Lan 100% Confirmed For Televised Korean Tournaments

[SaharaDrac]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

operate with words you know the meaning next time

He knows what it means, What he DOESN'T realize is that this is a forum for discussing opinions, and saying "ad hominem" over and over doesn't validate anything. It also makes him a giant douchebagger.

[Maul]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

operate with words you know the meaning next time

You're attempting to discredit me by making unsupported claims that I live in a "butterfly world." I suggest you read articles that you reference until you understand them. If you have any questions I'd be happy to try and help you understand.

He knows what it means, What he DOESN'T realize is that this is a forum for discussing opinions, and saying "ad hominem" over and over doesn't validate anything. It also makes him a giant douchebagger.

Ad hominem is a terrible technique to use in any argument and all I'm doing is exposing how poorly this thread has progressed. So pointing out some of the many cases of ad hominem in this instance makes it easy to know which posts or part thereof to disregard because they're simply not logical and nothing but attacks on other posters credibility with no discernible evidence to back these claims up.

[spychi]

You're attempting to discredit me by making unsupported claims that I live in a "butterfly world." I suggest you read articles that you reference until you understand them. If you have any questions I'd be happy to try and help you understand.

you know what a metaphor is? if yes than you should know that I used it in that post

He knows what it means, What he DOESN'T realize is that this is a forum for discussing opinions, and saying "ad hominem" over and over doesn't validate anything. It also makes him a giant douchebagger.

and wholeheartly I will agree with this

[Maul]

you know what a metaphor is? if yes than you should know that I used it in that post

Yes, I know what a metaphor is, yet that doesn't change the fact that you used your metaphor in an ad hominem attack. Do you know what capitalisation is and what periods are? Even if you do and choose not to use them, absolutely nothing has changed about that post you're referring to.

[TheEconomist]

the poor are poor because they're descendants of the oppressed classes.

This is a far too ethnocentric statement. You are looking at things from your own limited experiences. No one can see the entire world from their own perspective so don't even try. But, in the typical survival of the fittest scenario, why was it that oppressed peoples were able to be oppressed? They were weaker and nature ran its natural course. Simple. This competition has not only strengthened the system but has also strengthened the oppressed. Blacks in America are the PERFECT example. Again, as member of this system, we are sympathetic to our own situation. That doesn't change the fact that the best thing for the system is competition. Misguided but albeit well intended attitudes are what is destroying the world. This very disadvantage is the reason that many blacks are more motivated and dedicated than those who were not oppressed.

that's bullshit. capitalism protects itself and advances mediocre members of the social elite into positions of power

No, it's true that the people who bring forth advancements in society are indeed more important than the rest. You can dissagree with this all you want but, agian, proof is in the pudding. When a system comes along that accomplishes more, I'll care. I never said America was perfect. In fact, I've pointed out many problems in America that would be solved by "getting back to the basics". I'm getting so tired of repeating this. Honestly, do people only read one post them reply?

A great deal of why the world is derrailing fairly quickly, is because of unfair distribution of wealth.

I can only speak of America so that's what I will do. I've given America as the greatest example of capitalism and social mobility. I wish non-Americans would stop judging things they have not experienced. I've seen far too many say that the reason for poor people in America is because of some economic policy. That's a ridiculous falicy and it's thinking like that that got Obama into office and is why so many poor people are waiting around doing nothing while they wait for their hand-out. People in America who are poor are poor for a reason and they deserve to be poor. Putting them on the same level as the others is disrespectful both to the poor's potential and to the achiever's success. Philosophies like that are why other countris will never advance and why America will never be as great as Greece or Rome. On the other hand, a poor but strong willed and motivated person from, say, Africa, is infinitely superior to a rich white man from America who does not do as much with his resources.

He who is born in a rich family has a lot more probabilities of keeping rich or getting still richer than one that is born in a poor family.

Irrelevant. There need to be poor so that uniformity can be destroyed. Just like genetic uniformity destroys the ecosystem, uniformity in starting points would destroy the human social system. There must be those who come from rougher backgrounds and have to work harder to attain the same thing because that promoites diversity and instills stronger motivation in the people. If everyone was comfortable, the entire system would collapse as has been proven since the beginning of time in great nations that fall from the inside out. America and many European countries have already begun this process.

In case you didn't notice, people that has lots of money is likely to do whatever is in their considerable power to keep in that place, no matter who has to suffer for it.

