I think the thumbs down option is quite ridiculous. I have noticed that the thumbs down count is mainly determined by how emotional someone is to what it is they are thumbing down, regardless of if it's right or not.
I think that the thumbs down option should only be allowed if there is a reason offered behind giving a thumbs down, that way it is explained why the person got a thumbs down and would become obvious if they are thumbing down due to logical thinking, or emotional reasons.
What do you think? Do you think that thumbing comments down shouldn't be allowed without a given reason to promote logical thinking on this site?
I think that the thumbs down option should only be allowed if there is a reason offered behind giving a thumbs down, that way it is explained why the person got a thumbs down and would become obvious if they are thumbing down due to logical thinking, or emotional reasons.
What do you think? Do you think that thumbing comments down shouldn't be allowed without a given reason to promote logical thinking on this site?
And personally, I find it distasteful and unhelpful when someone feels the need to further their crusade on a topic that has little warrant for that. And that's my opinion. Call me emotional all you want, but if I were a little less lax about my own morality I'd almost find it amusing that you spend as much time complaining about how emotional we are than you do with being frustrated about being thumbsed down.
Why don't I explain it on my posts? To put it the way you did, I don't have the motivation to. Like I probably wont have the motivation to respond to you becoming irritated and posting me six paragraphs as to why I'm an overly emotional and illogical curse upon humanity.
If I didn't have the Joker locked so tightly away in Arkham Asylum, believe me, good citizen of Gotham, you wouldn't be able to get rid of him. But you're safe, because Batman is watching over you.
You're saying how I should get a thumbs down because I am not sticking to topic and go on to the gender topic, yet people have done that all the time with different subjects, bringing up things that aren't a part of the subject, and have had thumbs up. For example, your whole comment was more so aimed at me than the subject, and you will most likely get a thumbs up. See how that goes? Because it doesn't matter if the person sticks on topic, it matters if they agree or not, and simply because I state something that you don't agree with me on, you see it as a good example for your point.
Yes, I noticed just there, but those just prove my point even more so, that the thumbs options are more so for emotional reasons than logical. "They" find it distasteful...Why? Explain. Is it distasteful because of reason or just because you don't like what was said? That is exactly my point.
People can complain due to lack of logic. Am I saying I'm emotionless? No, ofcourse I have emotions, but I don't let my emotions cloud the logic I use to explain the reasons that lead to me being irritated.
You seem to have the motivation to comment here on the matter, yet don't have the motivation to back up what it is you say? That's my problem. I don't do that. I don't start something and then use the "I lost motivation" card when it comes to explain my point and why it's truth.
If you're not answering the question or giving actual advice pertaining to the topic, then you are being unhelpful. Is it helpful to give someone a tire iron when they ask you for toilet paper? A tire iron, like your version of the "truth" is a useful tool, but not when you need to wipe your ass... I hope.
"You seem to have the motivation to comment here on the matter, yet don't have the motivation to back up what it is you say?"
Let me explain. I don't care whether or not you like me. I don't care whether or not I get a million thumbs downs for this, I don't even care whether or not you find me illogical. I don't even care that you once mocked academic-based logic and now you wish that we all follow your personal logic. I'm at work and I'm bored. If you want to be pissed at someone, be pissed at my boss for not giving me enough to do.
I post a comment. Sometimes I feel like debating the point. And sometimes I don't. I'm not here to further an agenda. I was merely explaining why I thumbs you down. I wasn't talking about why I thumbs anyone else down, but believe me, I don't single you out. I wish I had the spare time to spend hours on the computer locked in heated internet debates, but I'm just not interested. I come here to give my advice
I have nothing against you, I like you. I just kind of wish that you'd loosen up. There's really no need to get upset about a few clicks on a button, unless that button is delivering electric shocks to your nipples. If that's what the thumbs down button is doing then please, for the love of God, Allah, Jehovah, Darwin, or whatever the hell you think created the Earth, call the cops.
I can't say I understand the tire iron part, so if it's a main part in this discussion, could you explain it?
