Why was my thread locked?

[molesgallus]

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points. I don't know what else a victory could be. However, mentally, it was a victory for me when I exposed that you didn't understand irony, and your arguments that were founded on that understanding collapsed.

How the fuck is it a victory?

I understand irony
ie That was as fun as cancer

Posting i would kill a person as joke is not irony.


Being racist for a joke is not irony.



You sir are a fool.

That's just an example of an ironic simile. A small part of verbal irony. There are many more kinds of irony than that.

Being racist for a joke, is irony. You are saying one thing; 'the racist comment', and meaning an other; 'racists aren't nice/im not a racist'. If you aren't meaning an other thing, then you are just being racist. So it's either irony, or racism. If it's funny, it's probably irony, or you are a racist, and just enjoy laughing at foreigners.

The same applies to killing people. Especially for inane reasons.


As for why it was a victory, see here:

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

 

[MrDarkling]

*snip*

What are the purpose of forums if you can't discuss anything that might cause some people distress? Surely that eliminates almost all topics?

The property thing is the element of reality to the hypothetical scenario. Man has killed man for thousands of years over property. I was simply wondering whether that was the primary motivation, or whether people might have other motivations.

How insular, and protective has society become when people can't discuss hypothetical scenarios about people being killed, when their governments, and fellow country men are killing millions every year?

Don't get me wrong, it does have discussion value but I think it's a subject for meetings with close friends who you can discuss anything with.
But as a big community as this there's no doubt going to be a large group of folk who are going to be pretty pissed or upset, it sucks I know but just how things roll I guess.
So in the end the mods are just doing what they feel is right to dispose of the "fire hazard."

You're right, I need to find some forums for grown ups that don't get distressed by what other people are discussing. Do you know of any other popular forums, where this discussion might be appropriate, and conducted sensibly?

haha damn straight but sorry...no chance.
It is the internet after all :/
Like I say, "In Real Life" is your best bet.
But know what you mean...Petty stuff like this is a real pain in the ass.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

So you expect him to continue to debate if he has a point? How about the fact that he has a life outside the forum and had to pull out, or just was tired. If you were debating with someone and they got shot in the face by a stranger, would you call that a victory? Another example, I around half an hour ago posted here giving my side of the argument. Did you respond? No. So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

 

[Lizmichi]

So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

hehe I'd laugh at that. That just made my day reading that.

 

[molesgallus]

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

So you expect him to continue to debate if he has a point? How about the fact that he has a life outside the forum and had to pull out, or just was tired. If you were debating with someone and they got shot in the face by a stranger, would you call that a victory? Another example, I around half an hour ago posted here giving my side of the argument. Did you respond? No. So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

Did you read the bit about my exposing his contradictory statements? Until he has explained them, then his argument is contradictory, and senseless. Meaning I have one. Meaning no chewbacca defense. I'm not using the chebacca defense. I'm using the 'your arguments flawed, and you refuse to address the flaw' defense. I believe that defense is also known as 'winning the debate-for now'.

 

[Blackadder51]

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points. I don't know what else a victory could be. However, mentally, it was a victory for me when I exposed that you didn't understand irony, and your arguments that were founded on that understanding collapsed.

How the fuck is it a victory?

I understand irony
ie That was as fun as cancer

Posting i would kill a person as joke is not irony.


Being racist for a joke is not irony.



You sir are a fool.

That's just an example of an ironic simile. A small part of verbal irony. There are many more kinds of irony than that.

Being racist for a joke, is irony. You are saying one thing; 'the racist comment', and meaning an other; 'racists aren't nice/im not a racist'. If you aren't meaning an other thing, then you are just being racist. So it's either irony, or racism. If it's funny, it's probably irony, or you are a racist, and just enjoy laughing at foreigners.

The same applies to killing people. Especially for inane reasons.


