PDA

View Full Version : Vs Threads: Popularity Contests or Endless Debate?



Bago!!!
2008-06-15, 04:17 PM
Okay, I have nto been apart of too many vs thread debates, but one of them had been a MASSIVE thread and few people were willing to give up. I participated from the beginning and then I got bored of it in the middle then brought it back up because I completely and totally disagreed with the outcome of it.

I don't want to bring up AGAIN the topic just yet (need to wait a bit more beofre that), but I must know what people think of this!

Is a Vs thread a popularity contest? Is it just a debate that could last till the end of time if both sides refuse to give in? Do the number of people on each side even matter?



To all those who know what topic I am refering to, please don't argue just yet. Wait till WotLK comes out.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-15, 04:28 PM
Well looking at things like Link V. Sephi, Sauron v. Lich King, SM v.....everything on gods green earth. I think they are debate. Its when the absolutly idiotic or pointless ones come around that they turn into popularity contests.

EvilElitest
2008-06-15, 09:29 PM
1) Please be open about the thread your referring too
2) Vs. threads are by nature debates, not popularity contest. let me give an example

Once i did a thread called Sora vs. link. And i made the mistake of including a poll. Which was very bad of me, but the poll was more of a joke. I included Sora, link, and link's hate. Link got 50 votes, Sora 23, link's hat 25.

does that logically that link's hat could kick Sora's ass? No.

Vs. threads are like any other thread, they are a matter of logic. Like any other sort of thread, you can't just get a mass of people to say something is right and expect it to make a difference. If a billion people insist that the world is flat, is it flat? no



from
EE

Bago!!!
2008-06-15, 09:47 PM
But that was a joke poll. Those 25 voted for links hate because they got a good laugh out of it. Heck, I'd vote for the hat.:smallamused:

And if I am open about the thread I am talkign about, it will reign hell fire and ice. The flames still flicker! FLICKER I SAY!!!!

And if its a fight of logic, then whos logic wins? It is true that there are universal logics, but how I view one thing could be completely different than another's view on the same thing. To win a debate, you must convince the opposing side to agree with your view, but some are not always convinced as that. Does logic work against the pigheaded?



To Innis Cabal, when does a Vs. thread become a pointless thread? Does it start out pointless?

EvilElitest
2008-06-15, 09:56 PM
But that was a joke poll. Those 25 voted for links hate because they got a good laugh out of it. Heck, I'd vote for the hat.:smallamused:

But it wasn't a joke thread. The thread wasn't intended to be a joke thread, i was trying to prove taht Link beat Sora. However it boiled down to a popularity contest, never mind that link could defeat Sora and his hat without a problem


And if I am open about the thread I am talkign about, it will reign hell fire and ice. The flames still flicker! FLICKER I SAY!!!!

you should read hte Link vs. seph thread


And if its a fight of logic, then whos logic wins? It is true that there are universal logics, but how I view one thing could be completely different than another's view on the same thing. To win a debate, you must convince the opposing side to agree with your view, but some are not always convinced as that. Does logic work against the pigheaded?

The same way real debates work, with ever side's argument is more faulty. In link vs. seph, nobody could logically counter the amount of cheese link could produce. in sauron vs. voldemort, Sauron one because it was better argued because Voldemort had to many holes in his story



To Innis Cabal, when does a Vs. thread become a pointless thread? Does it start out pointless?

Sauron vs. Jesus
from
EE

Xuincherguixe
2008-06-15, 11:00 PM
There should be a Popularity Contests vs Endless Debate thread.

Eldan
2008-06-16, 01:44 AM
Popularity Contest, Endless Debate or Popularity's hat?

Closet_Skeleton
2008-06-16, 04:47 AM
How about "pointless nonsense that clutters up the forum"?

poleboy
2008-06-16, 05:45 AM
1)
Vs. threads are like any other thread, they are a matter of logic.

I don't agree. Most Vs. threads feature people or creatures that defy the kind of logic you can apply to the real world. It's a matter of opinion, where some people apply normal logic to things or events that are not normal, some people invent new rules of physics (or whatever) that seem to fit the setting to support their argument, while others simply state opinion. You can't win a vs. thread in the same way that you could win i.e. an argument about nuclear physics, because no one plays by the same basic rules. The best you can hope for is some sort of consensus through majority, such as a poll about hats.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-16, 06:30 AM
It depends entirely on the thread.

If it involves LotR it almost always devolves into a popularity contest. Generally fantasy makes for bad vs. threads because there is very little common ground.

Sci-Fi is generally better for debates and most of those threads have reached a conclusion (which is why they aren't posted anymore, we already did most of them).

Tengu
2008-06-16, 07:08 AM
Sci-Fi is generally better for debates and most of those threads have reached a conclusion (which is why they aren't posted anymore, we already did most of them).

With the exception of WH40K. Each and every WH40K vs thread quickly devolves into Warhammer fanboys versus the rest of the world argument.

bosssmiley
2008-06-16, 07:31 AM
Anything which can't be objectively measured quantified and verified is essentially nothing more than a "Yay! vs Boo!" popularity contest.

Vs Threads, which ultimately come down to who has the larger and more persistent fanbase, are the reducto ad absurdum of this. :smalltongue:

Caracol
2008-06-16, 07:37 AM
Vs Threads are pointless. People start to talk about fictional powers, magic, technology and abilities like they actually exist. "A space marine could totally do it, because his plasma cannon..." Wake up, please. That plasma cannon don't exist. Amateur physics can tell you whatever you want, but if you don't give some actual datas you can't demonstrate anything.

And sadly, almost all the Vs threads degenerate in something like that. Psychological aspects, motivation and attitudes of the characters (and those are things you can talk about, since they resemble actual behaviours), istead, are completely ignored.


With the exception of WH40K. Each and every WH40K vs thread quickly devolves into Warhammer fanboys versus the rest of the world argument.

Quoted for truth. It's amazing how they are so secure about the effective power of a weapon that doesn't exist, and probably never will.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-16, 08:39 AM
With the exception of WH40K. Each and every WH40K vs thread quickly devolves into Warhammer fanboys versus the rest of the world argument.

Well not always. We used to have some pretty good Vs. threads with WH40K in them but most of the recent ones have been pretty crappy.

I still think one of the best Vs. threads these boards have had was the Team Genius Vs. IoM thread.

EvilElitest
2008-06-16, 08:51 AM
I don't agree. Most Vs. threads feature people or creatures that defy the kind of logic you can apply to the real world. It's a matter of opinion, where some people apply normal logic to things or events that are not normal, some people invent new rules of physics (or whatever) that seem to fit the setting to support their argument, while others simply state opinion. You can't win a vs. thread in the same way that you could win i.e. an argument about nuclear physics, because no one plays by the same basic rules. The best you can hope for is some sort of consensus through majority, such as a poll about hats.

No because you can win a vs. thread, by having a more logical conhersive argument. for example if we have Gollum vs. link, simple logic proves that link would win
from
EE

Artemician
2008-06-16, 09:17 AM
No, because you can win a vs. thread, by having a more logical conhersive argument. For example if we have Gollum vs. link, simple logic proves that link would win.

That's how it works in theory, practice is another matter entirely. There are situations where logic doesn't apply properly, like Author Fiat (the infamous "Plot Armour), One-Off events (All Space Marines can survive being stepped on terminators!) , vaguely described events (can Balrogs fly?), so on and so forth.

In the end a lot of it comes down to which side can argue better, given the not strictly defined nature of particular fictionverses.