I once mocked academic-based logic? If you're speaking about Thinkingaboutit, I am going to have to smack you over the head with a dictionary. But do tell me where I mocked academic based logic.
And if that advice is challenged? As in said it isn't good advice? Would you not debate why it is good advice in order for the person the advice is aimed at to have advice?
As for the nipples part...You know too much.
That's a problem. We are talking about the large possibility that the people that come here have no idea who you are or what you're trying to stand for. To them, it's not about you speaking on a subject that you're passionate about, you're ranting about how women always get it better and within those posts, there doesn't seem to be actual advice.
Now if your goal is "hear ye, hear ye, let all the people know how I feel about gender relations" then... well just don't read the rest please. In this case, you're on the wrong website and I would suggest starting a blog or going to a forum rather than an advice website =/
You have to bluntly state it, because not everyone picks up on implied advice, and they shouldn't have to. They ask for straightforward advice (in most cases) and you're giving them implicit instructions in a manner in which appears to a stranger as ranting and I don't feel that it is reasonable to expect the OP to "read between the lines" because you want to share your agenda.
"I can't say I understand the tire iron part, so if it's a main part in this discussion, could you explain it?"
It was a metaphor. A tire iron is a useful tool, but when a person is coming here and asking for toilet paper, you are often giving them tire irons. They come and ask for advice, and you give them, for lack of better words, a piece of your mind regarding gender relations. You speak of good concepts, but many of them are coming here for advice, not to hear about those concepts.
There are some posts in which your concepts are totally relevant, and some in which they are coming out of the left field and even I fail to understand how the topic warrants it, almost as if, and not to make accusations, you are inventing reasons to speak of this issue. When the purpose of the OP is to gain insight or to discuss such matters or to challenge ideals of gender roles and relations, your posts are most enlightening, but when the OP is simply asking for advice... well...
"And if that advice is challenged? As in said it isn't good advice? Would you not debate why it is good advice in order for the person the advice is aimed at to have advice?"
I honestly, don't have the spare time to debate the relevance of every irrelevant post that I see you make. So I'm doing it here. I am explaining to you that some of your posts are just incredibly abstract from the topic so that you may understand one reason as to why you are being thumbsed down. It's not special, it's not about you. I can't speak for anyone else. This is my case and I'm not pursuing it any further. You are an adult and I trust that you know what relevance is and how important it is to conducting a discussion and if you don't, I don't have the time to teach you. My apologies.
In any case, this site does not run on your parameters, it runs on the parameters of the site. I don't care that other have hurt your feelings or used it to tease you, but I am following the rules of this site. I do not take thumbsing down personally, it would be illogical to take anything here personally as no one here knows me personally. I thumbs it down, it does to the bottom, the OP reads the actual advice first. If it's a popularity contest that you are after, I assure you, I have no interest in enlarging my internet bawlz.
Also, I don't even believe women always get it better, so I don't know where that came from.
Ha! Are you kidding? I bluntly state it and people get offended rather than actually think about what I say, and so it is thumbed down, and therfor instead of it being a reasonable peice of advice, it is seen as bad advice because the other commenters get offended. If I have bad advice, explain why, but people don't, but the OP won't think like that, they'll see the thumbs up as the best advice, and the thumbs down as the worse, where as it could be reversed. The thumbs down one could be the most reasonable if you are being intelligent about it and using deductive logic, where as the top thumbed up can, and usually is, rainbows, grassy hills, bunny hopping, make you feel good, useless advice.
I know it was a metaphor, I just didn't understand the metaphor. Ok, I understand that. I guess you are right there, I do go off topic and don't give advice to the ones giving advice. But, alot of inputs here aren't questions for advice, atleast 40% of them are stories to open conversations on the matter.
Yes, I do that, and perhaps I should cut back on doing it. When I see something as a potential conversation starter for what the story brings up in my head, I sometimes see as it as an opportunity to make it a debating ground.
I wasn't just speaking about me on that subject. I was saying that if someone has advice, and someone else has another piece of advice that is opposite to the first person's advice, then wouldn't the rational thing be to challenge the other to see which one is the better advice, giving reasons, debating, etc?