As for why it was a victory, see here:

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

I read that shit, and guess what no you haven't, i further wish to not discuss the matter. Dude i dont gave a fuck anymore. Thats why i didnt want to respond, not because "you are right" but becuase i dont give a flying FUCK

 

[Arkhangelsk]

So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

hehe I'd laugh at that. That just made my day reading that.

I aim to please.

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

So you expect him to continue to debate if he has a point? How about the fact that he has a life outside the forum and had to pull out, or just was tired. If you were debating with someone and they got shot in the face by a stranger, would you call that a victory? Another example, I around half an hour ago posted here giving my side of the argument. Did you respond? No. So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

Did you read the bit about my exposing his contradictory statements? Until he has explained them, then his argument is contradictory, and senseless. Meaning I have one. Meaning no chewbacca defense. I'm not using the chebacca defense. I'm using the 'your arguments flawed, and you refuse to address the flaw' defense. I believe that defense is also known as 'winning the debate-for now'.

Maybe for now, but the fact that he didn't respond doesn't make your arguments right, nor forever. It just means that he didn't choose to respond. You may have "won". Does that make you right? No. So we'll just call this a cheap victory.

 

[molesgallus]

It's like going: "Hey guys, let's tempt arrest by discussing people we have considered killing!"

I'm surprised it wasn't locked sooner.

There is no law against wanting to kill someone. And there is definitely no law against discussing who you might kill in a hypothetical world.

There are still morals that find the discussion of murder distasteful. Hypothetical or not it's still wrong. The gaming world has enough issues without adding on forum topics like that on to a very well know and very popular gaming website. If you have people you want to kill then that's calling out more for help from a therapist then a forum posting.
Is it ok to talk about planting a bomb in a public building or creating another 9/11? No it's not, in fact, I believe you can get arrested for that. Your topic falls along the same lines as that. Doesn't matter if you intend to, it's that you're talking about it. I must say allot of the responses where disturbing.
Also postings like this.... ehhhhhhh.

Spoiler: *shiver*

If i had the opportunity to kill indiscriminately? I'd take up the chance. Of course i would. I'd probably even torture my victims. Fuck their friends and families. It'd be for my pleasure; i wouldn't care about the suffering of others. If anything, i'd enjoy it all the more. Ever seen the movie Creep? Being able to just take people away that the world has forgotten about and slaughter them brutally... i think we all have that sort of urge inside of us. To just flip out and act without inhibition. Chances are the world has fucked us over so much we just don't care any more and apply that pain to others. I don't know, i'm not a psychologist. Maybe that's why certain games are so appealing - the ability to kill without repercussion.

You are allowed to discuss them, as long as there is no coercion, or planning. It's legal to talk about murder. It is very legal to talk about murder in a hypothetical scenario. Millions of people go and watch movies, read books, and listen to music that considers murder in hypothetical scenarios. The producers of such media aren't silenced, because they are discussing something that might affect some peoples sensibilities.

You mean 'a lot', btw.

The rules here do not allow of distasteful topics and that by far was one of the more distasteful topics I've seen. That hit the moral low ground and it hit it hard. The world doesn't just revolve around laws. There is a moral code too. I took a profiling class 3 years ago and one thing that points out a potential mass murder or serial killing is talking about murder and having no remorse over the discussion.
[HEADING=1]Just because it is legal to talk about murder doesn't make it right.[/HEADING]

Well, it seems, by your logic, hundreds of the escapist's users are potential mass murderers. I'd say it was important we got that information out there. Rather than refusing discussion, and never knowing who the mass murderers might be, until it's too late...

Morally, there can't be that much wrong with talking about, and mass murdering people, as we allow our rulers to do it every day. We even praise our military for doing it...

 

[molesgallus]

So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

hehe I'd laugh at that. That just made my day reading that.

I aim to please.

