Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Interview Pete Hines: Oblivion delivered what was promised

Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,269
Location
The Von Braun, Deck 5
Naked Ninja said:
Lol guy, stop fooling yourself, nothing I've written in <s>this thread</s> ever has been the slightest bit constructive. :lol:
Fixed!

@Sage, he isn't reading your posts. That should be obvious by now. But you're giving the rest of us good entertainment, though. From all the emoticons in his posts, it seems like he is getting some weird kind of satisfaction out of it too. Keep it up!

Naked Ninja said:
I have no need to study further to figure you out, your kind is common as dirt on the internet. Can't post on a forum anywhere without tripping up on at least 5 of you guys. :D
Unfortunately the weight of his kind vs. your kind, tips in your favor. :(
 

Lumpy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,525
What the fuck is this "love it or leave it" mentality, where "it" means making fun of Bethesda? That's not what the Codex is all about, it's been done for about one year or less, and IMO the Codex has become crappier since.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Out of curiosity, are you of an academic background? Do you even know what a falacious argument is and what does it imply?

To answer your question about academic background, I have an honours degree in computer science and mathematics, with elective courses in economics and psychology. Not that it matters, this argument is about simple common sense. The size of your academic penis doesn't impress me.

I'm guessing falacious is an overly fancy way of saying my argument contains a fallacy, (ie a lie or mistake) in order to impress people with your vocabulary? Oh look, turns out I'm right :

1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments.

Wow, you could have just said "you are wrong", but you chose not to huh? Wonder why? Oops, I already answered that question!
 

psycojester

Arbiter
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
2,526
He's a forum poster Naked Ninja not a Wizardyou don't get some kind of special advantage for "knowing his type" You still need to counter his posts logically. Which is unfortunate because you suck at it.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,269
Location
The Von Braun, Deck 5
Lumpy said:
What the fuck is this "love it or leave it" mentality, where "it" means making fun of Bethesda? That's not what the Codex is all about, it's been done for about one year or less, and IMO the Codex has become crappier since.
What? The Codex did it when you joined, and you bitched about it then too. You are right in the part where you say "That's not what the Codex is all about", though. Not that I am about to claim that I know everything about what the Codex is "about".

@Ninja: You have to post your full name, that's the only way we can be sure that you're telling the truth. Remember, I double dared you.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
That would be a "fallacious" statement there pyro. I have countered his argument quite well. All he is able to pull out is nit-picking over semantics. That doesn't impress anyone but philosophy or english students.

@Dementia : I'm touched you want to know my name, but I don't think our relationship is quite at that level yet. Remember, you still have to tell me your age.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,269
Location
The Von Braun, Deck 5
Naked Ninja said:
That would be a "fallacious" statement there pyro. I have countered his argument quite well. All he is able to pull out is nit-picking over semantics. That doesn't impress anyone but philosophy or english students.
:lol:..............:lol: :lol: :lol:.............:lol:
:lol:..............:lol:......:lol:.............:lol:
:lol:..............:lol:......:lol:.............:lol:
:lol:..............:lol:......:lol:.............:lol:
:lol: :lol:.........:lol: :lol: :lol:..............:lol: :lol:

Naked Ninja said:
@Dementia : I'm touched you want to know my name, but I don't think our relationship is quite at that level yet. Remember, you still have to tell me your age.
My age will be revealed as a reward. I thought we were clear on that.
 

Lumpy

Arcane
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
8,525
Dementia Praecox said:
Lumpy said:
What the fuck is this "love it or leave it" mentality, where "it" means making fun of Bethesda? That's not what the Codex is all about, it's been done for about one year or less, and IMO the Codex has become crappier since.
What? The Codex did it when you joined, and you bitched about it then too. You are right in the part where you say "That's not what the Codex is all about", though. Not that I am about to claim that I know everything about what the Codex is "about".

@Ninja: You have to post your full name, that's the only way we can be sure that you're telling the truth. Remember, I double dared you.
Nope. Back then Bethesda was being criticized, not mocked. I disagreed with it then, but I no longer do.
Criticizing something can go on as long as it is a problem. Making fun of something in the same way gets old eventually.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
You know the difference between fallacy and semantics don't you DP?

Fallacy : a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.

Semantics : the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

The statements you highlighted would indeed have been ironically humorous, if those two words meant the same thing. But they don't, sorry.
 

Anaglyph

Novice
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
75
No matter how great the intellects involved and no matter how extensive the vocabulary wielded these sorts of exchanges almost inveriably end up reading like snot-nosed kids in a school yard shoving each other and yelling "No YOU are!" once they go beyond a couple of posts. Very, very few people have the wit to counter this tendency. Unfortunate really.

