The Merchant Exchange

[FlameFlash]

Archaic rambled this...
After that, all I can say is that you seem to have paid a bit of attention in Latin Class (Even if you did end up misapplying Ad Hominem slightly), but the rest is the same old debating fallicies I hear everywhere. Appealing to peoples emotions is a nice trick (And easy to pull when your opponent is someone as completly unashamed about being a bastard as I am), but it hardly makes your points more valid. Justify them next time and I might start to take you seriously, but until then I'll just add your name to the list of morons. If you have a problem with that, take a ticket and get in line. I'll listen to your opinions when you try to back them up with facts instead of Ad Hominem attacks.

If it wasn't for the fact that you don't mind being a "bastard" as you put it you'd probably care that the approach you use in debating with people greatly alienates you from your actual point.

I don't care how much you claim logic as your main weapon, but human beings are also emotional beings and therefore you have to appeal to both successfully to win an arguement.

You're doing quite well with the whole logic bit, if you weren't being a "bastard" I'd say you were winning, but since you've yet to win over any support from what I've read, and constantly just drum up more anti-archaic sentiments, no matter if they are justified logically or not, your arguement falls for the human failing of not wanting to agree with the bad guy.

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you chose another term than calling yourself a "fatherless child" unless you technically are... there are some of us around here who may resent the misuse of the term.

Also Archaic... with your constant references to Vel's guide I've only got one thing to say: it's a bloody game! Play it! Make up your own strategies and stop trying to say that other's strategies can't work because they haven't been published anywhere.

I also find it interesting that you're holding Pandemoniak as the sole voice of the CDC... I find it rather disconcerting actually... especially in view of the fact that it should be well known that you and Pandemoniak have yet to see eye-to-eye anything (if my memory holds true).

And maniac, TKG... you can voice disclaimers till the cows come home... but since you're not going right out and disagreeing with Archaic I still view him as stating his opinions as a member of your party, and therefore as a representative of it.

TKG, thank you, however, on your pointing out that not all CDC is CCCP... it just so happens that we work better together and don't try to undermine the coalition by making comments that can be construed as official comments from the coalition.

[Method]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
And maniac, TKG... you can voice disclaimers till the cows come home... but since you're not going right out and disagreeing with Archaic I still view him as stating his opinions as a member of your party, and therefore as a representative of it.

Why? just because i'm not disagreeing with archaic doesn't mean i support what he's saying, and there's no need for me or anyone else in P4 to be held responsible for what archaic says, especially if its giving my party a bad name. in fact i've been *trying* to stay out of this as much as i could...*sigh* so much...

[FlameFlash]

instead of a disclaimer, posting a censure (sp?) would better get the point across to me that his statements against CDC are his alone... or is there a P4 party thread you could point me toward that lists all official stances?

It's just taken me a little while to even notice who else, besides Archaic, is in the P4 since the rest of you aren't as vocal platform (or should I say, anti-other party platform) as Archaic.

[Method]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
instead of a disclaimer, posting a censure (sp?) would better get the point across to me that his statements against CDC are his alone... or is there a P4 party thread you could point me toward that lists all official stances?

the P4 party thread's first post (though not up-to-date) is good, but includes the part about PBs and punishment spheres (which i don't necessarily agree on ) and the same post is in the party member list thread.

[FlameFlash]

Thanks, TKG... I've subbed to iy and begun reading through it now.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by TKG
while i don't necessarily argree with pandemoniak's terraforming and base spacing strategies either, that does not mean that his views are shared by everyone in the CDC, and there's no need to attack them. if you have a problem with pandemoniak, go talk to him.

*this views expressed in this thread do not necessarily reflect those of the P4, or its members*

Is that to me or Archaic? I suppose Archaic...

[Archaic]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
If it wasn't for the fact that you don't mind being a "bastard" as you put it you'd probably care that the approach you use in debating with people greatly alienates you from your actual point.

I don't care how much you claim logic as your main weapon, but human beings are also emotional beings and therefore you have to appeal to both successfully to win an arguement.

You're doing quite well with the whole logic bit, if you weren't being a "bastard" I'd say you were winning, but since you've yet to win over any support from what I've read, and constantly just drum up more anti-archaic sentiments, no matter if they are justified logically or not, your arguement falls for the human failing of not wanting to agree with the bad guy.

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you chose another term than calling yourself a "fatherless child" unless you technically are... there are some of us around here who may resent the misuse of the term.

Also Archaic... with your constant references to Vel's guide I've only got one thing to say: it's a bloody game! Play it! Make up your own strategies and stop trying to say that other's strategies can't work because they haven't been published anywhere.