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

So you expect him to continue to debate if he has a point? How about the fact that he has a life outside the forum and had to pull out, or just was tired. If you were debating with someone and they got shot in the face by a stranger, would you call that a victory? Another example, I around half an hour ago posted here giving my side of the argument. Did you respond? No. So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

Did you read the bit about my exposing his contradictory statements? Until he has explained them, then his argument is contradictory, and senseless. Meaning I have one. Meaning no chewbacca defense. I'm not using the chebacca defense. I'm using the 'your arguments flawed, and you refuse to address the flaw' defense. I believe that defense is also known as 'winning the debate-for now'.

Maybe for now, but the fact that he didn't respond doesn't make your arguments right, nor forever. It just means that he didn't choose to respond. You may have "won". Does that make you right? No.

Read what I am saying. I am not arguing that I won because he didn't respond. I'm arguing that I won because there is a hole in his logic, that he refuses to fill. The lack of response, after an otherwise long conversation, suggests he can't fill it.

 

[Lizmichi]

So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

hehe I'd laugh at that. That just made my day reading that.

I aim to please.

Well you're doing a good job.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

hehe I'd laugh at that. That just made my day reading that.

I aim to please.

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

So you expect him to continue to debate if he has a point? How about the fact that he has a life outside the forum and had to pull out, or just was tired. If you were debating with someone and they got shot in the face by a stranger, would you call that a victory? Another example, I around half an hour ago posted here giving my side of the argument. Did you respond? No. So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

Did you read the bit about my exposing his contradictory statements? Until he has explained them, then his argument is contradictory, and senseless. Meaning I have one. Meaning no chewbacca defense. I'm not using the chebacca defense. I'm using the 'your arguments flawed, and you refuse to address the flaw' defense. I believe that defense is also known as 'winning the debate-for now'.

Maybe for now, but the fact that he didn't respond doesn't make your arguments right, nor forever. It just means that he didn't choose to respond. You may have "won". Does that make you right? No.

Read what I am saying. I am not arguing that I won because he didn't respond. I'm arguing that I won because there is a hole in his logic, that he refuses to fill. The lack of response, after an otherwise long conversation, suggests he can't fill it.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. This isn't the end of the argument, it's an endless hiatus. You seriously think he bailed out because he didn't have any arguments left?

Read what I am saying. You didn't win. I'm frankly getting sick of this myself. So I guess you "won" again. How is it there on your lonely throne?

 

[Lizmichi]

It's like going: "Hey guys, let's tempt arrest by discussing people we have considered killing!"

I'm surprised it wasn't locked sooner.

There is no law against wanting to kill someone. And there is definitely no law against discussing who you might kill in a hypothetical world.

There are still morals that find the discussion of murder distasteful. Hypothetical or not it's still wrong. The gaming world has enough issues without adding on forum topics like that on to a very well know and very popular gaming website. If you have people you want to kill then that's calling out more for help from a therapist then a forum posting.
Is it ok to talk about planting a bomb in a public building or creating another 9/11? No it's not, in fact, I believe you can get arrested for that. Your topic falls along the same lines as that. Doesn't matter if you intend to, it's that you're talking about it. I must say allot of the responses where disturbing.
Also postings like this.... ehhhhhhh.

Spoiler: *shiver*

If i had the opportunity to kill indiscriminately? I'd take up the chance. Of course i would. I'd probably even torture my victims. Fuck their friends and families. It'd be for my pleasure; i wouldn't care about the suffering of others. If anything, i'd enjoy it all the more. Ever seen the movie Creep? Being able to just take people away that the world has forgotten about and slaughter them brutally... i think we all have that sort of urge inside of us. To just flip out and act without inhibition. Chances are the world has fucked us over so much we just don't care any more and apply that pain to others. I don't know, i'm not a psychologist. Maybe that's why certain games are so appealing - the ability to kill without repercussion.

You are allowed to discuss them, as long as there is no coercion, or planning. It's legal to talk about murder. It is very legal to talk about murder in a hypothetical scenario. Millions of people go and watch movies, read books, and listen to music that considers murder in hypothetical scenarios. The producers of such media aren't silenced, because they are discussing something that might affect some peoples sensibilities.