___________________________________________
(Side note on our other discussion): You used the word illogical, in which you said using such words as logical and illogical is wrong in that manner.
"I wasn't just speaking about me on that subject. I was saying that if someone has advice, and someone else has another piece of advice that is opposite to the first person's advice, then wouldn't the rational thing be to challenge the other to see which one is the better advice, giving reasons, debating, etc?"
Maybe it seems rational to you, but some people just want advice. It's pure and simple and I really don't want to have to keep explaining it.
If the OP wants advice, give them advice. Not implicit advice, not an invitation for a debate, just answer their question. If they are looking for insight, give them your insight. But if they come here looking for advice, and you post a comment that is not in keeping with what the OP is looking for, I thumbs it down, just as I do to everyone.
I don't care about whether or not people get offended by what you say. I don't care if everyone fucking hates you and wants to parade your head down the street on a stick. I explained my point to help you see that not everyone is thumbsing you down for personal matters and I, personally, am not interested having to remind you that you are not being relevant. That's not my job.
"atleast 40% of them are stories to open conversations on the matter."
And the other 60% are not, and for the percentage in which it would be irrelevant for you to post your debate pulls, I thumbs you down. It's not because I'm a whiny, over-emotional little whore that doesn't want to address all of your points. While I don't disapprove of your debate style, you riddle your comments with many separate points and when I try to address a few I am either on the money or "Then when you avoided answering my questions by focusing on the words used rather than the point being made". I am not going to sift through this.
If you don't like it, then I'm sorry that I don't fit your established parameters, but this site isn't all about debate, it isn't all about intellectual enrichment even though you'd like it to be. Much of it is about giving advice and telling people whether or not their problems are normal, and when you fail to do that when the situation warrants it, I thumbs you down.
And if I post an unhelpful comment, then you have every right to thumbs me down. It won't stop me from posting them anymore than my thumbsing you down will stop you from posting them and that's not not my goal.
Well that becomes apparant what one is rational if the reasons are un countered and unable to be countered.
I think you misunderstood a bit of what I meant. I mean if two people are giving two different types of advice to the OP, the two pieces of advice are completely different. So which one has more actual rational advice than the other? When that is debated and figured out, the OP gets the best type of advice.
You're not understanding what it is I'm saying, and it's me having to explain it to you. Yes, my rational thinking may not seem rational to the other, which is why we debate about what it is we think we're being rational about. If the other can't counter the main points you're making, then that shows you were the one being moreso rational.
Yes, and not all of those 60% have me involving the gender issue, so...
And I don't know why you added whore in to that self exlplanation of what you imply I think of people.
Yes, because I expect people to answer the point made instead of using methods to ignore it by addressing another matter. I don't do that to you when I think I can't answer something, for example, I just said you were right last reply here.
...You seem to be using the word parameteres alot today...Just a side note.
I agree, I would like it to be that way, and you're right, it isn't that way.
And once again, I understand the way that you think it should be, but it's not about you and the way you think it should be. It is about the purpose of some of the stories on this site, which is to gain advice, and when I see you thinking that you're at Burger King and you can have it your way, then I thumbs you down.
That's all there is to what I am saying.
In the future, if there are to many points that you don't want to answer, tell me, and I'll reply with the main ones that I think need to be answered.
The second part, you have said about three times now, and I agreed the first time. When people are looking for advice, I need to tone down trying to debate and stick to giving advice on the ones that are seking advice.
I liked that burger king part.
It encourages groupthink and discourages others from holding unpopular opinions which isn't good as we need differing perspectives in order to keep innovative thinking alive and well.
The thumb up feature should only exist in the form of a "Liked" feature. In other words, if you get 10 thumbs or so on your post then it would get a border around it (similar to TheMan's user name) which says "Liked" or "Highly Rated".
If you are able to thumbs up you should be able to thumbs down,too. Don't get overly emotional about being thumbed down. Sometimes I wonder why certain people are downed, but usually I don't care, even if it's me. It separates the agreeable posts from the controversial ones, so you don't have to read all the in-betweens if you don't want to.