Caracol
2008-06-16, 12:01 PM
No because you can win a vs. thread, by having a more logical conhersive argument. for example if we have Gollum vs. link, simple logic proves that link would win
from
EE

Thank God, it's since 1600 that you can't demonstrate anything (that isn't a pure abstraction) with logic. So, too bad! Logical conhersive arguments can be applyied only on things that exists in real life. And if you think that "Link wins because it's an hero and he has the Master Sword" qualifies as logic, well guess again.

Also, Gollum could TOTALLY take on Link, because Link is a annoying sissypants that can't even speak properly and expresses himself in high-pitch screams. And so far, my argument has the same value than yours, since they are both opinions. We can't bring on a single fact to support our opinions, so they will remain what they are: unverified opinions.

To summarize: Vs threads, by their nature, are based on opinions, and so discussing them is not conclusive neither fun, unless you consider "squealing fanboysm" funny.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-16, 12:31 PM
Caracol: Two P vs. anything, including Azathoth, Haruhi, and Ciaphas Cain (HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, but that one's a tie). Your theorem has just fallen to pieces, as I have found an counterexample. Objectively, nothing can beat someone who can void even Bertrand Russel's paradox of omnipotence.

Caracol
2008-06-16, 01:25 PM
Caracol: Two P vs. anything, including Azathoth, Haruhi, and Ciaphas Cain (HERO OF THE IMPERIUM, but that one's a tie). Your theorem has just fallen to pieces, as I have found an counterexample. Objectively, nothing can beat someone who can void even Bertrand Russel's paradox of omnipotence.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you're making too references to stuff I don't know, or just rephrase the whole thing in a way that a not native speaker could understand it.

If you are being ironic, just forget it. If you're serious, remember that I'm a bitch when it comes at phylosophical/rational/religious discussions, and I will rain my devastating points above your poor mistakes without stopping.

(I'm kidding. We aren't even supposed to talk about that stuff by the forum rules. If you think that I'm wrong, than found a proof that I'm wrong. And by proof I mean an empirical one, not a objectively-my-ass one. But maybe you can't, because it's not possible to find a proof of that kind. Too bad. And all those statements apply to all Vs threads arguments too, and that's another reason why they are a massive waste of time)

EDIT: It took me some times, but I think I got it. I don't know who are those characters you are talking about, but it doesn't really matter. As a said before, you can't bring a single fact to prove your point. And "voiding omnipotence's paradox" is not a fact. The omnipotence paradox is a funny logical game that doesn't demostrate anything, because even omnipotence is a fictional power.

I know I'm going out of subject and maybe against the forum rules, but yes, I can say that godlike powers are fictional because god itself it's fictional. And if you think that it's not, then bring some proof. And remember that yes, empirical science can demonstrate that omnipotence doesn't exists, not to mention that not a single prove of omnipotence has been found so far.

But then again, I'm going off subject. Please don't start to reply me about this, we are not supposed to argue in this forum about it and I'll remove this as soon as an Admin thinks that it's necessary or completely off-topic.

So, don't use logical arguments to demonstrate something fictional. It's a waste of time and misleading. Objectively, something that voids a logical game that is omnipotence paradox still doesn't have the right to be seriously considered.

Also, OP, why have you changed the thread title? The "fanboysm" one was more fitting.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-16, 03:01 PM
"The bigger they are (Or the bigger they think they are), the harder they fall".

THIS (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801) is Pun-Pun. A creature that can literally give itself an ability named "I Win" and have it work that way.

Now, as you see if you read through, any comparison to Two P (As he is affectionately called) is useless. He can grant himself an ability to defeat whatever faces him, if I Win doesn't outright work. No creature could ever possibly attempt to challenge him, because he'll just erase it out of existance or ignore it.

If the ability of having any ability is not enough of a fact, nothing is.

And if you say you can't apply any logic to fiction, I assume you find characters breathing incoherent and fiction intolerable, and I wonder what the hell you're doing here. If a fictional universe's logic is consistent with itself, then it works, that's as an unbreakable axiom. If you can't accept that fact, then you picked the wrong board to be at.

Caracol
2008-06-16, 04:09 PM
"The bigger they are (Or the bigger they think they are), the harder they fall".

THIS (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801) is Pun-Pun. A creature that can literally give itself an ability named "I Win" and have it work that way.

Now, as you see if you read through, any comparison to Two P (As he is affectionately called) is useless. He can grant himself an ability to defeat whatever faces him, if I Win doesn't outright work. No creature could ever possibly attempt to challenge him, because he'll just erase it out of existance or ignore it.

Oh, Pun Pun. Now I get it.

Yes, any comparison between Pun Pun and something else is useless. Because it doesn't rely on actual things. Because, you know, they don't exists.
And Pun Pun can be beaten so easily that it's a mistery they keep to pull it out, like he's really umbeatable. As I said, it's easily beatable. Just take some time to think and you'll realize it (if you want to know the answer, the you just have to ask it).



If the ability of having any ability is not enough of a fact, nothing is.


OH OH OH AH AH AH are you serious? You are making me laughing so hard here.
Please. The fact I'm writing here on this keyboard at this moment is a fact. Having a fictional power because the author or creator decided it so, it's not a fact. No matter how hard you believe something, it's not a fact unless you bring some empirical proof about his existance. If you still think so, then go to some science and philosophy classes before saying it again, if you please.



And if you say you can't apply any logic to fiction, I assume you find characters breathing incoherent and fiction intolerable, and I wonder what the hell you're doing here. If a fictional universe's logic is consistent with itself, then it works, that's as an unbreakable axiom. If you can't accept that fact, then you picked the wrong board to be at.

Well, not really. Because I don't find fiction and lack of realism intorelable. Actually, I just love it. But that doesn't mean that stuff deserves to be discussed in objective terms.

See, I would love to be part of a fictional universe, I would love the fact that dwarves and elves and guys that shoot beams from the eyes actually exist. But, unfortunately, they don't. This means that their "fictional universe logic" is not actual logic, it's not an unbreakable axiom, it's not real, and therefore you can't demonstrate a single thing in a universe like that, because you can't have empiric proofs.

No, I found intorelable (not really, mostly I don't care) the fact that some people actually claim to know what they are talking about in the Vs threads, like they have the tangible proofs of their points in their hands. Bad news: they don't have them and never will. It's just fanboysm masked iwith flawed logic and unverifiable claims.

I partecipated to a Vs thread. It starred an infamous Space Marine (seriously, I don't understand why space marines create such an high amount of nerdsterbation. They couldn't have more cutthroat fans even if they had boobs) Vs Iron Man. Of course, the discussion degenerate on how much damage would a plasma cannon do against Iron Man's armor. THEY ALL ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT STUFF IT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST. Trust me, they were serious about that, and showed a lot of unnecessary logic and confused and incomplete notions about physics and weaponry.

I tried to say "nothing of this proves anything, you can't give actual proofs", and tried to shift the discussion on the psichological aspect, saying that Iron Man probably would win since it's really smart and would probably come up with a decent strategy. I tried to expand the discussion in some way, creating a new kind of confrontation we could consider. I was ignored, and they kept shoving "facts" at each other face.

Vs threads either go like that, or become just a "Aragorn wins" whithout even saying why. And this it's just a poll to see who has more fans. If you think that this is somehow funny then go on. No problem about that.