You mean 'a lot', btw.

The rules here do not allow of distasteful topics and that by far was one of the more distasteful topics I've seen. That hit the moral low ground and it hit it hard. The world doesn't just revolve around laws. There is a moral code too. I took a profiling class 3 years ago and one thing that points out a potential mass murder or serial killing is talking about murder and having no remorse over the discussion.
[HEADING=1]Just because it is legal to talk about murder doesn't make it right.[/HEADING]

Well, it seems, by your logic, hundreds of the escapist's users are potential mass murderers. I'd say it was important we got that information out there. Rather than refusing discussion, and never knowing who the mass murderers might be, until it's too late...

Morally, there can't be that much wrong with talking about, and mass murdering people, as we allow our rulers to do it every day. We even praise our military for doing it...

You know what, I'm not going to let my good day be ruined by your ignorance. I'm just going to do what Blackadder51 is doing and not respond anymore because it seems even when you have a WHOLE topic full of user disagreeing with you that you still think nothing was wrong. Now if you excuse me I have my country's birthday to enjoy with friends and I do not wish your logic-less points to ruin it. I have more points to state yes but I see no use in stating them.

 

[molesgallus]

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points. I don't know what else a victory could be. However, mentally, it was a victory for me when I exposed that you didn't understand irony, and your arguments that were founded on that understanding collapsed.

How the fuck is it a victory?

I understand irony
ie That was as fun as cancer

Posting i would kill a person as joke is not irony.


Being racist for a joke is not irony.



You sir are a fool.

That's just an example of an ironic simile. A small part of verbal irony. There are many more kinds of irony than that.

Being racist for a joke, is irony. You are saying one thing; 'the racist comment', and meaning an other; 'racists aren't nice/im not a racist'. If you aren't meaning an other thing, then you are just being racist. So it's either irony, or racism. If it's funny, it's probably irony, or you are a racist, and just enjoy laughing at foreigners.

The same applies to killing people. Especially for inane reasons.


As for why it was a victory, see here:

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

I read that shit, and guess what no you haven't, i further wish to not discuss the matter. Dude i dont gave a fuck anymore. Thats why i didnt want to respond, not because "you are right" but becuase i dont give a flying FUCK

It would have been faster to respond to my point. I am genuinely curious as to what you think yahtzee is doing in his videos. Also, saying 'no you haven't' and shouting about how you just suddenly don't care about the argument, after your false logic is exposed, doesn't make you right. It just makes you look like someone who has lost an argument, and is in denial. Which is funny, because that clearly isn't the case. I mean, you haven't responded several times, to mention that your reasons for leaving the argument are tertiary, and legitimate, while refusing to take 2 minutes to support your dead argument. And you certainly won't respond to this with another whinny post about how your refusal to continue arguing is because you don't care, and don't have time, and nothing to do with the gaping hole in your logic...

 

[molesgallus]

It's like going: "Hey guys, let's tempt arrest by discussing people we have considered killing!"

I'm surprised it wasn't locked sooner.

There is no law against wanting to kill someone. And there is definitely no law against discussing who you might kill in a hypothetical world.

There are still morals that find the discussion of murder distasteful. Hypothetical or not it's still wrong. The gaming world has enough issues without adding on forum topics like that on to a very well know and very popular gaming website. If you have people you want to kill then that's calling out more for help from a therapist then a forum posting.
Is it ok to talk about planting a bomb in a public building or creating another 9/11? No it's not, in fact, I believe you can get arrested for that. Your topic falls along the same lines as that. Doesn't matter if you intend to, it's that you're talking about it. I must say allot of the responses where disturbing.
Also postings like this.... ehhhhhhh.