OP, I understand the desire for one to wish to promote logical thinking on this website, but who is going to define this logical thinking? Are we going to pull it from actual academia logic or someone's own personal logic? Or maybe the logic that YOU deem correct? Should we discourage all modes of thought that you don't like? Set rules as to what someone can and can't say? Moderate the site to fit your own personal preferences? Or ensure that nobody's feelings get hurt? Because you know what's best for us, right?
You're talking about promoting logic, and bashing "emotion" yet many of your posts are in dedication to you being frustrated by the opinions of others. Face it, Spock, you're still half human.
I never said people can't say what they want to say, they can say whatever they want, aslong as they say it so the person it's aimed to can read it, agree to it, or dissagree to it and counter it.
I am human, fully. I am not emotionless. Yes, I get irritated, but I get irritated when someone isn't being logical, not when I'm being proven wrong. I only get irritated when people are refusing to accept logic, they can't offer, and think saying "You're wrong, you're stupid" etc without giving reasons why. When I get irritated, I don't make my emotion overshadow by logic, my logic still takes the helm, and I have a little of emotion added. I'd say something like "Oh my God, shut up, will you, idiot" then explain why I have said that.
You get irritated when people don't abide by your personal sense of logic? And they should be able to say what they want to say but only if it fits your parameters, ie. Your logic.
And it is ok for you to be emotional, but when others do it and they are not abiding by your parameters whilst doing it (ie. Displaying emotion and your personal sense of logic) then they are in the wrong? But they are also wrong for being upset about you not abiding by their particular parameters?
If you wish a community that abides by your parameters and does not communicate with you unless done so by your parameters to save you frustration then start a website and form the regulations base from your parameters, in this manner, those who do not abide by your parameters, which are, of course, the only correct ones according to you, can be banned. Then again, I never quite liked the "my way or the highway " approach so pardon my bias.
I can't stand your half-breed logic sometimes, Spock. Sometimes I swear you're not even Vulcan.
What are you talking about? I clearly stated that if I'm emotional, I explain why due to the logic I show after it. I have never said they can't be emotional at all, I have said that they need to be more logical. If they say something lead by emotion, that's fine, aslong as it is backed up to why what made them emotional is wrong with logic. In short, aslong as the emotion doesn't shadow over their logic, there's nothing wrong with it.
You are actually being illogical here, most of what you have said are things you have not understood.
So tell me. In your words and opinion, what makes someone logical in debates?
Is it not logical to explain why you view something as wrong so that you can debate on if it is wrong or not so your intelligence on the matter grows? Is that not logical? If you are saying that my idea of logic, which is to explain your points of why you dissagree to come to a conclusion that shows both debaters what is right, is logic only customed to me, then why on Earth would I say anyone else is being logical, including you on the matter, if you think that type of logic isn't logical?
Once again, I have been proven wrong by many people, so it's not the case of "I'm right, my opinion is right". Please read over what it is you're rpelying to before replying, because your whole reply has been nothing but misunderstandings that wouldn;t of happened if you took time to read over what was said.
P.s Live long and prosper.
" (in which I think you took from my reply to Thinkingaboutit) "
confuses me. I really don't know what the hell you are talking about. I am sincerely lost and I don't know whether or not you're insulting me or trying to imply that I am cyber-stalking you.
"So tell me. In your words and opinion, what makes someone logical in debates?"
It is not my opinions! Logic is not an opinion! An opinion can be logical, but logic is not a matter of someone's opinion, there are actual rules and actual methods of academia to logic, not only verbal and debate logic but Mathematic logic as well.
I implore you, google it, google "the study of logic" and please, see that logic is not exactly a personal thing. The closest logic gets to being relative to opinion is inductive logic but you have google and two hands, you may look it up.
You keep talking about opinion, your way, the way you want to do things and your logic but logic isn't about you, it isn't about your preferences, it isn't about your beliefs, it isn't about vaginas or penises or whether or not yours is bigger than mine. It is a proud field of academia and you are taking it's name and applying to your endeavors!
