Why was my thread locked?

[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.

Edit: Also Mr Crowshaw does fucking satire.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[cantthinkofausername]

In order to end the silly irony discussion, I believe we should all turn to the following sight

http://www.cracked.com/funny-1085-irony/

It provides a humorous and true chart about irony.

Now then, I believe that saying that a large amount of people accepted it isn't a valid argument. The reason for this is that the people that accepted it were the people that had someone they claimed to want to kill. It's basically like if a man walks up to a robber and says, "Do you think theft should be illegal?" and the robber replies "No." Obviously that's what you would expect. If you walk up to any man who isn't a robber, he will say "Yes."

Also, let me make my own scenario. Say that two guys are chilling in public and one says "Man I want to bomb the Pentagon soon," then obviously people are going to go "What is wrong with that man?" The same thing with "Dude, you know Jon, right? I think I'm gonna kill him this weekend." "Oh, really? What are you gonna use?" "Oh I was thinkin' I was either gonna beat his face in with a tire iron or just stab him a couple times."

..Yea.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

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.

 

[molesgallus]

It is a hypothetical scenario. Do you mean they use the word 'wrongly', or out of context? Because it definitely applies in this scenario. If someone feels there is a potential social stigma, they were free to ignore the post. It only seems fair to leave it open for those who didn't feel there was a social stigma, though.

Quite a few people use the word "hypothetical" as a mask to say, "this is what I want to happen, but in the interests of making myself look less disturbing I'm going to try and distance myself from that by using this word that creates alternate situations". That is not to say all people do it, but some most certainly do.

It is nothing like that. Child porn clearly shouldn't exist, and endorsing it by having it on your computer is wrong.

Like having a thread that endorses killing people? You might say some of the posts are ironic (yes some, but the Michael Bay one is not ironic, so I assume the definition of ironic was misinterpreted), but some most certainly aren't.

Would you publicly act as though you are planning to commit a crime? I'm fairly certain you can get arrested for presumed intent, if not execution. That's what pre-emptive police raids are all about after all. Sure you might sound jokey, but people have been arrested for making jokes (e.g. Jokes about bombs when in an airport) before.

As a participant in a discussion, I can understand your point of view here. However, from the point of view of a website that doesn't want to attract negative attention to itself, especially if someone on here might wish to report the thread to the authorities, with a thread about killing people with no repercussions (we gamers look like real socialites now) gaining quite a bit of popularity, you can see that locking such a thread might be a useful course of action, if not for you, then for the website.

You keep arguing why it shouldn't be locked, when your question was to ask why it was locked. This is my interpretation of why it was locked.

You are right. The websites PR should come above all else. It is a business, after all. I'm too used to more open, forum-centric forums.

 

[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]

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

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

Seeing as you have deliberately set out to make sure that you do not concede anyone's points, I doubt you'd allow his argument to hold up even then.

 

[Blackadder51]

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.

...the fuck?

I have not been "shutted up" nor have i "refused to respond" unbelievably i am actually doing something else instead of waiting for you. I responded with my thaughts.

You arrogant basterd

Take your "win" and fuck off

 

[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.