Spoiler: *shiver*

If i had the opportunity to kill indiscriminately? I'd take up the chance. Of course i would. I'd probably even torture my victims. Fuck their friends and families. It'd be for my pleasure; i wouldn't care about the suffering of others. If anything, i'd enjoy it all the more. Ever seen the movie Creep? Being able to just take people away that the world has forgotten about and slaughter them brutally... i think we all have that sort of urge inside of us. To just flip out and act without inhibition. Chances are the world has fucked us over so much we just don't care any more and apply that pain to others. I don't know, i'm not a psychologist. Maybe that's why certain games are so appealing - the ability to kill without repercussion.

You are allowed to discuss them, as long as there is no coercion, or planning. It's legal to talk about murder. It is very legal to talk about murder in a hypothetical scenario. Millions of people go and watch movies, read books, and listen to music that considers murder in hypothetical scenarios. The producers of such media aren't silenced, because they are discussing something that might affect some peoples sensibilities.

You mean 'a lot', btw.

The rules here do not allow of distasteful topics and that by far was one of the more distasteful topics I've seen. That hit the moral low ground and it hit it hard. The world doesn't just revolve around laws. There is a moral code too. I took a profiling class 3 years ago and one thing that points out a potential mass murder or serial killing is talking about murder and having no remorse over the discussion.
[HEADING=1]Just because it is legal to talk about murder doesn't make it right.[/HEADING]

Well, it seems, by your logic, hundreds of the escapist's users are potential mass murderers. I'd say it was important we got that information out there. Rather than refusing discussion, and never knowing who the mass murderers might be, until it's too late...

Morally, there can't be that much wrong with talking about, and mass murdering people, as we allow our rulers to do it every day. We even praise our military for doing it...

You know what, I'm not going to let my good day be ruined by your ignorance. I'm just going to do what Blackadder51 is doing and not respond anymore because it seems even when you have a WHOLE topic full of user disagreeing with you that you still think nothing was wrong. Now if you excuse me I have my country's birthday to enjoy with friends.

Nice bit of ad hominem there, with lashings of denial. I like it. At least you don't try.

I understand that the topic wouldn't have been beneficial to The Escapists PR, and agree that it had to be removed. I don't feel there was anything fundamentally 'wrong' with it, though. I think it would be more morally wrong to stifle such discussion. Murder happens every day, unless we can discuss it openly, we can never understand it, and stop it.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Also, to add to your arguments here, I agree with BlackAdder, Yahtzee does satire.

 

[Lizmichi]

It's like going: "Hey guys, let's tempt arrest by discussing people we have considered killing!"

I'm surprised it wasn't locked sooner.

There is no law against wanting to kill someone. And there is definitely no law against discussing who you might kill in a hypothetical world.

There are still morals that find the discussion of murder distasteful. Hypothetical or not it's still wrong. The gaming world has enough issues without adding on forum topics like that on to a very well know and very popular gaming website. If you have people you want to kill then that's calling out more for help from a therapist then a forum posting.
Is it ok to talk about planting a bomb in a public building or creating another 9/11? No it's not, in fact, I believe you can get arrested for that. Your topic falls along the same lines as that. Doesn't matter if you intend to, it's that you're talking about it. I must say allot of the responses where disturbing.
Also postings like this.... ehhhhhhh.

Spoiler: *shiver*

If i had the opportunity to kill indiscriminately? I'd take up the chance. Of course i would. I'd probably even torture my victims. Fuck their friends and families. It'd be for my pleasure; i wouldn't care about the suffering of others. If anything, i'd enjoy it all the more. Ever seen the movie Creep? Being able to just take people away that the world has forgotten about and slaughter them brutally... i think we all have that sort of urge inside of us. To just flip out and act without inhibition. Chances are the world has fucked us over so much we just don't care any more and apply that pain to others. I don't know, i'm not a psychologist. Maybe that's why certain games are so appealing - the ability to kill without repercussion.