Anyway, please continue the petty bickering.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,269
Location
The Von Braun, Deck 5
Naked Ninja said:
You know the difference between fallacy and semantics don't you DP?
The statements you highlighted would indeed have been ironically humorous, if those two words meant the same thing. But they don't, sorry.
Your stupidity is nothing less than staggering. You called someone on making a fallacious statement, then proceeded to make one yourself. In fact, make that two.

:hahano:..............:hahano: :hahano: :hahano:.............:hahano:
:hahano:..............:hahano:......:hahano:.............:hahano:
:hahano:..............:hahano:......:hahano:.............:hahano:
:hahano:..............:hahano:......:hahano:.............:hahano:
:hahano: :hahano:.........:hahano: :hahano: :hahano:..............:hahano: :hahano:
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
452
Naked Ninja said:
Wow, you could have just said "you are wrong", but you chose not to huh? Wonder why? Oops, I already answered that question!

So lets finish this, shall we?

There are two kinds of logical fallacies, those (logical) being the ones we are all about here. Those where the Logical Fallacy is an specific kind of logical error, and those were the Logical Fallacy is a general problem in a given reasoning. I acussed you of the first kind: Your argument fell in a given, catalogued type of logical error.

So, as you see, in choosing "Fallacious" i am not only indicating that you commited a "mistake," but a specific kind of logical mistake so widely regarded as wrong and venomous that it has even been given a unique name and catalogued as a common "logical fallacy" of the Informal variety. Or, in the case where it is not a honest mistake, a "Sofism."

To reduce language to it's simpler form is not a good idea. Had i pointed that you had made a mistake, i would not have specified wich kind of mistake i was refering to. In some circles, both academical and others, "Fallacy" is used as a short form for "Logical Fallacy" of both the formal and informal kinds. So, in pointing at your mistake and saying it was a Fallacious Argument, it was implied, as most people around here understood, that it was a technical mistake in the Logic processes of your reasoning and, thus, of the following argument, of a very specific kind wich then i went on to specify. Not just a "mistake."

The argument that gestated this discussion is of a quite famous kind here in the Codex: A Straw Man.

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.

You, in your argument, transformed your oponent's position into another, weaker one, taking the reason of his activities and turning it into a separate topic. Thus, you left us with an extreme, simple, one sided situation:

"He does this because they do that."

A fairly stupid position, really. Who could actually not laught to his immaturity? When the real position was more "friendly" and less "extreme," as he explained us why he actually reacted as he did. You may say this is not really so big a mistake, but let's explore the situation:

"The nazis claimed the jews were inferior and deserving extermination, and the german people followed suit."

Such a nasty statement. Those germans are really bigots, and Hitler just gave them an excuse to exteriorise their racial hatred, right? No.

"The nazis claimed the jews were inferior and deserving extermination, and the german people followed suit, given that old grudges were latent since and old story involving germany, the ottoman empire, the united kingdom, the jewish comunity, and the creation of a jewish independent state."

Wow, now the situation is really different, isn't it? The first is an extreme position, oriented to create a given emotional response without allowing for questioning or doubt. The second one is actually giving some limited background that, while it may or may not justify their actions, throws a completely different light over the topic. Suddenly, they are no longer represed bigots with an inferiority complex, and there MAY be some deeper reason to what happened.

In the first case, the situation is misrepresented, since you are defacing the situation/argument beyond the point where one can still study the situation as exposed or your opponent's argument.

The same goes for:

"He bitches because everyone else is praising."

And the longer, deeper real version, even if that real version is as simplified as the example i gave you originally on this topic or just a couple paragraphs above about the german thingy. In presenting us an adultered, simplified, extremist version of the facts, you are in practice trying to provoke a given emotional reaction in the reader, instead of presenting the facts in a way that could mean the reader reaching a conclusion opposite to your intention.

Thus, a Logical Fallacy. This one you commited several times during the discussion, as also happens with the second one: Ad Hominem. Do i really need to give you examples of all the instances were you applied this one? The Pseudo-Intelectual thingy is an Ad Hominem Fallacy, just to mention one example out of many ocurrences.

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position.

Since i being or not a Pseudo-Intelectual has no direct relationship with the topic at hand, it is in itself a Fallacy of such kind. Since you used it, in several cases, while completely ignoring my arguments, we can consider it to be at least partially conscious and so to be a Sofism. You were partially successful in distracting me with it, so i give you a brownie for that.

So, in conclusion about the original topic: I never cared about WHY you did choose the wording you used. As you did it, it was a technical fallacy. Your opponent said A, you said B. Period.

Amusingly enought, you made so many fallacious arguments after that first one that it no longer matters if my original point was right or not.

Thus my tesis, being:

"Naked Ninja is unable to discuss in a fair and logic way, thus having to reach for Fallacious Arguments, then making a Fallacious, and maybe Sofist, Idiot out of himself."

Has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt.

