Cheat Engine :: View topic - If you don't think Marijuana should be 100% legal

Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

If you don't think Marijuana should be 100% legal
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:27 am Post subject:

SORRY ARE WE FUCKING TALKING FRENCH NOW? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU LITERALLY TWIST SHIT INTO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN'T BE WRONG WOW GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:28 am Post subject:

konr wrote:

SORRY ARE WE FUCKING TALKING FRENCH NOW?
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOU LITERALLY TWIST SHIT INTO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN'T BE WRONG
WOW
GET A FUCKING GRIP ON REALITY

i cant breathe, someone send help

im laughing so fucking hard

1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:37 am Post subject:

He's explained so many times over why you are wrong. It absolutely 100% with zero doubt does say what we're saying. You are so fucking mind numbingly dumb there's no way it's real. You must be trolling.

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:41 am Post subject:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

??????? These two setences are analogous, way more than your examples. Yes or no, that sentence implies his friend is not a chef?

those weren't my examples, they were the dictionary's

so you aren't actually arguing against me, you're just being a hypocrite. gl

What? Just because it comes from the dictionary doesn't mean it's a parallel example, which is what we are talking about. Yet again you avoid answering my question, so I will ask yet again:

In the sentence "He is a chef, his friend is just a carrot cutter", is it implied his friend is not a chef?

there is nothing to necessitate that conclusion. i have already covered this. i feel like you missed a few posts.

The fact that you can't see why it absolutely does lead to that conclusion shows you don't have a good grasp on English. I'm guessing you learned it as a second language or something? No native speakers have any trouble understanding that sentence means his friend is just a carrot cutter and not a chef.

nothing you said has dismissed my argument, or been a rebuttal to my argument
instead you have only started a new tangent, propped up a strawman, and started another argument against that

jazakAllah, astaghfirullah :\

Your rebuttal is the statement that the sentence doesn't disqualify his friend as being a chef. It's so blatantly incorrect it doesn't really need a rebuttal, but:

By saying he is a chef, you give the person the attribute of chef, and by saying his friend is just a carrot cutter, you are saying his friend is limited to being a carrot cutter and is not qualified as a chef, or in other words, he is "just a carrot cutter".

and a chef in french is one who prepares food..?

http://www.talkenglish.com/grammar/articles.aspx

>Your rebuttal is the statement that the sentence doesn't disqualify his friend as being a chef.
yup, it doesn't directly state otherwise or that there is only one.

>It's so blatantly incorrect it doesn't really need a rebuttal, but:
but, it isn't. the sentence doesn't contain that. you are just assuming so. all i am saying is that there is no reason to assume either way.

If you ask a frenchman if he would consider someonw who is "just a carrot cutter" a chef, he will laugh you out of the country. You're weakly trying to use the definition as a defense, but we both know there's more to being a chef than just cutting carrots.

You are right, it doesn't directly say that he's not a chef, but it is absolutely implied he isn't, you have to understand context and things can be said without being directly said. Do you live in a world of no subtleties where people only say direct things and never imply anything? The assertation that he isn't a chef is readily evident.

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:01 am Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

??????? These two setences are analogous, way more than your examples. Yes or no, that sentence implies his friend is not a chef?

those weren't my examples, they were the dictionary's

so you aren't actually arguing against me, you're just being a hypocrite. gl

there is nothing to necessitate that conclusion. i have already covered this. i feel like you missed a few posts.

>If you ask a frenchman if he would consider someonw who is "just a carrot cutter" a chef
you are at this point putting words in my mouth. i never said that. you are setting up a strawman
>he will laugh you out of the country.
just to condescend and use an ad hominem as your argument
instead of arguing against what i said

>You are right, it doesn't directly say that he's not a chef, but it is absolutely implied he isn't,
no it isn't, it is possible to infer that though. that doesn't mean that is a correct inference.

>You're weakly trying to use the definition as a defense,
actually, i wasn't using the definition as a defense, this is part of your fallacious straw man. i am, of course, using what was said in the sentence and what was not said as evidence.

>you have to understand context and things can be said without being directly said.
right, like you indirectly being condescending because insults are your only footing

>Do you live in a world of no subtleties where people only say direct things and never imply anything?
i live in a world where people who respect each other don't put words in others' mouths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct

Please observe that the disjunctive syllogism works whether 'or' is considered 'exclusive' or 'inclusive' disjunction. See below for the definitions of these terms.

There are two kinds of logical disjunction:

inclusive means "and/or" - at least one of them is true, or maybe both.
exclusive ("xor") means exactly one must be true, but they cannot both be.
The widely used English language concept of or is often ambiguous between these two meanings, but the difference is pivotal in evaluating disjunctive arguments.