You are allowed to discuss them, as long as there is no coercion, or planning. It's legal to talk about murder. It is very legal to talk about murder in a hypothetical scenario. Millions of people go and watch movies, read books, and listen to music that considers murder in hypothetical scenarios. The producers of such media aren't silenced, because they are discussing something that might affect some peoples sensibilities.

You mean 'a lot', btw.

The rules here do not allow of distasteful topics and that by far was one of the more distasteful topics I've seen. That hit the moral low ground and it hit it hard. The world doesn't just revolve around laws. There is a moral code too. I took a profiling class 3 years ago and one thing that points out a potential mass murder or serial killing is talking about murder and having no remorse over the discussion.
[HEADING=1]Just because it is legal to talk about murder doesn't make it right.[/HEADING]

Well, it seems, by your logic, hundreds of the escapist's users are potential mass murderers. I'd say it was important we got that information out there. Rather than refusing discussion, and never knowing who the mass murderers might be, until it's too late...

Morally, there can't be that much wrong with talking about, and mass murdering people, as we allow our rulers to do it every day. We even praise our military for doing it...

You know what, I'm not going to let my good day be ruined by your ignorance. I'm just going to do what Blackadder51 is doing and not respond anymore because it seems even when you have a WHOLE topic full of user disagreeing with you that you still think nothing was wrong. Now if you excuse me I have my country's birthday to enjoy with friends and I do not wish your logic-less points to ruin it. I have more points to state yes but I see no use in stating them.

Nice bit of ad hominem there, with lashings of denial. I like it. At least you don't try.

I understand that the topic wouldn't have been beneficial to The Escapists PR, and agree that it had to be removed. I don't feel there was anything fundamentally 'wrong' with it, though. I think it would be more morally wrong to stifle such discussion. Murder happens every day, unless we can discuss it openly, we can never understand it, and stop it.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

It's like going: "Hey guys, let's tempt arrest by discussing people we have considered killing!"

I'm surprised it wasn't locked sooner.

There is no law against wanting to kill someone. And there is definitely no law against discussing who you might kill in a hypothetical world.

There are still morals that find the discussion of murder distasteful. Hypothetical or not it's still wrong. The gaming world has enough issues without adding on forum topics like that on to a very well know and very popular gaming website. If you have people you want to kill then that's calling out more for help from a therapist then a forum posting.
Is it ok to talk about planting a bomb in a public building or creating another 9/11? No it's not, in fact, I believe you can get arrested for that. Your topic falls along the same lines as that. Doesn't matter if you intend to, it's that you're talking about it. I must say allot of the responses where disturbing.
Also postings like this.... ehhhhhhh.

Spoiler: *shiver*

If i had the opportunity to kill indiscriminately? I'd take up the chance. Of course i would. I'd probably even torture my victims. Fuck their friends and families. It'd be for my pleasure; i wouldn't care about the suffering of others. If anything, i'd enjoy it all the more. Ever seen the movie Creep? Being able to just take people away that the world has forgotten about and slaughter them brutally... i think we all have that sort of urge inside of us. To just flip out and act without inhibition. Chances are the world has fucked us over so much we just don't care any more and apply that pain to others. I don't know, i'm not a psychologist. Maybe that's why certain games are so appealing - the ability to kill without repercussion.

You are allowed to discuss them, as long as there is no coercion, or planning. It's legal to talk about murder. It is very legal to talk about murder in a hypothetical scenario. Millions of people go and watch movies, read books, and listen to music that considers murder in hypothetical scenarios. The producers of such media aren't silenced, because they are discussing something that might affect some peoples sensibilities.

You mean 'a lot', btw.

The rules here do not allow of distasteful topics and that by far was one of the more distasteful topics I've seen. That hit the moral low ground and it hit it hard. The world doesn't just revolve around laws. There is a moral code too. I took a profiling class 3 years ago and one thing that points out a potential mass murder or serial killing is talking about murder and having no remorse over the discussion.
[HEADING=1]Just because it is legal to talk about murder doesn't make it right.[/HEADING]

Well, it seems, by your logic, hundreds of the escapist's users are potential mass murderers. I'd say it was important we got that information out there. Rather than refusing discussion, and never knowing who the mass murderers might be, until it's too late...