P.S: Those boards are great. Some threads aren't.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-16, 04:44 PM
Problem is, they actually EXIST. SOMEONE thought up those universes, someone printed them, and unless you follow the Bug Acid Theory, the stories were thought up and thus exist. Thus, we DO have the same level of fact as we would by comparing a Katyusha missile vs. a squadron of people with M1 Garands. The place where the fact doesn't apply is with allegations and secondhand remarks. Everything else IS taken as a fact, because it can be verified just by reading through a book or watching a movie or whathaveyou. What you say is that their presence in this reality as living being and environments doesn't exist, which is correct. Else, all you said was a mass of contradictions from word 1.

chiasaur11
2008-06-16, 06:55 PM
"The bigger they are (Or the bigger they think they are), the harder they fall".

THIS (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801) is Pun-Pun. A creature that can literally give itself an ability named "I Win" and have it work that way.

Now, as you see if you read through, any comparison to Two P (As he is affectionately called) is useless. He can grant himself an ability to defeat whatever faces him, if I Win doesn't outright work. No creature could ever possibly attempt to challenge him, because he'll just erase it out of existance or ignore it.

If the ability of having any ability is not enough of a fact, nothing is.

And if you say you can't apply any logic to fiction, I assume you find characters breathing incoherent and fiction intolerable, and I wonder what the hell you're doing here. If a fictional universe's logic is consistent with itself, then it works, that's as an unbreakable axiom. If you can't accept that fact, then you picked the wrong board to be at.

Hmm...
Could Squirrel Girl beat our Kobold pal? Her power increases the stronger her opponent is exponentially, but the DM's worst nightmare can reduce power at will as well, with triggers for it to return if anyone tries to take advantage of it....

We're talking epic here.

Silver2195
2008-06-16, 06:59 PM
There are some subjective factors in Vs. threads (Do Balrogs have wings? Does Ty Lee's chi blocking work on Harry Potter wizards or Marvel mutants?), but that's why they're so fun. Would a thread where one side wins be determining that Sephiroth's power is Over Nine Thousand via an objective alogorithm be interesting?

On the other hand, some Vs. threads do cross a line and become popularity contests, but certainly not all of them.

EvilElitest
2008-06-16, 07:27 PM
That's how it works in theory, practice is another matter entirely. There are situations where logic doesn't apply properly, like Author Fiat (the infamous "Plot Armour), One-Off events (All Space Marines can survive being stepped on terminators!) , vaguely described events (can Balrogs fly?), so on and so forth.

In the end a lot of it comes down to which side can argue better, given the not strictly defined nature of particular fictionverses.

1) Oh a admit it isn't perfect, however it is certainly better than a popularity contest
2)In vs. threads there is no plot armor.
3) Yeah, inconsistencies are something you can't avoid
4) vague described events are handled in a case by case basis
5) Well that is like real debates, a good arguers can change everything



Thank God, it's since 1600 that you can't demonstrate anything (that isn't a pure abstraction) with logic. So, too bad! Logical conhersive arguments can be applyied only on things that exists in real life. And if you think that "Link wins because it's an hero and he has the Master Sword" qualifies as logic, well guess again.
1) Um, what?
2) When have i ever said that Link wins because he is a hero who has a master sword. Ever. I never have used hero plot armor arguments because they aren't accurate. Don't misquote me. Normally i use LInk's massive amount of Cheese to win for him


Also, Gollum could TOTALLY take on Link, because Link is a annoying sissypants that can't even speak properly and expresses himself in high-pitch screams. And so far, my argument has the same value than yours, since they are both opinions. We can't bring on a single fact to support our opinions, so they will remain what they are: unverified opinions.
1) Wow, i'm sorry, this is too absurd to even be properly mocked. your argument doesn't have the same value because i can find a massive number of holes in it. Your idea of everybody's option being equal is silly, because ith that logic i could say the world was flat and you could say the world was round and according to you we would both be right
2) What the hell can gollum defeat Naru's love? Really, how.
3) Link has demonstrated better fighting ability
4) And Link a sissy? Dude, he wears tights. Anyone secure enough to save the world wearing tights is freaking badass
5) Also i don't think his being mute makes any difference


To summarize: Vs threads, by their nature, are based on opinions, and so discussing them is not conclusive neither fun, unless you consider "squealing fanboysm" funny.
I don't consider unbacked statements funny ether. You haven't proved anything other than some stunning examples of bad arguments


I honestly don't understand what you're saying. Maybe you're making too references to stuff I don't know, or just rephrase the whole thing in a way that a not native speaker could understand it.
English speaking conspiracy, how did you figure that out




If you are being ironic, just forget it. If you're serious, remember that I'm a bitch when it comes at phylosophical/rational/religious discussions, and I will rain my devastating points above your poor mistakes without stopping.
considering your track record, i find that unlikely




(I'm kidding. We aren't even supposed to talk about that stuff by the forum rules. If you think that I'm wrong, than found a proof that I'm wrong. And by proof I mean an empirical one, not a objectively-my-ass one. But maybe you can't, because it's not possible to find a proof of that kind. Too bad. And all those statements apply to all Vs threads arguments too, and that's another reason why they are a massive waste of time)
i found proof that your wrong, mainly your use of misinformation and bad logical basis about the nature of options. Just because too people have different options, that doesn't make them equal. You say gollum can defeat link, i say how? Link is a better fighter, he has better equpitment, and better skills, not counting magic and items.



Oh, Pun Pun. Now I get it.

Yes, any comparison between Pun Pun and something else is useless. Because it doesn't rely on actual things. Because, you know, they don't exists.
And Pun Pun can be beaten so easily that it's a mistery they keep to pull it out, like he's really umbeatable. As I said, it's easily beatable. Just take some time to think and you'll realize it (if you want to know the answer, the you just have to ask it).

You have to logically explain why he is beatable and by what. I mean, Sauron or the LK couldn't pull it off



There are some subjective factors in Vs. threads (Do Balrogs have wings? Does Ty Lee's chi blocking work on Harry Potter wizards or Marvel mutants?), but that's why they're so fun. Would a thread where one side wins be determining that Sephiroth's power is Over Nine Thousand via an objective alogorithm be interesting?

On the other hand, some Vs. threads do cross a line and become popularity contests, but certainly not all of them.
exactly. I mean, Sauron vs. Kenshin wouldn't be a fun thread in the least
from
EE

CannibalHymn
2008-06-16, 07:28 PM
EE's childishly naive faith in logic is amusing.

Caracol, what proof, exactly, do I have that you are typing on a keyboard? What proof do I have that what appears on my screen was typed at all, rather than a hallucination? What reason is there to assume empirical evidence equates with proof, since all empirical data, provided it is even objective, itself, is viewed through human perception, which is subjective. The "facts" you present are your perceptions, your opinions, of the real facts, if such a thing as facts may even be said to exist. I could contend that empirical evidence proves nothing, and further, that nothing can be proven at all.

However, let us avoid the road of skepticism, at risk of damaging your concrete patterns of thought, to view reality through another lens. A square is a quadrilateral that is both equilateral and equiangular, is this true? The sum of all the angles of a triangle measure to one-hundred-and-eighty degrees. When a line intersects two parallel lines, that alternate interior angles are congruent. Two triangles with a congruent side between two congruent angles are congruent. Two triangles with three congruent angles are similar. All of these are conjectures about gemoetry of which there exists solid proof. Do you agree? If you do, your argument is faulty; none of these shapes actually exist. Straight lines, two-dimensional-objects, and geometric shapes do not exist in the real world. Close approximations may, but the objects themselves are, in essence, fictional. However, with the laws defined in their fictional universe, some things may be shown to absolutely, objectively be true. Similarly, if consistant laws exist within a fantasy or science fiction universe (Argonians are absouletly immune to all forms of poison in The Elder Scrolls), then those laws may be considered true with respect to the universe.