They have every right to do so and this is very much within their role as a biological being. It is the role of the others to counter "the rich". Not doing so is not the fault of the rich but for the poor who eiter wouldn't get off their ass or instituted certain laws that limited themselves. I gave the medieval King example before and that's a very good one.

Hell, wasn't recently like 40 million people without any kind of medical assistance in USA? If you born in a poor family, and die at an age of 12, because of bad/no medical assistance, is that fair? Is it a good system?

So, what, someone I don't know should have supported me during the times that I grew up poor with no insurance? I would rather die of an awful disease at 12 than to have that happen. Yes, it is a good system. Protecting lives should not be the primary concern. You are not doing those whom you would protect a service by doing so. All of you are misguided in your good-hearted attempts to help the poor. I was poor and still am, yet I am telling you to fuck off with trying to "save me from my problems". It's disgusting and I'm so glad none of you have an influence on American politics.

@Maul: I are disappoint. I spent most of yesterday countering his claims while he did nothing but completely misinterpret them. How dare you accuse me of ad hominem. My "your english is lacking" comment was in relation to his butchering of my capitalist posts, his continued misinterpretation of things Blizzard has said, and his refusal to accept that I'm trying to help him understand what I'm saying when I counter his points. He would accept neither so I had to make him understand why it was that he'll never understand what I'm saying unless he opens his mind and let's me help him ... which was what I was trying to do.

You should read before you comment. You grossly misunderstood the situation.

.

[Maul]

For the record I read this topic from start to finish, picking those quotes up along the way. I can understand your frustration after doing your best to explain something (I thought you've made a lot of great points) only to face some ridiculous counter-argument, but nonetheless you still used ad hominem in the above examples and I think you're better than that.

Also the "Your English is lacking. You not understand." quote has been explained, but the way it was originally said wasn't helping anyone. In my opinion if you're trying to share your side of the argument with someone and they are clearly closed minded on the subject it's best to let them be.

I'm not attacking you or anyone else, but I feel obliged to point out how much non-sense is going on in this thread, and that was only a part of it.

[protoswarrior]

Deep breath people, deeeeeeeeep breath...

in.... and out...

That's right!

Do it again



On a more serious note:

This thread is off-topic by like a planet's circumference. Mods should really consider closing it down. If relevance to the thread title is not brought here quickly, there shouldn't be any reason to post all this (excuse my baloney) crap. Everyone should calm the fuck down and move on to more constructive threads and posts.

Opinions are all fine and dandy until they start being disrespectful of others, then they should be held back by the poster.

Thank you for your brief attention

[TheEconomist]

@Maul: I guess you missed the "Not to be rude but I'll keep this simple so that you can hopefully understand it. Please don't take this the wrong way." part of my post I could've sounded a lot less rude but I was afraid adding unnecessary words would just result in more understanding. I knew it would be misinterpreted so I went out of my way to say the above.

[silencbank]

Maul is just trying to point out that in this thread is that people are sometimes arguing the person, not the topic. There are alot of people so infuriated by the other side they just get more and more angry and lash out. It happens, we're humans, anger is not always a bad thing. There are gonna be people who just flat out do not agree with what you think and arguing the same point over and over while blatantly attacking them is not gonna get them to think about seeing it your way. Everyone interprets facts they see differently just because of how they want to see it. Some are optimistic about everything and some are more wary of things. It does not matter who is wrong or right cuz there really is no wrong or right. If how you think works for you, then use it.

I tend to have a more optimistic view of things because of what I have been through and am currently going through. So I always think just how bad something can turn out, and judge from that if it is worth the risk. So the worst that could happen with this game is...it sucks, I am disappointed, and I am out 60 bucks. To me that is an ok risk for what it could be and they way I interpret trends and facts it could be. I am not afraid of failure. I push myself to take risks so that I may never ask "what if?" and am always fulfilled with my life.

None of this means that I am always right, just that I make my choices and live with them and that is how I think others should as well. If you want to do a point-counterpoint until the ends of the Earth then fine, but attacking your opponent does not get you much (unless you are running for an American elected position but I digress). So if you have tried your hardest and they do not budge just say "Hey, I realize you do not agree with me and never will so I am done" and wish them luck. And after they walk away you can mumble "what a dumbass" under your breath and be just as happy.

[TheEconomist]

Maul is just trying to point out that in this thread is that people are sometimes arguing the person, not the topic.

I agree. SlickR is the worst offender. All I'm saying is that I'm not one of them.