refusal to do that only gives others the impression that you still think that you are right and have not acknowledge your ignorance as well as your mistakes.

"

beritraz wrote:

Did you guys hear? The new (WWII) call of duty game features a black female german soldier. Hahahaha

Gaming is finished!

Buddy, April Fools was over two months ago :D

"

YoursTruly86 wrote:

"

Mikrotherion wrote:

I already conceded that I wasn't aware of the second definition of fallacy.
Based on that I made a comment, which was not bold, but actually, tongue-in-cheek, raising the (philosophical) question whether saying something that is true can be a fallacy, just because no proof was given.
This has been rendered moot by the definition of logical fallacy, which does not take into account whether what was said is true or false, but whether you can use legitimately use it as an argument.
Joke failed. So be it.

If you have TRULY conceded, then quit making any more rebuttals or arguments and stay low. Your refusal to do that only gives others the impression that you still think that you are right and have not acknowledge your ignorance as well as your mistakes.

Please, talk for yourself.
I don't think anyone else would have the impression that I think I am right.