Prove me wrong
Thread
Posts in chronological order
?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]LozlanTheMage wrote: [/QUOTENAME]?[/QUOTE]
well, i just thought about how some people think they are so good and never think of themselves and arent selfish when in fact EVERYONE is selfish. There isnt a single human being who isnt selfish.
well, i just thought about how some people think they are so good and never think of themselves and arent selfish when in fact EVERYONE is selfish. There isnt a single human being who isnt selfish.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]well, i just thought about how some people think they are so good[/QUOTE]
So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!
P.S.: THAT'S A FACT
So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!
P.S.: THAT'S A FACT
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lester Burnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]well, i just thought about how some people think they are so good[/QUOTE]
So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!
P.S.: THAT'S A FACT[/QUOTE]
of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.
So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!
P.S.: THAT'S A FACT[/QUOTE]
of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.
I suggest you worry about dealing with your own psychosis and let everyone else worry about themselves.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=teal>Sergei?<h6>Impresario wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I suggest you worry about dealing with your own psychosis and let everyone else worry about themselves. [/QUOTE]
you still couldnt prove me wrong.
you still couldnt prove me wrong.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=teal>Sergei?<h6>Impresario wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I suggest you worry about dealing with your own psychosis and let everyone else worry about themselves. [/QUOTE]
you still couldnt prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]
Proving Treasure Moment wrong has been your full time job since you joined this forum.
Why should we interrupt?
you still couldnt prove me wrong.[/QUOTE]
Proving Treasure Moment wrong has been your full time job since you joined this forum.
Why should we interrupt?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lester Burnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]well, i just thought about how some people think they are so good[/QUOTE]
So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!
P.S.: THAT'S A FACT[/QUOTE]
of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.[/QUOTE]
Claiming everything as fact that benefits your image is also ARROGANCE, which you have plenty of. Prove me wrong how most here besides you at least aren't as arrogant. Cuz you are. In fact, that's a fact, jack.
So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!
P.S.: THAT'S A FACT[/QUOTE]
of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.[/QUOTE]
Claiming everything as fact that benefits your image is also ARROGANCE, which you have plenty of. Prove me wrong how most here besides you at least aren't as arrogant. Cuz you are. In fact, that's a fact, jack.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]shoemanbundy wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Lester Burnham wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]well, i just thought about how some people think they are so good[/QUOTE]
So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!
P.S.: THAT'S A FACT[/QUOTE]
of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.[/QUOTE]
Claiming everything as fact that benefits your image is also ARROGANCE, which you have plenty of. Prove me wrong how most here besides you at least aren't as arrogant. Cuz you are. In fact, that's a fact, jack.[/QUOTE]
what i do that most people here dont is to think logically, they automatically dismiss things without really explaining why it isnt the way im saying. tell me how what im saying about the selfishness isnt true, im open for discussion
So you're talking about your band then huh OH ZING I TOTALLY WENT THERE!!!
P.S.: THAT'S A FACT[/QUOTE]
of course im selfish too, everyone is, but besides being selfish i also tell it how it is. If my band sucked i wouldnt have claimed its good because deep inside i would know that it sucked but the reality is that it doesnt and thats also a fact.[/QUOTE]
Claiming everything as fact that benefits your image is also ARROGANCE, which you have plenty of. Prove me wrong how most here besides you at least aren't as arrogant. Cuz you are. In fact, that's a fact, jack.[/QUOTE]
what i do that most people here dont is to think logically, they automatically dismiss things without really explaining why it isnt the way im saying. tell me how what im saying about the selfishness isnt true, im open for discussion
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .
In this case you are using appeal to ignorance. Because it cannot be proven wrong does not make it true...it simply means that it cannot be proven. My suggestion is that you think about all of these things the next time you open your mouth, and work through it like a check list. You'd be surprised how quickly you will improve.
* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public" .
In this case you are using appeal to ignorance. Because it cannot be proven wrong does not make it true...it simply means that it cannot be proven. My suggestion is that you think about all of these things the next time you open your mouth, and work through it like a check list. You'd be surprised how quickly you will improve.
history sheep girl, why cant it be proven? ive already proven it and you dont have an argument against it. explain how people arent selfish, is it that hard?
Maybe because you can't explain it simply in one sentence? What makes you think EVERYONE is alike to begin with? You can't just give one explanation and have it apply to everyone on earth, everyone is different. But of course you don't know that. You must think you're "Special" :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]shoemanbundy wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Maybe because you can't explain it simply in one sentence? What makes you think EVERYONE is alike to begin with? You can't just give one explanation and have it apply to everyone on earth, everyone is different. But of course you don't know that. You must think you're "Special" :)[/QUOTE]
yes everyone is different BUT they are work from gaining something for themselves, everything they ever do is selfish by the 2 different methods i described, its just common sense. I dont understand why its so hard to believe that.
everything a person ever does is for him/herself. Just give an example of an act that isnt selfish and my point will become invalid
yes everyone is different BUT they are work from gaining something for themselves, everything they ever do is selfish by the 2 different methods i described, its just common sense. I dont understand why its so hard to believe that.
everything a person ever does is for him/herself. Just give an example of an act that isnt selfish and my point will become invalid
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME]im open for discussion[/QUOTE]
No, you're not. You just attack anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded opinions.
No, you're not. You just attack anyone who doesn't agree with your narrow-minded opinions.