I also find it interesting that you're holding Pandemoniak as the sole voice of the CDC... I find it rather disconcerting actually... especially in view of the fact that it should be well known that you and Pandemoniak have yet to see eye-to-eye anything (if my memory holds true).

Apologies gentlemen, but I'm going to have to to reply to this.

First, kindly explain how being a bastard "greatly alienates" me from my point. Yes, it greatly alienates me from the public, but that's rather beside the point.

Humans being logical and emotional is also beside the point. You can easily win an arguement by appealing to emotion, yet still be completly and utterly wrong. I'd point you to those still hanging onto Marx's beliefs or onto young earth creationism as examples of this. Neither of those sides is right, but both constantly win their arguements by appealing to emotion alone. I direct you to the following link for an explanation of the fallacy of Appeal to Emotion.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

As for not supporting the "bad guy"...
Appeal to Popularity - http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...opularity.html
Appeal to Spite - http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-to-spite.html
Both are complete fallacies. The way I present my arguements or the feelings they evoke in people has no effect on the validity of the arguements.

Given that the term "Bastard" is hardly used for its correct definition anymore and is instead used as a term of insult, I highly doubt anyone would take offence to my use of it in this manner. Given also that my parents are divorced and that I am rather estranged from my father, the term is also semi-fitting in any case.

Yes, it is a game. A game which, when I play, I play to win. Yes, I can make up my own strategies, and I do so, and test them in a proper game, whenever I think I've found a better formula. Vel's guide I regard as being a very good guide to strategies for this game, and one which can be read and understood by most anyone who isn't a complete newbie. Yes, it could use a glossary to explain certain terms, and that'd make it much more accessable to people who might not have been playing on the net for a while, but that's nitpicking, because it's to the intermediate to advanced players that the guide is aimed at anyway.

I do not hold Pandemoniak as the sole voice of CDC anymore than people should consider me the sole voice of P4. He's just been rather vocal, and in doing so, has said a lot of things that I disagree with.

Originally posted by FlameFlash
It's just taken me a little while to even notice who else, besides Archaic, is in the P4 since the rest of you aren't as vocal platform (or should I say, anti-other party platform) as Archaic.

I'd like to correct this statement that I'm "Anti-other party". I'm not. What I'm opposed to is the views certain members of other parties, most prominently Pandemoniak, have voiced, the actions they've proposed, and the ramifications of those actions if they were carried out.



Anyway, now that's sorted out, how's everyone like my new sig? ^_~

[Nubclear]

*Sigh* I hope your not going to be running for any other offices in the future, Archaic....

And yes, it is completly true that you must appeal to both the human side of a person was well as the logical side in order to win (convince the person of your views) a debate. Otherwise, even if your arguement IS correct, you can't win. That's just how humans are.

[Archaic]

Sorry to dash your hopes then. I'll be going for Director of SE again for at least next term and the term after that.

As for the convincing someone that an arguement is correct, it's not always necessary to appeal to emotions, and indeed, it shouldn't be considered necessary to. Rational people who are fully aware of the problem and able to understand the issues should be able be convinced of the truth of a correct arguement just by its logic, regardless of how they feel towards it.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Archaic
Sorry to dash your hopes then. I'll be going for Director of SE again for at least next term and the term after that.

Oh ok.

As for the convincing someone that an arguement is correct, it's not always necessary to appeal to emotions, and indeed, it shouldn't be considered necessary to. Rational people who are fully aware of the problem and able to understand the issues should be able be convinced of the truth of a correct arguement just by its logic, regardless of how they feel towards it.

But if you act like a........about it, then (well, most humans anyway) will probably not accept your views even if they are correct. So in order for you to change their mind, you have to get in touch with logic and emotion.

[Archaic]

It shouldn't matter in the end. If a person has to Appeal to Emotion to win, they've already lost the debate, and any rational, analytical person should be able to see that.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Archaic
It shouldn't matter in the end. If a person has to Appeal to Emotion to win, they've already lost the debate, and any rational, analytical person should be able to see that.

I'm not talking about the person giving out the arguement (whether it be logical or not), i'm talking about the person recieving the arguement. If you come off as a total.........then the person you are trying to convince probably wont be convinced, even if you are correct.

But this will probably boil down to a "I'm right, your wrong" debate, so I suggest we put this aside...Agreed?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
It shouldn't matter in the end. If a person has to Appeal to Emotion to win, they've already lost the debate, and any rational, analytical person should be able to see that.

I suggest you call yourself Archai-Zeta Second, Primitive Function, merge with a computer, leave the UN PK and join the Cyborgs.

[Archaic]

And I suggest you call yourself Unskilled Labourer Pan, strip down to a pair of coveralls that don't quite coverall, leave the UN PK, and join the Drones.

[DeathByTheSword]

to many LONG posts to read right know Maybe someother time