The potential problem with this comes up when two universes are pitted against each other, and their various laws, absolutely true within each universe, clash. For example, is irradiation included in poisoning? Or what if another work of fiction contains a poison which no mortal creature may resist? Which rule overrules which? Do Argonians become immortal and semi-divine to fit in the new continuity? The pointless aspects of debate, then, mostly occur around areas where the established fabrics of reality for fictional universes, which are wholly real within those universes, do not adequately mesh.

EvilElitest
2008-06-16, 07:33 PM
EE's childishly naive faith in logic is amusic.

And this is the part where you prove me wrong i take it......oh wait, you didn't actually type anything
from
EE

CannibalHymn
2008-06-16, 07:47 PM
I'm not attempting to prove you wrong. I'm expressing my opinion of your opinion of logic, namely that I find a Kantian slavery to reason inane and trite. I believe passion is much more likely to actually achieve something or make a point; whatever one believes to be the truth is the truth. Though I may see the eyes of God, another may see only a billboard. For him, his view is true, while for me, my own view is the truth. Your logic is wholly inapplicable in my world, because the premises upon which it is based are inherently false, rendering the entire path of reasoning invalid.

Philosophically, I believe that Pun-Pun is defeated by his own boredom as a result of his omnipotence. With nothing to strive for, no challenge, why bother continuing to live? Pun-Pun will, eventually, design his own undoing to save himself from the interminable dullness of his existance. However, I'm certain I'd be laughed out of a versus thread giving that argument.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-16, 07:59 PM
Cannibal, your ideas are interesting, indeed. However, I find the Pun-Pun argument as faulty as that thing someone said that went "Rich people live life less happily than poorer people, because they can buy anything they want", or "No one wants to live forever because they'll get bored and their loved ones will die". The trick is to use what you have sparingly. What REASON has Two P to constantly use his powers? Why WOULD a rich man just dedicate himself to things he can get in a minute with money? Why wouldn't an immortal live forever, getting increasingly more talented and having one sweet love after another?

It all comes from a point of view that is a bit, shall we say, restricted. You have to dedicate some time to reflect on that kind of things to see the answer.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-16, 08:02 PM
I'm not attempting to prove you wrong. I'm expressing my opinion of your opinion of logic, namely that I find a Kantian slavery to reason inane and trite. I believe passion is much more likely to actually achieve something or make a point; whatever one believes to be the truth is the truth. Though I may see the eyes of God, another may see only a billboard. For him, his view is true, while for me, my own view is the truth. Your logic is wholly inapplicable in my world, because the premises upon which it is based are inherently false, rendering the entire path of reasoning invalid.

Philosophically, I believe that Pun-Pun is defeated by his own boredom as a result of his omnipotence. With nothing to strive for, no challenge, why bother continuing to live? Pun-Pun will, eventually, design his own undoing to save himself from the interminable dullness of his existance. However, I'm certain I'd be laughed out of a versus thread giving that argument.


I'm going to tackle this one point at a time.

Point 1: Claiming "i deny your reality and subsitiute my own" or the "cover my ears and scream about sujective reality" is...at best, a childish argument. It is literaly like plugging your ears and screaming as loud as you can while everyone around you gets bored and walks away. Its an unwinable argument, and thats the only reason its brought up in anything other then late night PHYL I class's. There are dozens, if not more, books/video games/media in gerneral on this very subject..its boring, its foolish to use in any argument, and its pretty much giving up any shred of credability to any argument you can bring up.

Point 2: Thats where over gods come from, see point one.

CannibalHymn
2008-06-16, 09:06 PM
Point 1: Claiming "i deny your reality and subsitiute my own" or the "cover my ears and scream about sujective reality" is...at best, a childish argument.
It's not a matter of denying someone else's reality, or about covering my ears. Simply put, reality may or may not be subjective, but it is viewed through a subjective lens. The statement you replied to wasn't even an argument for subjective reality. It merely argued that subjective perception didn't answer to logic. You can logically prove all you want, but if I do not believe the basis your logic stems from is correct, you will never convince me of your conclusion. The effective means of communication, then, is passion, whereby I convince you instead of the conclusion, of the basis. An objective reality may or may not exist, but that is irrelevant. People perceive reality in different ways. Period. Their views of it are subjective. Which makes logic, relying on a mutally agreed, "factual" premise, most often useless, since most arguments are based around different perceptions of reality.


It is literaly like plugging your ears and screaming as loud as you can while everyone around you gets bored and walks away.
Not in my subjective reality it isn't! LALALALALALALALALALA!


Its an unwinable argument, and thats the only reason its brought up in anything other then late night PHYL I class's. There are dozens, if not more, books/video games/media in gerneral on this very subject..
The fact that trying to prove whether reality is objective or subjective is impossible is an example of the point I was originally making.


its boring, its foolish to use in any argument, and its pretty much giving up any shred of credability to any argument you can bring up.
Stating reality is objective is a more elaborate way of saying "my opinion is factually correct," so I'd argue it's an equally invalid path of debate. If both reality being objective and subjective are stupid, may we infer that reality is objectively stupid in a manner subjective to the viewer?

Nerd-o-rama
2008-06-16, 10:14 PM
I vote for c) amusing way to pass the time that people take way too seriously.

Caracol
2008-06-17, 05:05 AM
Problem is, they actually EXIST. SOMEONE thought up those universes, someone printed them, and unless you follow the Bug Acid Theory, the stories were thought up and thus exist.

No. It doesn't work like that, not even for a second. Something does not exist just because you think about it. "Existing in reality" means that things are made of atoms and matter and follow physics rules. That's how things exists.



Thus, we DO have the same level of fact as we would by comparing a Katyusha missile vs. a squadron of people with M1 Garands. The place where the fact doesn't apply is with allegations and secondhand remarks. Everything else IS taken as a fact, because it can be verified just by reading through a book or watching a movie or whathaveyou. What you say is that their presence in this reality as living being and environments doesn't exist, which is correct. Else, all you said was a mass of contradictions from word 1.

You can verify a fact reading it into a book. Honestly, do you think that is enough? Wow, cool, you know, so the science projects and experiments I have to do for the university are not necessary! I just have to read something to verify it, or better, just apply some logic! It perfectly makes sense!

Sorry, but you are so freaking wrong. Things don't work like that. A fact is, for example, the fact that I'm slapping my face in anger while I try to explain what a fact is. Because is verifiable, was created by matter interaction and follow the rules of physic, and happens in this very universe, because, you know, is the only one who exists. (And I DARE you to say it differently without bringing me some empirical proof. Come on. I'm waiting. Otherwise I (and everyone that has a bit of common sense) can't consider what you say serioursly. Because it's how it works.)

Seriously, what the hell? You need an anonymous of the Internet to explain you what a fact is?



1) Oh a admit it isn't perfect, however it is certainly better than a popularity contest
2)In vs. threads there is no plot armor.
3) Yeah, inconsistencies are something you can't avoid
4) vague described events are handled in a case by case basis
5) Well that is like real debates, a good arguers can change everything


1)they ARE popularity contests.
2)In Vs thread there is nothing verifiable at all too.
3) Well you could, if you had actual datas. But this isn't possible unfortunately.
4) Everything is vaguely descripted in fiction. Because even the authors know that stuff isn't real, so they don't waste their time in describing fictional events tring to make sense for the physics.
5) Good arguers in the debates are the ones that bring proofs.