Morally, there can't be that much wrong with talking about, and mass murdering people, as we allow our rulers to do it every day. We even praise our military for doing it...

You know what, I'm not going to let my good day be ruined by your ignorance. I'm just going to do what Blackadder51 is doing and not respond anymore because it seems even when you have a WHOLE topic full of user disagreeing with you that you still think nothing was wrong. Now if you excuse me I have my country's birthday to enjoy with friends.

Nice bit of ad hominem there, with lashings of denial. I like it. At least you don't try.

I understand that the topic wouldn't have been beneficial to The Escapists PR, and agree that it had to be removed. I don't feel there was anything fundamentally 'wrong' with it, though. I think it would be more morally wrong to stifle such discussion. Murder happens every day, unless we can discuss it openly, we can never understand it, and stop it.

A)Murder can't be stopped. B)You're using a joke thread to incite serious thoughts? The discussion of murder isn't wrong, it's the gallows humor.

 

[molesgallus]

So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

hehe I'd laugh at that. That just made my day reading that.

I aim to please.

Huge arse snip

Look im tired and to be honest can not really be fucked discussing this with you, clearly we have different opinions and whatever we say is not changing that.

<color=white>Also you are an arrogant fucktard

That said, this is not a victory for you nor is it for me. Take this message as a stalemate.

It's a victory for me. You have declined to respond to my points.

Here's my cue. The Chewbacca Defence [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense].

Read the third point in the list of common misconceptions and/or fallacies particularly.

"Unfortunately, the mere existence of the Chewbacca Defense leads to an unfortunate problem in debate called Chewbacca's Dilemma: No matter what you say in an argument, no matter how intelligently and clearly you word your rebuttals and assertions, it is possible that your opponent will always perceive whatever you say to be a Chewbacca Defense. In fact, a common political maneuver is to use a Chewbacca Defense in order to accuse the opponent of using a Chewbacca Defense."

That's the problem with the chewbacca defence. And this isn't an example of it. He is free to respond to my point. I have won, not because I have got him to shut up. But because I have exposed a flaw in your argument. He argues that Yahtzee is neither ironic, or serious in his bigotry, misogyny, etc. Since I can't think of a third scenario, and he has abruptly refused to respond, I assume he doesn't have one; and his argument becomes self-contradicting.

If he has a third stance, he can state it, and his argument will hold up fine. No accusation of the chewbacca defense needed.

So you expect him to continue to debate if he has a point? How about the fact that he has a life outside the forum and had to pull out, or just was tired. If you were debating with someone and they got shot in the face by a stranger, would you call that a victory? Another example, I around half an hour ago posted here giving my side of the argument. Did you respond? No. So by your logic I get to run around in underpants screaming "CHAMPION!"

Did you read the bit about my exposing his contradictory statements? Until he has explained them, then his argument is contradictory, and senseless. Meaning I have one. Meaning no chewbacca defense. I'm not using the chebacca defense. I'm using the 'your arguments flawed, and you refuse to address the flaw' defense. I believe that defense is also known as 'winning the debate-for now'.

Maybe for now, but the fact that he didn't respond doesn't make your arguments right, nor forever. It just means that he didn't choose to respond. You may have "won". Does that make you right? No.

Read what I am saying. I am not arguing that I won because he didn't respond. I'm arguing that I won because there is a hole in his logic, that he refuses to fill. The lack of response, after an otherwise long conversation, suggests he can't fill it.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. This isn't the end of the argument, it's an endless hiatus. You seriously think he bailed out because he didn't have any arguments left?

Read what I am saying. You didn't win. I'm frankly getting sick of this myself. So I guess you "won" again. How is it there on your lonely throne?