"If you are saying that my idea of logic, which is to explain your points of why you dissagree to come to a conclusion that shows both debaters what is right, is logic only customed to me, then why on Earth would I say anyone else is being logical, including you on the matter, if you think that type of logic isn't logical?"
The answer is simple. Because you have a certain idea of what logic really is, and when someone fits that ideal of how you feel logic is, then you believe that they are logical. You say debate what is "right" and what is "truth", and then you say that you debate what is "logical", but those three do not always fall into the same parameters, especially in regards to your opinion of what it "right".
The last time I mentioned anything about actual academic logic, you balked. I'm not going to argue about it this time. The information is out there. It's not a matter of personal preference and until you see it and study it for yourself, you will realize not why it frustrates me that people use the word "logic" like a hacky sack of this website, to describe their own methods of problem solving rather than actual logic.
I'm half expecting you to come back at me debating why textbook logic is not actual logic. I'm going to leave it at that. If you do not wish to understand MY version of logic, the version that has been honed over the course of centuries, well then, your loss. It is a very enriching study.
Nevermind about the Thinkingaboutit part.
Yes, which is why I specificly asked you what makes someone logical "in debates".
Ok, in a fact matter, what makes someone a logical debater.
You completely avoided answering it. What is the "intelligent" way to debate, then? Unless you are going to flip flop away from answering it due to how I say it, make it seem said in any way you want that would make you give an explanation in which is the correct and right way to debate and prove what it is you're debating.
You and I both know that you have used logic as a word I have used it in here. I remember you discussing it with another user a while ago, then it was either in the same story or a different one that day, said something that contradicted what it is you are saying here that you said to the other user back then. I was compelled to bring you up on it back then, but I decided not to.
You have done it aswell, you have insulted someone on their logic and said what is logical before aswell, so don't act as if you haven't. You know what is meant when I say it, so focus more on what is being meant than the words used.
So, I am wrong for thinking that if someone is being illogical by going by not going by the necessary actions to make the activity function correctly? SO I guess the opposite is being logical? You clearly st ated that logic is not customed to preferences, yet imply that I have different logic to others, which is why people don't fit in with that logic? What are you even saying?
Again, you have used the word logic in the same manner I have, so don't act like you haven't.
Explain to me, what is "logic", then? Because there are different types of logic, not just one. For example deductive logic and inductive logic.
Again, you basically showed yourself wrong, because there is not just "one" form of logic, as I clearly just showed by deductive and inductive logic, and you're saying if I don't accept what it was you just said that I showed wrong, then it's my loss?
Then when you avoided answering my questions by focusing on the words used rather than the point being made, you say "I don't want to comment again". This is exactly my point.
So explain to me what this "turthful" logic is, what logic really is. I would also like links to sources of where this is proven to be the only logic in which you explain.
"Ok, in a fact matter, what makes someone a logical debater.
You completely avoided answering it. What is the "intelligent" way to debate, then? Unless you are going to flip flop away from answering it due to how I say it, make it seem said in any way you want that would make you give an explanation in which is the correct and right way to debate and prove what it is you're debating."
Forgive me for my apathy, but your posts lack any established brevity and your questions are interspersed within them and to be quite honest with you, I just don't care enough to comb through your posts and spend half an hour here answering every question.
Logic is a study of academia and I told you to google it. I am not your teacher, I am not your friend, I am not your personal tutor. If you are interested in logic then look it up for yourself because it is as valid of a subject as any other subject of debate. You seem to have lost sight of my argument.
Your debate style is not solely based on logic. It is based off of a unique mix of logic, emotion and rationale.
If you wish to argue this, then tell me how it is logical to tell me to cut my hands off so that you don't have to read my posts.
There is an established study of logic.
http://www.answers.com/topic/logic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logic?s=t
The debate style that you speak of yourself having is not solely based on established and studied logical parameters, so to say that you are being logical, completely and totally logical, is an inaccurate judgement. Unless "Oh my God shut the fuck up" is a logical statement. But it is not.