1) Um, what?
2) When have i ever said that Link wins because he is a hero who has a master sword. Ever. I never have used hero plot armor arguments because they aren't accurate. Don't misquote me. Normally i use LInk's massive amount of Cheese to win for him
[/quote]
1) It's called Illuminism. Or Scientific Tought.
2) I'm not misquoting you, you didn't gave me something to debate about Link after all. Nevermind, you did it later in the post, so I'll respond there.

Protip: "Massive amount of Cheese" doesn't mean a fooking thing. Try not to use it when arguing about something, it's not logical nor empirical, is just something laughable.



1) Wow, i'm sorry, this is too absurd to even be properly mocked. your argument doesn't have the same value because i can find a massive number of holes in it. Your idea of everybody's option being equal is silly, because ith that logic i could say the world was flat and you could say the world was round and according to you we would both be right
2) What the hell can gollum defeat Naru's love? Really, how.
3) Link has demonstrated better fighting ability
4) And Link a sissy? Dude, he wears tights. Anyone secure enough to save the world wearing tights is freaking badass
5) Also i don't think his being mute makes any difference


1)Everybody's opinions aren't equal. They are equal when the contenders don't have actual proof and demonstrations to back their statements. When one of them has those proofs, well, he "wins", because reality says that he's right. In this case, opinions aren't equal. So, all we have to find is some proof that Link could actually take- oh wait, we can't. Too bad!

In this is what I'm trying to say from the very beginning.

2) You sound like a fanboy here. Seriously.
3) If you think that "fighting" ability or magic are the only things that matter, then you think too small. Gollum has LOADS of way he can defeat Link, and none of them involves swinging a sword.
4) Hotpants are not badass. And badass isn't an ability that makes you win fight. Are you using logic even in this statement? I hope not.
5) Yes it does. It's demonstrated by psicological tests that being mute and don't have the ability to talk, taunt, deceive your enemy or communicate with your allies it's a bad thing, in fights or in other situations. But maybe you won't consider this point valid, since "real life examples don't count", when they are the ONLY things you can use if you want to reach a conclusion.


I don't consider unbacked statements funny ether. You haven't proved anything other than some stunning examples of bad arguments
Oh, EE, will you ever learn. Unbacked statements is what you have used so far, and bad arguments are the results of lack of actual proofs and mere use of logic, and only logic.


English speaking conspiracy, how did you figure that out

Eh eh:smallbiggrin: Sorry anyway, I still have some problems with phrases with complex structures. My bad. Also, I apologize for the horrendous grammar and spelling I used so far (And I will probably keep to use). I'm correcting all I can recognize as an error, but I'm no eaglish teacher.



considering your track record, i find that unlikely

Considering that you are using only logic, I think that you have an high chance to find things likely and unlikely a lot of things that aren't true.



i found proof that your wrong, mainly your use of misinformation and bad logical basis about the nature of options. Just because too people have different options, that doesn't make them equal. You say gollum can defeat link, i say how? Link is a better fighter, he has better equpitment, and better skills, not counting magic and items.
Explain:
1) why I'm using misinformation (I know both Link and Gollum and their abilities)
2) why my logic is bad (you didn't say why is bad, so I could scream "negative criticism! negative criticism" but I'm not one of those)
3) what "proof" have you found (a logical proof is not a proof. So don't even post it here if it's only logical, and use your time to go read what logic is istead)

I've already explained my toughts about different opinions values.



You have to logically explain why he is beatable and by what. I mean, Sauron or the LK couldn't pull it off

No no no, you have to think about it. Tease me a little more and I'll say what it is. It's so obvious after all.:smallwink:



Caracol, what proof, exactly, do I have that you are typing on a keyboard? What proof do I have that what appears on my screen was typed at all, rather than a hallucination? What reason is there to assume empirical evidence equates with proof, since all empirical data, provided it is even objective, itself, is viewed through human perception, which is subjective. The "facts" you present are your perceptions, your opinions, of the real facts, if such a thing as facts may even be said to exist. I could contend that empirical evidence proves nothing, and further, that nothing can be proven at all.

Look, I watched Matrix too. The things you say here can be disproved by a lot of things.
First: I have no proof that I'm not allucinating. But a scientist that takes some datas about me typing on the keyboard, does some experiments and takes his conclusion can verify if I'm typing or not. An allucination can be easily spotted in this or other ways.
Second: Empirical datas haven't ANYTHING to do with human perception. Otherwise all the scientific experiments wouldn't have reached result.
Human perception is limited and logic is not always enough, but THAT'S the reason why we invented incredible instruments and methods: to EXPAND our flawed perception. We can't see ultraviolet, but some instrument we made can. Basing on your assumption istead, ultraviolets don't exists because we can't see it. Istead it exists and influences our world in a lot of ways.
I'll rewrite it again, and don't forget it: Empirical datas are not the same as human perceptions.

The skeptic argument worked back in ancient greece, where people didn't have scientific methods of measurment and human perception was the only thing they had to observe the world. We moved soooo far away from that.



However, let us avoid the road of skepticism, at risk of damaging your concrete patterns of thought, to view reality through another lens. A square is a quadrilateral that is both equilateral and equiangular, is this true? The sum of all the angles of a triangle measure to one-hundred-and-eighty degrees. When a line intersects two parallel lines, that alternate interior angles are congruent. Two triangles with a congruent side between two congruent angles are congruent. Two triangles with three congruent angles are similar. All of these are conjectures about gemoetry of which there exists solid proof. Do you agree? If you do, your argument is faulty; none of these shapes actually exist. Straight lines, two-dimensional-objects, and geometric shapes do not exist in the real world. Close approximations may, but the objects themselves are, in essence, fictional. However, with the laws defined in their fictional universe, some things may be shown to absolutely, objectively be true. Similarly, if consistant laws exist within a fantasy or science fiction universe (Argonians are absouletly immune to all forms of poison in The Elder Scrolls), then those laws may be considered true with respect to the universe.

I don't agree they have proofs. They have mathematic proofs, but as you said, they don't exist. Math is a world that states its own rules and just verifies them. Of course everything works, it's a world we have made with particular rules and we verify this continously. Does this make them "real"? of course not, for the reasons stated above.
Same about the Argonians here. (Are you sure they are poison resistant? I can't remember) Things works in that way because a set of rules was made, and obviously they are not real just because they have such rules.



The potential problem with this comes up when two universes are pitted against each other, and their various laws, absolutely true within each universe, clash. For example, is irradiation included in poisoning? Or what if another work of fiction contains a poison which no mortal creature may resist? Which rule overrules which? Do Argonians become immortal and semi-divine to fit in the new continuity? The pointless aspects of debate, then, mostly occur around areas where the established fabrics of reality for fictional universes, which are wholly real within those universes, do not adequately mesh.