This argument:

Either P or Q.
Not P.
Therefore, Q.
is valid and indifferent between both meanings. However, only in the exclusive meaning is the following form valid:

Either (only) P or (only) Q.
P.
Therefore, not Q.
however if the fact is true it does not commit the fallacy

With the inclusive meaning you could draw no conclusion from the first two premises of that argument. See affirming a disjunct.

the only way to definitely arrive at your conclusion is if there is some information that is given for exclusivity.
my statement was only ever that there is none.

it was you who introduced different words to attempt to get me to argue with them, then say, "SEE! LOOK! YOU'RE SHIFTING THE ARGUMENT BY ARGUING WITH THE WORDS I USED AND INSISTED YOU USE!!" looooool kid, please
sit down

1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:09 am Post subject:

No matter how many times you post definitions and link wikis it is painfully obvious that it is implied. The guy that wrote it implied that because that's what he meant and he agreed you're a retard. I saw what it meant and pointed it out. HackOtaku saw what it meant and pointed it out. It is fucking mind numbing to see you argue this point so viciously and using even semi-complicated language to do so when it is not even close to complicated language. It is a very straightforward sentence that is saying a thing you are saying it isn't. You aren't an idiot in every regard so really the only logical conclusion here is that you are convincing yourself you're right by twisting things (again) to mean things they don't mean.

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:29 am Post subject:

konr wrote:

No matter how many times you post definitions and link wikis it is painfully obvious that it is implied. The guy that wrote it implied that because that's what he meant and he agreed you're a retard. I saw what it meant and pointed it out. HackOtaku saw what it meant and pointed it out. It is fucking mind numbing to see you argue this point so viciously and using even semi-complicated language to do so when it is not even close to complicated language. It is a very straightforward sentence that is saying a thing you are saying it isn't.

You aren't an idiot in every regard so really the only logical conclusion here is that you are convincing yourself you're right by twisting things (again) to mean things they don't mean.

This so much. The author has already stated what his context was, and explained it was as straightforward as we thought. It's ridiculous the lengths he's going to try and act like there was any other thing he could have meant, especially when the author had already called him an idiot for thinking elsewise. And no, this isn't a case of author vs reader in regards to interpretation. When everyone besides one person understands the context, then the odds are that one person misunderstood it. There is a difference between author meaning and reader interpretation in things like books and poems, but not in internet discussion usually, and definitely not in this case.

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:36 am Post subject:

nah, this is a case of affirming the disjunct. if you want, i will e-mail my logic professor.

1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1509

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:40 am Post subject:

greatsage wrote:

nah, this is a case of affirming the disjunct. if you want, i will e-mail my logic professor.

The fact that you have mentioned a professor at all in the case of this extremely simple sentence is insane to be completely honest. You're the most delusional guy ever.

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:20 pm Post subject:

greatsage wrote:

nah, this is a case of affirming the disjunct. if you want, i will e-mail my logic professor.

While you're at him, ask him if me saying one of your arguments was bullshit means I am disagreeing with myself, kek. It's because of that thread, ans your inability to admit you made a mistake that you have become little more than a joke. The same thing is happening here.

TheIndianGuy
Advanced Cheater

Reputation: 102

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 84

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:41 pm Post subject:

this thread is good/10 you guys arguing about whether imaginary person is a chef or not.

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:58 pm Post subject:

TheIndianGuy wrote:

this thread is good/10

you guys arguing about whether imaginary person is a chef or not.

This is important, damn it.

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:03 am Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

nah, this is a case of affirming the disjunct. if you want, i will e-mail my logic professor.

someone sure can twist a narrative, Rolling Eyes

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:19 am Post subject:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

nah, this is a case of affirming the disjunct. if you want, i will e-mail my logic professor.

someone sure can twist a narrative, Rolling Eyes

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

at least he admitted he was spewing bullshit.

only a derp would think that the most influential society isn't the one that had the most powerful words in the history of mankind handed down unto them & holds the holiest & most influential city in the world.

By that logic, you've admitted to false analogy and strawmen. Like, are you actually this stupid?

when i quoted you with a url i was asserting your quote was what the url described
you quoted me with a url
if you were describing the url i posted, with your url, as bullshit
then you are describing what you originally posted, what i quoted, as, in your own words, bullshit

so pls dont try to tell me what my logic is. you're fingerpointing and accusing inadequacy because this is your choice of projection. i remember learning in english grade school that the author and the reader have two distinct interpretations so pls dont try to author my shit for me when its already been signed

finnegan waking up
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:23 am Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

nah, this is a case of affirming the disjunct. if you want, i will e-mail my logic professor.

someone sure can twist a narrative, Rolling Eyes

greatsage wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

greatsage wrote:

By that logic, you've admitted to false analogy and strawmen. Like, are you actually this stupid?

notice how you continue your track record of 0 comprehensive rebuttals

Display posts from previous:

	Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 6 of 8

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum