I'm playing a game by the rules.

Not mislead me.

Or you could address the way I've narrowed it down and show that I jumped to conclusions to early and missed an important option.
With what you've been doing you just bring up something you said as if that's enough to make things work but I want to see how that connects to other things you've been saying.

I'm very fixated on truth.

Break it down so you can tell me what makes it look different. For all I know this might be like you rejecting everything I say because you don't like my accent.

Don't jump back. Build back.

Isn't that the same as being outwitted but taking the person out of it?
That might actually be a better example for the second type of frustration than what I gave.

Well no, it blurs the first option too much. They're frustrated there because the authority has placed the burden of understanding on them rather than the person who first explained it. If their teacher had to explain math to them and couldn't go home until they understood it would be just like my first option.

But if I'm not implying that you don't perceive me that way?

It's nice to get a more direct admission of your motives.

Simple example with abra: "that's begging the question/scarecrow argument/false dichotomy/etc."
"That's an ad hominem attack."

He understands what a fallacy is and that you can't use them in arguments. Whenever I said he was using some fallacy or other he couldn't see the problem with it.

You veil it better than abra or JB but your posts to each other most certainly took that tone around page 40.

Well just within this post you've done it implicitly by adding in the explanation of a child doing schoolwork. Would you like to state that you were not saying that the rest of us are frustrated because we don't understand you concepts?

My subsequent argument is there to explain what I meant by the point nine times out of ten.

Glad you can admit it.

Well we can take it one step further than solipsism and say that we're not real either. As just characters without knowledge flow from the player into us we're nothing more than an illusion.

How many times do I have to explain to you that "we design things" is not evidence for what people are talking about here?
"The Dodo is extinct." "Nu uh, I have a dog." "We're not talking about dogs here." "But they're the same size!"

What evidence do you have for an intelligent designer before life on Earth? I remember the butterfly stuff but I'm kind of involved with talking to three people in here and I've got exams looming overhead so it's a bit difficult to recall everything you've said.

Here's a good example of you starting to do what I complained about Abra doing: PEAR's random number maker isn't random or used professionally but you've just ignored that and thrown them onto the list of evidence again.

I don't like this answer. There are two things you could be doing here.
A: agreeing with me and dropping the subject.
B: disagreeing with me here by implying that those aren't the rules for this game but not giving any kind of explanation for that.

Once anybody figures out how to exploit the system to do these things without getting caught word travels fast. Are our players all just much stupider than their characters or something?

Bullshlt. You can so. You don't have to tell me about a particular person's reasons, you can just list potential reasons so as to show that it makes sense.

So what's a potential way to keep people from dicking up the game? I can think of two ways right now but I'm concerned with how you solve the problem.

This still doesn't explain where the people are who are breaking the rules.

And when do we ever interact with anything but the body? If we stole the rims off of some character the player could just load up a back up save or a different character altogether.

What reason is there to treat other characters nicely? If you look at the internet where everyone is explicitly aware that they are controlling characters that have basically no back-connection to them there's none of the social boundary.

Look at email accounts. If somebody wants to do something that infringes on people's rights they just make a new account and scam or whatever until they can't do it with that account anymore and then they throw it away and keep doing it on a new one. This plays out the same way in basically every MMO.
Advertising astral underwear services may be meaningless in the plane where our players are actually at but if the actions of their characters are any indication there are plenty of them that thoroughly enjoy the simple act of ruining other people's fun. Why don't they start up babies with offensive-racist features and then take the first opportunity to put bullets between the eyes of as many people as possible and then start up another character and do it again and again until they're banned from the game at which point they just get a proxy and keep doing it until the game spirals downward into a bloated mess nobody wants to be involved with?

Because I don't conclude that there is no evidence for something. That would require negative evidence and such a thing is impossible.

What I want is for you to show evidence of it or to say that you have none. NOT call me unfit of mind.


Butterfly wing. Eyespot. Design. Designer.
Did you have anything else that doesn't immediately come to my mind?

You're false.

See how far that got us? Hint: not far.

Now please tell me why it's false. Please explain.

Well no. The thing is I don't see how you can view it as anything but a fight with the way you conduct yourself. I'm trying to speak in a way that you'll understand what I'm saying but you're constantly telling me I've got it wrong. I'm fine with being told that I'm wrong as that gives me the ability to x out an item on the list and move on but when I've narrowed things down and proceed with the image I've let you build and you still tell me it's wrong something smells fishy.

I'm trying to build a system so I want what you've currently said to match what you've said previously. Much of what I say is aimed at getting you to refine concepts but you keep wiping away the refined version as if to go back to when I hadn't narrowed things down.

The question was asking about other people. I answered it in terms of other people.

They get frustrated talking to you. There are only a couple of general reasons one person gets frustrated talking to another. It's easiest to picture with children. When a child is trying to express a concept that they understand but may not be able to fully express to someone else and they have tried to explain it to the point of exhaustion that's one reason. Another is when they are being outwitted.

I've outlined the way to outwit me in a recent post and creative had a more elegant description of it so I shouldn't need to work very hard to show it's more the first variety here.

Now, with someone frustrating people by being dense to what they are saying revenge is not immediately a motivation. After all, it's like like you wish revenge on the handicapped for being slower.
No, it's when they are dense to what you are saying but then turn around and show that they have the capacity but just aren't using it that there is a sense of being wronged. For someone to have wasted your time in such a way acts to greatly magnify the frustration.

And the declarations of victory certainly didn't do anything to ease tensions. I understand that's basically about ego stroking, or for more sinister purposes to manipulate an opponent, but either way it is basically spitting in their faces.

So adding it all together they should feel they've been wronged and have a desire to "get even." If they're not acting on it they have got some especially strong character but as I'm trying to talk to you in a way you'll understand and you've clearly stated that your understanding is that they are immature and closed minded this leaves only the option that they should want revenge upon you.

I interject but I'm talking about chopping them up in the editing sense. I very rarely omit any content in what I'm quoting and that's only if it's basically the closing sentence that didn't really add any meaning.

What I am complaining about from you is the editing of my context. You pluck out single sentences stripping them entirely away from what came before and after and by doing so you change the meaning.

I would not have much objection to your shortened quotes if you responded to them in their original context but you are either intentionally not doing so or lack the ability to recognize the context.

Thanks.

You've said it's like a car and when I tried to find a way that mistreating a car affected a person you dismissed it saying that it was like a character in a video game and that you couldn't hurt yourself by wrecking it.

How is it any more than "just a thing"?

Oh right, so your evidence is that a design has to have a designer.
Nobody has outright thrown that out. Instead what they've done is tell you that you're doing it in the wrong order. The only thing that makes something a design is if it had a designer, right?

"As it doesn't say anything about individuals we're not precluded from having many others in the same situation."
"Exactly."

How is that not us agreeing?

Ya but we all kind of know people who support spiritualism don't understand how that's not good argument procedure.

I've been trying to avoid the near legalese tone of the middle of that to be sure it wasn't the reason they don't get it, and I think we've got enough evidence of that by now~

No, I just like some form of resolution.

But I thought you had said repeatedly that you just had an opinion. Are you saying that your opinion counts as evidence and if so how do you handle anyone with the opinion that you're wrong?

Well yes, the nondisclosure of my motives is due to not knowing who I'm talking to until I know if it will be an issue or not. If it's not an issue people don't need to hear it anyway so it's fog all around.

Really though, it's unjust how they behave so balancing things out should in all fairness be on your mind. If you're acquainted with the dangers I mentioned you know better than to let it drive you but a more moderated form of it probably expresses itself through you.

Why not? Because you don't like it?

…it's no wonder people want revenge.And again, you’re getting your revenge by asking questions???



That need for revenge is what causes the spiral. And personally, I think that indicates just how transparent your goals really are.


I was talking about relent in regards to particular points. How long did it take abra to stop saying there are only 100 atoms in our universe after I explicitly explained how there were not 100?

There was no argument that I was counting wrong.There was no argument that the numbers I had given resulted in the same end point.

Only very far down the road did he switch over to the calculus approach but that argument was just "anything less than infinity is nothing compared to infinity." He hasn't defended or conceded that point either, though at least he didn't repeat it for so long.

"Look at the giraffes five legs and you must see how my point stands.
"Those only have four legs."
To be unrelenting you can ignore that they have four legs and keep saying that they have five but to actually participate in a discussion the way Bushido, Creative, and myself expect people to you have to say something about the four legs.

Now, the way you do it is a little bit different. Instead of ignoring the number of legs on a giraffe you jump back to an earlier position and say the legs don't have anything to do with it. They are most certainly related to the last post and train of thought and so you burden me with the task of looking back for where you said something to prove that you said it and then the full sum of acknowledgment you give me is at best dropping any fight you can't win.

With JB it feels more like she just has a short attention span and always tries to jump back to what she wants to, well, not "talk about" so much as "say." It's kind of the most and least extreme in terms of ignoring what other people say.

But other things like how you act as if I said I want justice or revenge here (and chopped up the quotes enough that people can't see I didn't say that without scrolling back up to look) and in to the reason people hate talking to you. That's called quote mining (and you do some of it implicitly,) but that's a dishonest thing to do.

Well, I'll just give an example: Thank you. I'm glad you've finally accepted the reasonable position.

If you throw a smiley on the end of that it would become humorous (and nearly is without it because we all know you wouldn't say that in that context,) but if you treat it like that's actually a legitimate part of the discussion is there any wonder why people get a bad taste in their mouth thinking about initing another helping of that?

Liking something and adopting it as your own are two very different things.

Well no, that's what being objective is about. Objectivity has the opinion stripped away if you're doing it right.



Here's where it's coming from:



If people don't ask for an opinion why are you belittling people ('they don't give a rat's *** about anyone else') for not being interested in hearing it? Sometimes people are busy and they've got a particular project or goal they're working on-
so it's where you share your opinion that matters. If someone made a thread about how to make a faster pinewood derby car and you came into it to share the opinion that "pinewood derby cars are stupid" that... well, that's basically the wrong place to be sharing that opinion. You could go find a thread about what people think about pinewood derby cars and share it there or even make your own topic for it but repurposing that first one is like stealing it.

So really what we've got hear is me asking you to respect other people's property. This thread isn't here to give you a platform to tell people what you think about spirits but you're treating it like that's what it is.

What thread has asked is if there is evidence for a designer. "We can't know" is a vote that there is not evidence.
"That there's no evidence is missing the point" is flat out wrong because the point is all in "is there evidence for it?" If you want to talk about how important having evidence is or isn't do it in a thread about that.

Why care about people? They're just things.

I don’t believe you actually understand the whole notion of what I’m proposing, so I can understand why you would say that. People tend to reject things they don’t understand – some more acrimoniously than others.A lot of people keep rejecting what I've been saying but I try not to treat them like they don't understand it out of respect.

Now, when instead of rejecting it they just discard it that's a different story but you know~

n_n

How so? We seem to agree that solipsism doesn't have any problem with there being other people in an illusion.