And THAAAAAATS the point. You reached the same conclusion as me in a different way. Meshing two world with different rules does not lead to conclusions, expecially if some fictional worlds DON'T even have a set of rules. Morrowind has a set of rules because it's a world programmed with the computer with some basic rules that always works, because they were made like that.
Now, let's take another fictional world, like Eragon (that seriously sucks, but that's not the point). The author didn't even made such set of rules, but just wrote whatever he wanted.
Comparing two universes like that leads inevitably to fanboysm, and suffers of the problem of:
- comparing two different rulesets, or a ruleset and something that doesn't have a ruleset, or two things that don't have a ruleset, claiming that "logic" is enough to reach a conclusion about things that don't have a common ground;
- people that think that their statements are a proof, when a proof is something empirical that needs to be verified with an hypotesis followed by some datas;
- people that think that those proof can be found, when it's impossible;

In this way, you can have a "Sauron vs the Smurfs" and claiming that Sauron "obviously wins", when I can say that it's not true. I have an opinion, you have an opinion, both aren't verifiable, logic doesn't help since they are fictional universe with different rules, the how the Hell can somebody seriously thinks that you or me are somehow right?


I vote for c) amusing way to pass the time that people take way too seriously.

I vote d) for pointless fanboysm with absurd claims. Did I already mentioned that IS NOT FUNNY?

Not really. The really absurd ones are fun in the beginning, because a lot of crazy stuff is brought as a point. But when people starts to think thay can actually be right, or when a WH40K fan shows up, then god help us all

Artemician
2008-06-17, 05:53 AM
2)In Vs thread there is nothing verifiable at all too.
...
They have mathematic proofs, but as you said, they don't exist. Math is a world that states its own rules and just verifies them. Of course everything works, it's a world we have made with particular rules and we verify this continously. Does this make them "real"? of course not, for the reasons stated above.
Same about the Argonians here. (Are you sure they are poison resistant? I can't remember) Things works in that way because a set of rules was made, and obviously they are not real just because they have such rules.

Main crux of this post bolded for emphasis (Yes, I'm quoting YOU).

If you can accept that Mathematics has its own set of rules, and follows them, why cannot you accept that Fictional Events have their own sets of rules as well?

Neither Mathematics nor Fiction actually exist in the real world, but it is possible to debate about them, because "events" and "proofs" that happen inside these nonexistential universes still apply inside these universes.

In math, you know that a triangle has an interior angle sum of 180 degrees. But there are grey areas in the higher mathematics - solutions with undefined answers.

When you're trying to discuss Fiction (any discussion, it need not be a Versus thread), you have plenty more undefined answers and areas. But from what little you have, it is still possible to piece together something to discuss. For example, from the dialogue that a character has, do you agree that he was insane? How so?

That's how versus threads operate. You propose a "hypothesis" that a predicted event will occur (If you put Character X and Character Y in a cage, someone wins) and try to either "verify" or "disprove" it. Yes, there are probably plenty of grey areas, but in this particular context, it is possible to generate discussion


Meshing two world with different rules does not lead to conclusions, expecially if some fictional worlds DON'T even have a set of rules. Morrowind has a set of rules because it's a world programmed with the computer with some basic rules that always works, because they were made like that.
...
In this way, you can have a "Sauron vs the Smurfs" and claiming that Sauron "obviously wins", when I can say that it's not true. I have an opinion, you have an opinion, both aren't verifiable, logic doesn't help since they are fictional universe with different rules, the how the Hell can somebody seriously thinks that you or me are somehow right?

When comparing Universes that operate on fundementally different rules, you obviously will run into problems. That's not to say you can't say anything meaningful, but it is likely that there will be too many grey areas to have any discussion. But if you're comparing characters from similar universes, you can stake "claims" and "hypotheses", and even "verify" them.

For example, you have a ship from a Sci-Fi universe X with say... a 250 KwH weapon that has been demonstrated to have the effects of a 250 KwH weapon. Let's say you stake the "hypothesis" that an Energy Shielding Apparatus from Sci-Fi Universe Y that can buffer 150 KwH of energy would not be able to withstand this. You can demonstrate that this is true in this fictional context by showing how the Universe Y Energy Shield has failed to buffer energy in excess of 150 KwH.

Caracol
2008-06-17, 06:29 AM
Main crux of this post bolded for emphasis (Yes, I'm quoting YOU).

If you can accept that Mathematics has its own set of rules, and follows them, why cannot you accept that Fictional Events have their own sets of rules as well?

Yes I can. I basically said that before.



Neither Mathematics nor Fiction actually exist in the real world, but it is possible to debate about them, because "events" and "proofs" that happen inside these nonexistential universes still apply inside these universes.

In math, you know that a triangle has an interior angle sum of 180 degrees. But there are grey areas in the higher mathematics - solutions with undefined answers.

This kind of simile is misleading. "Undefined mathematic answers" is not the same as "Undefined fictional rules". The former derive from logical consequences of rules created by us, the latter are.... well, nobody made them, OF COURSE they are undefined.



That's how versus threads operate. You propose a "hypothesis" that a predicted event will occur (If you put Character X and Character Y in a cage, someone wins) and try to either "verify" or "disprove" it. Yes, there are probably plenty of grey areas, but in this particular context, it is possible to generate discussion

That is true. The problem comes when mixing two different universes that operates differently.



When comparing Universes that operate on fundementally different rules, you obviously will run into problems. That's not to say you can't say anything meaningful, but it is likely that there will be too many grey areas to have any discussion. But if you're comparing characters from similar universes, you can stake "claims" and "hypotheses", and even "verify" them.


1) yes, the problems have been stated before.
2) yes, you can say meaningful things, but this things can't be taken seriously.
3) Probably, but you can't be sure. Similar universes have similar rules, but not all rules are considered, and some rules aren't even stated.
Comparing two things of the same universe with well stated rules, even if the universe is fictional, is possible. But in that case, just play DnD. And even if you can compare them, those are still not verifiable, therefore can't be taken seriously. They must be real to be verified, and they're not. And no, "they are real in they own universe" doesn't make them real.



For example, you have a ship from a Sci-Fi universe X with say... a 250 KwH weapon that has been demonstrated to have the effects of a 250 KwH weapon. Let's say you stake the "hypothesis" that an Energy Shielding Apparatus from Sci-Fi Universe Y that can buffer 150 KwH of energy would not be able to withstand this. You can demonstrate that this is true in this fictional context by showing how the Universe Y Energy Shield has failed to buffer energy in excess of 150 KwH.


http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

Artemician
2008-06-17, 07:17 AM
1) yes, the problems have been stated before.
2) yes, you can say meaningful things, but this things can't be taken seriously.
3) Probably, but you can't be sure. Similar universes have similar rules, but not all rules are considered, and some rules aren't even stated.
Comparing two things of the same universe with well stated rules, even if the universe is fictional, is possible. But in that case, just play DnD. And even if you can compare them, those are still not verifiable, therefore can't be taken seriously. They must be real to be verified, and they're not. And no, "they are real in they own universe" doesn't make them real.

They don't need to be verifiable, nor real in *this* universe to be discussed. As I said, you're discussing these things in the context of the fictional universe. Whether they can be verified in the real world, or whether they're taken seriously doesn't really have any bearing on the matter. You can still discuss them.

However, just because you don't take them too seriously doesn't mean you take them as total hogwash. They're the discussional equavilent of Pulp Fiction. Anything who treats them as serious business is a wee bit crazy.

CannibalHymn
2008-06-17, 02:15 PM
Look, I watched Matrix too. The things you say here can be disproved by a lot of things.


First: I have no proof that I'm not allucinating. But a scientist that takes some datas about me typing on the keyboard, does some experiments and takes his conclusion can verify if I'm typing or not. An allucination can be easily spotted in this or other ways.
How am I aware that I am not hallucinating. How do I know you are not a hallucination. I get a scientist to test it. Great. What proof do I have that he and his tests aren't hallucinations? Get a scientist to test it? This doesn't seem to be proving much.