You admit in previous posts that there is some emotion to the way you debate, therefore, it is not a totally logical style of debate. It may have logical principles and it may be a good debate style, but it is not a 100% logical debate, and I don't see it as logical to believe that everyone should abide by your debate styles if they have an element of emotion to them. Henceforth, they are not completely logical, they are your parameters as they have an element of your personalization.
My conclusion of this thesis is that because your arguments are not 100% logical, because you do have a degree of emotional investment in your arguments and many of them are unique to you, I don't feel that I should be subjected to what you feel is right, the key word being feel because as long as there is emotional investment in it, it will not be fully logical.
You can judge us by your standards, that is fine. You can debate the way you want to, I'm not going to say that is is any more or less intelligent than anyone else's, but I don't feel that everybody on this website should be subject to your parameters.
And no, I don't live by the academic logic that I study 100% of the time, which is why I'm not the one posting a story about how I am upset for people not following my beliefs and what I feel is intelligent and reasonable.
Logic is an actual study of academia. It is not subject to preference. Your debate style does not abide by those established parameters 100% of the time, thus making it a personal debate style as you exert your personal influence into it.
"So explain to me what this "turthful" logic is, what logic really is. I would also like links to sources of where this is proven to be the only logic in which you explain."
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ALogic%20-%20Textbooks.&page=1" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283155%2...</a>
<a href="http://www.helium.com/items/455702-the-benefits-of-studying-logic-in-college" rel="nofollow">http://www.helium.com/items/455702-the-benefits...</a>
<a href="http://classes.skepdic.com/logic.html" rel="nofollow">http://classes.skepdic.com/logic.html</a>
<a href="http://oli.cmu.edu/courses/free-open/logic-proofs-coruse-details/" rel="nofollow">http://oli.cmu.edu/courses/free-open/logic-proo...</a>
<a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/" rel="nofollow">http://www.logicalfallacies.info/</a>
I never thought that I would have to prove to anyone that logic is an actual academia, but here you go. The links that I have posted are just a very small fraction of sources that back up my point. Which is that logic is not subject to personal preference. There are rules.
Math is also a logical subject, but I don't know where to begin to start with posting links.
Someone is talking about a cat. They are saying cats have two legs, the other is frustrated and says they have four. It comes to the point that they are saying "Oh my fucking God, look!" and shows them a cat (obviously with four legs). The have shown they four legs, being completely logical, with emotion tied in. Are you implying that if someone is emotional at all, they can never achieve 100% logical thinking?
...I don't see how those links show me to be any less logical. They mainly explain logic to be a way of reasoning, which is what I do, I reason with the information I give out, giving reason to suggest why someone is wrong and I'm right.
This part interested me aswell. "a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic." that suggests that just because someone couldn't understand, that doesn't make it any less logical. Didn't you say that people may not agree with my method of logic? So by that quote, wouldn't that not change the fact that I may still be logical?
This bit aswell "the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study."...Logic in debating? That is what I express to people, that their logic is terible in the way they debate, by being emotional more than being logical "showing their knowledge with the branch of the topic".
I would go on to the other points, but hopefully you get my point.
Again, I don't see how someone can't be 100% logical if it has a bit of emotion in it. People don't like murder, and if there is a murder they could be emotional about it, does that make them less logical to explain how society deems murder wrong unless done in a way that is justified?
How does emotion lower logic, unless the emotion overshadows the logic? I don't agree with that at all.
You keep saying that word...
There are problems with my email messanger, so I can't click on those links. Perhaps if you have IIN Gold messaging them to my inbox would make them work?
Math is logical, but what if someone is being emotional about it? What if someone was, let's say, happy about getting a math question thrown at them, they answer it correctly. Does their happiness (emotion) make their correct math answer any less logical, given that you said emotion lowers the percentage of logic?
"http://www.logicalfallacies.info"
"http://oli.cmu.edu/courses/free-open/logic-proofs-coruse-details"
"http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&amp;rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ALogic%20-%20Textbooks.&amp;page=1" rel="nofollow"
If you do not wish to accept it, then I will waste not more time trying to argue with you.