See? I never needed to prove nothing about myself - This discussion i had won before making even my first post, and each subsequent post of you just made my position stronger. It was fun, in a wicked way. Or, as Dementia said: "Your stupidity is nothing less than staggering."

Well, it was amusing while it lasted.

Anything to appeal? Another Ad Hominem to add? Want to try an Ad Baculum, maybe?

[Edits] Corrected grammar and sintax. Removed a small paragraph to see if he bites and tries THAT on me. Some other things of no consequence.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Are you two finished your mutual back slapping?

You're still trying this tactic aren't you? Haven't you realised by now its not working? See, I know exactly what you are doing. You are trying to move the argument away from a domain which you realise you can't win in (Oblivion, the Codexers obsession with it) into a domain in which you feel you have a position of superiority in, ie arguing about arguing (Ahaha, that concept still makes me laugh). You wish me to argue this on your terms, in your "territory" (the territory of the Psuedo Intellectual, ie a realm of endless quibbling about terminology and semantics).

I'm afraid I'm not going to give you that opportunity, sorry. You can talk about straw men and Hominominominoms till you are blue in the face, the fact of the matter is you are still just a pompous psuedo-intellectual, attempting to impress everyone with your mastery of "logic", and completely ignoring the common sense of a plainly presented argument. Its called common because most people can figure it out without having to resort to over-analyzing every word and sentence. Your efforts to obfuscate the issue have failed my man.

I am also aware of what you are doing with the "Ad Baculum" thing. You are hoping I don't know what that means, and that I do "it", thus giving you the perfect opportunity to point it out and crow about your cleverness and my stupidity. Lol, Psuedo-Intellectuals, so very predictable.

Now I know this whole discussion has been a perfect opportunity for you to climb onto your podium and rattle off your knowledge of fallacies and whatever, we are all -thoroughly- impressed by your cleverness, but could you concentrate on the discussion at hand? You have already shot yourself in the foot by admitting the extremety of the codexers response directly correlates to the gaming media's positivity towards Oblivion. Its a simple cause and effect relationship. The one doubles, which causes the other to.

Initially it was simply because Olbivion was an inferior RPG, but it has long since moved past that into another realm.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
452
The Rambling Sage said:
That actually means you are a falacious loser, a moron, a sofist, and a retard unable to have a point by means other than outright lying. I hope you like being that, because if not you are just screwed up.

My tesis always was about you being fallacious, as the quote above shows. That tesis has been proven, but that's beyond the point. I just like to remember you how an unrepentant idiot you are, and to provide evidence of a posture explained below.

Naked Ninja said:
You have already shot yourself in the foot by admitting the extremety of the codexers response directly correlates to the gaming media's positivity towards Oblivion.

Shot in the foot? I never denied the correlation, but the actual cause and effect relationship. I actually mentioned, as the first evidence for my already proven tesis, the two following quotes:

The guy Naked Ninja was discussing with when this began said:
People enjoy voicing their annoyance with Pete, especially when every other site praises Oblivion and the forums are mostly filled with preteens thinking its the Second Coming of Christ.

In response to such post said:
Doing something just because every other site is doing the opposite is just as moronic as doing something because everyone else is doing it. Reverse dumbfuckery is still dumbfuckery.

Especially when =/= Just because

Thus, as i already said, i was discussing your technically fallacious argument, not who was right. An argument can be fallacious and still be right - but that doesn't make the argument to be less fallacious, since you reached a correct conclusion through incorrect logic, making your argument questionable and impossible to demonstrate.

In fact:

The Rambling Sage said:
Actually, it is not. Or it is, but you misrepresented the situation.

I called you a Fallacious Retard, not a Mistaken Fool.

Thus:

Naked Ninja said:
You are trying to move the argument away from a domain which you realise you can't win in (Oblivion, the Codexers obsession with it) into a domain in which you feel you have a position of superiority in (...)

Hardly, as my discussion always was an off topic one, as i just provided more than enough proof above, and, since my topic never was Oblivion, i am not trying to move the argument away from a domain wich i realise i can't win. I am keeping the argument in the original shape i gave it when i posted it. Thus, the comment i marked on the Quote is another Straw Man Fallacy, since my argument always was about the fallacies you used to further your own ends.

In fact, the only time i mentioned Oblivion in my original post was while deconstructing his argument as to show why yours was fallacious.

Oh, and:

Naked Ninja said:
I am also aware of what you are doing with the "Ad Baculum" thing. You are hoping I don't know what that means, and that I do "it", thus giving you the perfect opportunity to point it out and crow about your cleverness and my stupidity. Lol, Psuedo-Intellectuals, so very predictable.