Second: Empirical datas haven't ANYTHING to do with human perception. Otherwise all the scientific experiments wouldn't have
Empirical data has everything to do with perception. Let us assume you are wholly unable to perceive anything. You cannot see, you cannot hear, you cannot feel, you cannot smell, you cannot taste. Where, exactly, do you get your empirical data under these conditions? How do you discern the supposedly objective measurements, if not with one form or another of perception?
[QUOTE=Caracol;4468431]Human perception is limited and logic is not always enough, but THAT'S the reason why we invented incredible instruments and methods: to EXPAND our flawed perception.
Instruments we continue to read with our flawed perception.


The skeptic argument worked back in ancient greece, where people didn't have scientific methods of measurment and human perception was the only thing they had to observe the world. We moved soooo far away from that.
I think skepticism is a waste of time, really.


I don't agree they have proofs. They have mathematic proofs, but as you said, they don't exist. Math is a world that states its own rules and just verifies them. Of course everything works, it's a world we have made with particular rules and we verify this continously. Does this make them "real"? of course not, for the reasons stated above.
Same about the Argonians here. (Are you sure they are poison resistant? I can't remember) Things works in that way because a set of rules was made, and obviously they are not real just because they have such rules.
Yep. A hundred percent to poison, fifty or seventy-five percent to disease. I've played nothin' but Argonians since Daggerfall, even though they ended up whack and rusty looking in Oblivion.

Anyway, Artemician explained the main point I was trying to make. Internally consistant fictional universes can very much be rationally argued as though they were real, the same way it can mathematically rationally be argued that angle C must be larger than angels A and B because angles A and B together add up to less than ninety degrees. There is a grey area on exactly what angle C measures, but it is larger than A and B, with the internal rules given in the system. The point wasn't whether or not it is real, but whether or not it can be argued as though it were real.


And THAAAAAATS the point. You reached the same conclusion as me in a different way. Meshing two world with different rules does not lead to conclusions, expecially if some fictional worlds DON'T even have a set of rules. Morrowind has a set of rules because it's a world programmed with the computer with some basic rules that always works, because they were made like that.
Mathematical rules do make things easier, but universes without a programmed, mathematical ruleset can still apply.

Now, let's take another fictional world, like Eragon (that seriously sucks, but that's not the point). The author didn't even made such set of rules, but just wrote whatever he wanted.
Well, to use another example, without mathematical rules, say something defines a metal as unbreakable. That is a rule; the metal cannot be broken.


Comparing two universes like that leads inevitably to fanboysm, and suffers of the problem of:
I agree, there's definitely people who just pick what they like more. In fact, the majority of people do this. I'm just saying the alternative can occur.

- comparing two different rulesets, or a ruleset and something that doesn't have a ruleset, or two things that don't have a ruleset, claiming that "logic" is enough to reach a conclusion about things that don't have a common ground;
I think this can be, depending on how similar some things are. For example, with a few ground rules on equipment, a Conan v. Drizzt fight, ignoring the random stat-sheets made for them across various RPGs, could be done in a fairly reasonable way, pretty logically, looking at strengths, weaknesses, notable feats. (For the record, I think Conan has the fight)


In this way, you can have a "Sauron vs the Smurfs"
Well, yeah, if the conflict is as stupidly askew as that, it's not going anywhere.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-17, 03:49 PM
Vs Threads are pointless. People start to talk about fictional powers, magic, technology and abilities like they actually exist. "A space marine could totally do it, because his plasma cannon..." Wake up, please. That plasma cannon don't exist. Amateur physics can tell you whatever you want, but if you don't give some actual datas you can't demonstrate anything.

...

Quoted for truth. It's amazing how they are so secure about the effective power of a weapon that doesn't exist, and probably never will.

...

I will rain my devastating points above your poor mistakes without stopping.

....

THEY ALL ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT STUFF IT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.


Uh-huh. Tell me, what is your opinion on a game called D&D? I hear it's pretty popular. Furthermore, I believe that you might want to avoid the realms of literature. It's full of people believing in, and writing great tirades, longer than any of these threads, about things that aren't real.


Furthermore, caps lock makes you right, always. As does being a really really tough internet guy, who's awesome and stuff.

Anyway, ITT - people who take things too seriously, against those who don't.

Caracol
2008-06-17, 04:22 PM
Uh-huh. Tell me, what is your opinion on a game called D&D? I hear it's pretty popular. Furthermore, I believe that you might want to avoid the realms of literature. It's full of people believing in, and writing great tirades, longer than any of these threads, about things that aren't real.


Furthermore, caps lock makes you right, always. As does being a really really tough internet guy, who's awesome and stuff.

Anyway, ITT - people who take things too seriously, against those who don't.

Yeah, I heard about it, I play it, I absolutely love it and I think you have missed a loooooot of point if you think that stating something like that is necessary. Refine your reading-fu abilities, read all the stuff I posted before and maybe you'll find what are my toughts about this.

CAPS LOCK ARE A WAY OF UNDERLINING SOMETHING. Like this, this, or this, for example. They are not "shout outs" that give me +2 to the truthfullness of my statement. I use them like that, to underline or putting more attention on a thing I would like to point out. If you find them offensive or pestering, sorry, but I will keep on using them.

Also, next time, try to actually contribute to the discussion, you know, like saying something that is not an insult to my way on writing things. The whole discussion would benefit about it, istead of just degenerating in some pointless flame war. Because I could honestly say that you're trolling me, but trolling is a stupid term and I don't use it.

Challenge my opinions and my statements with yours, bring some stuff to back your statements, istead of arguing about my caps lock. Otherwise, I won't consider wasting my precious internet with you.

ITT: people that just want to have a good talk Vs people that say "ah discussions are stupid you take all to seriously get a life A BLOO BLOO"

Cannibal, I'm not forgetting you. Just give me some time and I'll reply to your post.

EDIT(oh no, I'm writing in caps! This means that I'm a retarded who thinks to be tough and umbeatable)
Ok, let's try it again:

Edit: Ok Cannibal, here it goes.



How am I aware that I am not hallucinating. How do I know you are not a hallucination. I get a scientist to test it. Great. What proof do I have that he and his tests aren't hallucinations? Get a scientist to test it? This doesn't seem to be proving much.

Empirical data has everything to do with perception. Let us assume you are wholly unable to perceive anything. You cannot see, you cannot hear, you cannot feel, you cannot smell, you cannot taste. Where, exactly, do you get your empirical data under these conditions? How do you discern the supposedly objective measurements, if not with one form or another of perception?


I think you can respond to yourself here:


I think skepticism is a waste of time, really.
And then you have used exactly that. Why, I ask, to prove what? That I shouldn't be so sure about my assumptions? Because I think I am. For the reason I stated above.



Instruments we continue to read with our flawed perception.
This would have deserved a facepalm, but I've already used my facepalm/day power. Let's just say that it's not true, since we basically convert things and observation that our flawed perception wouldn't allow to known, in a way that our perception can effectively perceive them, via those instruments.