Again, read what I said. The chewbacca defense doesn't apply. I am not argueing that I won because he stopped responding, or had no more arguments, or was fed up, etc. I am arguing that I won because his logic was contradictory, and as a result wrong. By what other criteria can anyone ever win a debate, other than the opponent contradicting there selves, or introducing logically inconsistent arguments?

The fact that he stopped replying is not why I won! Stop assuming that's what I am arguing.

 

[molesgallus]

It's like going: "Hey guys, let's tempt arrest by discussing people we have considered killing!"

I'm surprised it wasn't locked sooner.

There is no law against wanting to kill someone. And there is definitely no law against discussing who you might kill in a hypothetical world.

There are still morals that find the discussion of murder distasteful. Hypothetical or not it's still wrong. The gaming world has enough issues without adding on forum topics like that on to a very well know and very popular gaming website. If you have people you want to kill then that's calling out more for help from a therapist then a forum posting.
Is it ok to talk about planting a bomb in a public building or creating another 9/11? No it's not, in fact, I believe you can get arrested for that. Your topic falls along the same lines as that. Doesn't matter if you intend to, it's that you're talking about it. I must say allot of the responses where disturbing.
Also postings like this.... ehhhhhhh.

Spoiler: *shiver*

If i had the opportunity to kill indiscriminately? I'd take up the chance. Of course i would. I'd probably even torture my victims. Fuck their friends and families. It'd be for my pleasure; i wouldn't care about the suffering of others. If anything, i'd enjoy it all the more. Ever seen the movie Creep? Being able to just take people away that the world has forgotten about and slaughter them brutally... i think we all have that sort of urge inside of us. To just flip out and act without inhibition. Chances are the world has fucked us over so much we just don't care any more and apply that pain to others. I don't know, i'm not a psychologist. Maybe that's why certain games are so appealing - the ability to kill without repercussion.

You are allowed to discuss them, as long as there is no coercion, or planning. It's legal to talk about murder. It is very legal to talk about murder in a hypothetical scenario. Millions of people go and watch movies, read books, and listen to music that considers murder in hypothetical scenarios. The producers of such media aren't silenced, because they are discussing something that might affect some peoples sensibilities.

You mean 'a lot', btw.

The rules here do not allow of distasteful topics and that by far was one of the more distasteful topics I've seen. That hit the moral low ground and it hit it hard. The world doesn't just revolve around laws. There is a moral code too. I took a profiling class 3 years ago and one thing that points out a potential mass murder or serial killing is talking about murder and having no remorse over the discussion.
[HEADING=1]Just because it is legal to talk about murder doesn't make it right.[/HEADING]

Well, it seems, by your logic, hundreds of the escapist's users are potential mass murderers. I'd say it was important we got that information out there. Rather than refusing discussion, and never knowing who the mass murderers might be, until it's too late...

Morally, there can't be that much wrong with talking about, and mass murdering people, as we allow our rulers to do it every day. We even praise our military for doing it...

You know what, I'm not going to let my good day be ruined by your ignorance. I'm just going to do what Blackadder51 is doing and not respond anymore because it seems even when you have a WHOLE topic full of user disagreeing with you that you still think nothing was wrong. Now if you excuse me I have my country's birthday to enjoy with friends.

Nice bit of ad hominem there, with lashings of denial. I like it. At least you don't try.

I understand that the topic wouldn't have been beneficial to The Escapists PR, and agree that it had to be removed. I don't feel there was anything fundamentally 'wrong' with it, though. I think it would be more morally wrong to stifle such discussion. Murder happens every day, unless we can discuss it openly, we can never understand it, and stop it.

A)Murder can't be stopped. B)You're using a joke thread to incite serious thoughts? The discussion of murder isn't wrong, it's the gallows humor.

Why can't murder be stopped? Are some people born murderers, and some not?

Gallows humour might have arisen from the discussion, but the discussion of murder, or peoples desire to murder, itself isn't gallows humour.