The case you explain to me (" "Oh my fucking God, look!"" in regards to showing me the cat), was nothing like the instances in which you have used emotions to make a point to me. You did not show me the cat, you showed me nothing but more words. Yes, showing someone that a cat has four legs to prove to them that the cat has four legs is logical but what is not logical is comparing an argument over theoretical concept with showing me a physical manifestation of an animal. What is your argument with this animal? Are we arguing about animals now? I'm lost.
Is this meant to prove to me, somehow, that "Oh my god, shut the fuck up" and "cut your hands off so I don't have to read your posts" are logical statements, or in any way a logical way of debating? If describing yourself putting your hands in your head and calling me stupid a logical way of debate? Because if so, then it is not any logic that I have ever heard of in my country.
You can be emotional, and you can think using logic as a premise for your thought, but I should not have to accommodate you if you wish to mix logic and emotion in a style of debate when the only thing that I have knowledge of is the study of logic and I do not have knowledge of your specific emotional parameters nor should I have to worry about whether or not you believe that I am being "emotional" with my judgement.
You have made logic into something that is personal to you. You deny the validity of logic as an academic subject and expect me to explain to you something that is academically fundamental.
"Didn't you say that people may not agree with my method of logic?"
Yes, people may not agree with your personal sense of logic. But when it comes to the established parameters of logic, whether they agree or disagree is does not matter, and if you refuse to acknowledge something that I have provided you proof of being an actual academic subject, if you refuse to google it to see that it as just as much a subject with established principles as science and you refuse to believe that you can't have a completely logical debate when your emotions are getting in the way, and if you refuse the concept of logic being more than YOUR method of reasoning and YOUR method of induction then all I have to wonder if how you can call others emotional and unreasonable yet you won't even accept the basic principles of logic itself.
Curious, but not surprising. I guess you should stay in school.
You missed the point of the example. I was not saying that as in an example of what "I" was doing, I was using it as an example that if someone is emotional, they can still be logical, in which beforehand you said they can't be 100% logical if at all emotional. I was not comparing our arguments, it was a counter point to the "You can't be 100% logical if you're emotional aswell".
No, those "parts" may not be logical, that doesn't mean that the next part explaining why that made me have such an emotion isn't correct, does it? Like the cat example. He got irritated, angry, and expressed his anger by saying "Oh my God Shut up", then was completely logical in their point by showing the cat.
You also are throwing mellow insults aswell, is that logical? "Curious, but not surprising. I guess you should stay in school." You could say "Well that's my true opinion", in which what if I replied "That is my true opinion, that you should shut up"?
It is obvious that I have misunderstood what I was basing as logic. I thought logic equaled to intelligence in reasoning. I was wrong there.
Just like you didn't know this during this year due to you using the word logic in the way I have previously, I have been shown what it is.
So now that you have explained that, we come to the conclusion that I misunderstood a word, and so will change it to a more better explanation to what I thought the word logic was.
And once again, I am not arguing that I use logic in my arguments or that I am logical. I am not making that claim.
I did not insult you. I find it curious that you are just now being informed as to what Logic is but I don't find it unusual that you have yet to be informed. If you stay in school, eventually you will come across the opportunity to be taught logic by a professor in a formal environment, not some country bumpkin hopped up on painkillers at the moment. You deserve better than that. And I mean that sincerely.
I have a grasp upon the subject, yes, by I am by no means qualified to teach you. If you have an interest in logic, which you obviously do, then maybe you should stay in school. If you find it insulting then I must apologize but it wasn't meant that way.
Edit: I DID IT!
Another Edit :DAMN IT WHAT HAPPENED?
Maybe a mouse over with names would encourage accountability but it would also take away anonymity which is a big thing for a lot of people.
I agree that the system is misused though. I really only use it if I strongly disagreewith a comment. A slight disagreement isn't enough to merit more than neutrality to me.
Anyway, I think that people should only use the thumbs down option when something is offensive or something along those lines. I don't like people who thumbs down for the sake of it, like just because everyone else has, or because they don't like the user. Actually, recently I've been thinking that someone here is thumbsing down my comments. I think I might have a hater:O! If so, reveal yourself, you fiend:P!