Anyway, Artemician explained the main point I was trying to make. Internally consistant fictional universes can very much be rationally argued as though they were real, the same way it can mathematically rationally be argued that angle C must be larger than angels A and B because angles A and B together add up to less than ninety degrees. There is a grey area on exactly what angle C measures, but it is larger than A and B, with the internal rules given in the system. The point wasn't whether or not it is real, but whether or not it can be argued as though it were real.
Bolded for you. It's what I'm trying to say. I'm not questioning that they don't deserve to be argued because they are not real, or since they are not real they bother me, but that people shouldn't claim those things to be argued in realistic terms. You think that stating some common rules before and see if someone wins following the rules is enough, I say that it's difficult to state those rules and it's still impossible to effective prove something in that way.
Vs threads should avoid this, but unfortunately they exactly go like that.



I think this can be, depending on how similar some things are. For example, with a few ground rules on equipment, a Conan v. Drizzt fight, ignoring the random stat-sheets made for them across various RPGs, could be done in a fairly reasonable way, pretty logically, looking at strengths, weaknesses, notable feats. (For the record, I think Conan has the fight)
If you think that "similar" equals to "make sense together", then you're a bit off road. Of course, you can still do such a discussion. I'm not denying people the right to talk about that, nor I'm calling them stupid because they claim to be "right". The topic was about expressing an opinion about how Vs threads are, and I'm expressing it.



Well, yeah, if the conflict is as stupidly askew as that, it's not going anywhere.

And that it would be fun! A discussion like that can generates an amount of hilarious and unexpected stuff that you couldn't even imagine. For example:

I think the smurfs would win. How can I say so? Because, Sauron is in a 3-dimensional world, while the Smurfs are in a 2D world. A 2D character in a 3D world is reduced as a sheet infinitely thin, becoming a much more difficult target for Sauron's Mace. And Papa Smurf would actually become as a small blade thin as a hair capable of cutting off Sauron fingers as Narsil did. Without the ring, Sauron becomes weaker and all the smurf can cut their way out trough his armor.

Result: the Smurfs win.

Did I demonstrate anything? Of course not. But I've used logic and logic in this case would say that I'm somehow right. How is that? Because I've made a lot of false assumptions, I've mixed up two different universes that don't even have a ruleset or verifiable laws in the first place(they're both fictional and the authors didn't made those ruleset), and I'm pretending that this is enough to express a judgement. Of course I'm wrong, but I KNOW I'm wrong. And that's how I could find Vs threads funny. Istead, they are handled in a way that people thing they could be effectively right BLAH BLAH BLAH I've already said that, now I'm starting to sound boring even to myself.

Coming up next on these boards: the entire cast of Dragonball Z Vs my ass. In wich I'll demonstrate how my ass would win.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-06-17, 04:58 PM
Yeah, I heard about it, I play it, I absolutely love it and I think you have missed a loooooot of point if you think that stating something like that is necessary. Refine your reading-fu abilities, read all the stuff I posted before and maybe you'll find what are my toughts about this.

Your first post:


Vs Threads are pointless. People start to talk about fictional powers, magic, technology and abilities like they actually exist. "A space marine could totally do it, because his plasma cannon..." Wake up, please. That plasma cannon don't exist.

So, when we're discussing, say, the Metaverse, from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, we can't talk about its project capabilities? Or would you like us to append the words '.. but of course, it can't do this, on account of being fictional, and not real', Surgeon-General style, on the end of each point?


CAPS LOCK ARE A WAY OF UNDERLINING SOMETHING. Like this, this, or this, for example. They are not "shout outs" that give me +2 to the truthfullness of my statement. I use them like that, to underline or putting more attention on a thing I would like to point out. If you find them offensive or pestering, sorry, but I will keep on using them.


I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. THANKS FOR THE ELUCIDATING WISDOM.


Also, next time, try to actually contribute to the discussion, you know, like saying something that is not an insult to my way on writing things.

Contribute to the discussion? Are you seriously saying that people contribute to anything that is, in the end, meaningful in this forum? Anyway, adding suggestions is helpful.


The whole discussion would benefit about it, istead of just degenerating in some pointless flame war. Because I could honestly say that you're trolling me, but trolling is a stupid term and I don't use it.


Announcements/Minor Infractions/Mea Culpa. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) If you seriously believe that I was trolling you, then go ahead and report me. Otherwise, please stop alleging that others are committing such things.


Challenge my opinions and my statements with yours, bring some stuff to back your statements, istead of arguing about my caps lock. Otherwise, I won't consider wasting my precious internet with you.


Your internet? Hahahahaha.


ITT: people that just want to have a good talk Vs people that say "ah discussions are stupid you take all to seriously get a life A BLOO BLOO [Ed::smallconfused:]"


Way to accurately represent my point. Straw men are such fun, aren't they?

I just don't think that you really get the spirit in which vs. threads - by a sizable number of the posters here at least - are taken. They, like all of the entertaining threads on the entertainment-related fora of these entertainment-related website - are meant to be entertaining. I'm not for ruining your 'good talk' at all - but it would be a good idea to

Also, a life, me?

Caracol
2008-06-17, 05:41 PM
So, when we're discussing, say, the Metaverse, from Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash, we can't talk about its project capabilities? Or would you like us to append the words '.. but of course, it can't do this, on account of being fictional, and not real', Surgeon-General style, on the end of each point?
It's amazing how you totally misunderstood the things I said. Please, read all the stuff I wrote (if you want to use your time like that, of course), and then you'll get what I'm trying to express. Don't focus on a single phrase I wrote. It's reductive, and can lead to misunderstandments.


I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. THANKS FOR THE ELUCIDATING WISDOM.
NO PROBLEM MY FRIEND, IT WAS MY PLEASURE.



Contribute to the discussion? Are you seriously saying that people contribute to anything that is, in the end, meaningful in this forum? Anyway, adding suggestions is helpful.
Yes, I think it is. If the discussion has a lot of points of views and the points are well made, I think it could be meaningful even if it's about silly stuff like this. And where is your point of view anyway? Or you enjoy talking about me istead?
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think I was doing something wrong or stupid. Thanks anyway.


Announcements/Minor Infractions/Mea Culpa. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) If you seriously believe that I was trolling you, then go ahead and report me. Otherwise, please stop alleging that others are committing such things.
Well, you basically said things completely off topic just to point out that I tought I was awesome and always right because I was using caps lock. And I don't think that this was made to contribute to the discussion, but just to trigger up my reaction. This is how I read it at least.
No, I'm not reporting you, because I can handle you by myself.



Your internet? Hahahahaha.
And you STILL haven't brought us your opinion about Vs threads yet. Nice way to avoid things.


Way to accurately represent my point. Straw men are such fun, aren't they?
People that massively use sarcasm but get nettled when sarcasm is used on them are funnier, aren't they?


I just don't think that you really get the spirit in which vs. threads - by a sizable number of the posters here at least - are taken. They, like all of the entertaining threads on the entertainment-related fora of these entertainment-related website - are meant to be entertaining. I'm not for ruining your 'good talk' at all - but it would be a good idea to


Oh wait, here it is. Sorry!

Yeah, I think that I get what is the spirit of the Vs threads, and I gave a lot of reasons why I think they are pointless in the way they are handled or how degenerate by now. And I said something about how to improve them,(just skim trough my posts and you can found them), or how I think they would get funnier.

EDIT: I just found that you titled your post sage. And your location is /z/. You know, that explains a lot.

CannibalHymn
2008-06-18, 06:59 PM
Caracol, there is a good deal of your English which is difficult for me to understand, and I don't believe my points are properly getting across to you, since some of your responses are almost non-sequiters. I think it's pretty pointless to continue, here.