Yes, because it never ocurred to me that, if you didn't already knew what an Ad Baculum was, you could just google it. Since you are too obsessed with conspiracy theories as to actually think why i wrote that, i'll explain it to you:

As you already know what an Ad Baculum is, you should had understood i was making fun out of you by saying something along the lines of: "Given you argumentative qualities, do you want to try and win the argument by brute force?"

But you already knew that, as you said.

:roll:

So, anything more to add? Any other evidence to ask for? I live to serve.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Ths, as i already said, i was discussing your technically fallacious argument, not who was right. An argument can be fallacious and still be right - but that doesn't make the argument to be less fallacious, since you reached a correct conclusion through incorrect logic, making your argument questionable and impossible to demonstrate.

My word, you must be a real joy to talk to at parties. :roll:


The Rambling Sage, in his original post, wrote:
That actually means you are a falacious loser, a moron, a sofist, and a retard unable to have a point by means other than outright lying. I hope you like being that, because if not you are just screwed up.

My tesis always was about you being fallacious, as the quote above shows.

No, your quote above simply shows that you were trying to deride me. I like the way you dress it up so pretentiously though, calling it a "thesis". If only we could harness the hot air that you and the rest of the Psuedo Intellectuals spew, use it to power machinery or something.


You're a persistent one, I'll give you that. I'm still not biting guy. Still not going to argue with you about arguing with you (lol). Talk about the Oblivion thing, or else make yet another long winded post about how I'm arguing the wrong thing and need to argue what you want me to argue about. :roll:
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
452
Naked Ninja said:
My word, you must be a real joy to talk to at parties. :roll:

And that is related to the topic at hand in wich way?

Naked Ninja said:
No, your quote above simply shows that you were trying to deride me. I like the way you dress it up so pretentiously though, calling it a "thesis". If only we could harness the hot air that you and the rest of the Psuedo Intellectuals spew, use it to power machinery or something.

Since you are the one claiming my original intention was to deride you, provide evidence other than your subjective opinion.

Thesis said:
1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.

In wich way it is not a Thesis? I made a proposition, i elaborated an argument. Elaborate.

Naked Ninja said:
Still not going to argue with you about arguing with you (lol).

Wikipedia said:
As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic is therefore large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analyses of reasoning using probability and to arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory.

Thus, i am arguing with you about Logic. Then, not just about Logic, but about a core topic of it.

Naked Ninja said:
Talk about the Oblivion thing, or else make yet another long winded post about how I'm arguing the wrong thing and need to argue what you want me to argue about. :roll:

Why should i talk about the Oblivion thing, when i already demonstrated to you i was never talking about it? Please, elaborate.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
See, you're not understanding. I never said it wasn't a thesis, only that you are choosing to "dress it up" by calling it that. You are putting on airs. You understand those terms right? It means you are using more sophisticated terms for common things to make it seem more impressive, because you desire to impress readers with your supposed intellect. Because you are a pompous psuedo intellectual. :lol:

And that is related to the topic at hand in wich way?

In the funny way.

Hmmm, interesting, lets see what eles that wiki link says....

Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy,

Who could possibly have guessed? :P

Is it any surprise that the highest concentration of pompous psuedo intellectuals on any campus is always at the philosophy department?

following links from that wiki site....ahahahaha :

International Society for the Study of Argumentation

OMG, pompous psuedo-intellectual central!
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2006
Messages
452
Naked Ninja said:
Blah Blah

It is lovely how you do evade every single argument, petition for evidence and elaboration, or counter argument and just continue to vomit fallacies and random crap.

The argument already died. I already proved my point, thanks to you, and you are doing nothing more than to spew things unrelated to anything i write. Not even shit i find funny, amusing, or interesting to elaborate on. Not even rational shit, so whatever - i am letting go.

Now, yes. I actually was insulting in the elaboration of the original thesis, and that i accept as my mistake. I am sorry if your feelings were hurt.

If later you want to post something on the topic and continue the discussion in a civilized and rational way, instead of that random and nauseating way you fell to use in those last posts, be my guest.

This was entertaining while it lasted and a good passtime, so no hard feelings, from my side at least.

See you around.
 

Naked Ninja

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
1,664
Location
South Africa
Your kind is unable to let go, who are you fooling? At best you will go off and sulk.

My feelings weren't hurt, don't worry. I'm not that insecure, I don't have a desperate need for the approval of random people on the internet :lol:

Oh, and a tip, that nausea you feel? Thats your common sense, trying desperately to assert itself and tell you that you are being foolish. Pay attention to it some time, it'll help in the future ;)

So long guy. Don't spend the rest of the day brooding. ;)
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
1,269
Location
The Von Braun, Deck 5
Naked Ninja said:
Oh, and a tip, that nausea you feel? Thats your common sense, trying desperately to assert itself and tell you that you are being foolish. Pay attention to it some time, it'll help in the future
You wouldn't know common sense if it jumped up and kicked you in the face.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom