The Gaming Den

"You know, that's the exact opposite of what he has said on multiple occasions.

So, maybe you should actually read something that he has posted."


----------

Fair enough. All I kept seeing was massive tl;dr and him yammering on about petro chemicals in the chat.

Meikle641 wrote:Fair enough. All I kept seeing was massive tl;dr and him yammering on about petro chemicals in the chat.

WTF? since when is there a chat?

Zine's from my D&D group, which has an IRC chat. He DMed for us at one time, but now he plays sometimes.

mean_liar wrote:This fucking thread is awesome.

I love the sight of piled-up train cars in the morning.

Feels so... apropriate.

GX (Meikle641)->

Seriously dude, what's your problem? I put up with your shitty rants on our chat channel all the fucking time, especially when you start ranting about bloody legalized marijuana, when most of us are at best indifferent and at worst violently opposed to it.

All I said in our channel was "Somebody's claiming oil and natural gas are the same." And the comment wasn't even fucking directed at you. It was directed to our resident energy expert who's so immersed in the subject that he even knows what kind of form you need to fill out to get an oil drilling permit... and such a form wouldn't be valid if you wanted to drill natural gas.

Whereas your only comment on the subject is "I think you can get both from the same hole". Gee, why do you think I made the comment to Juum about it and not you? Because you don't fucking know anything about the subject, that's why.

Next thing you bring up a retarded argument in the chatroom, you're on your fucking own. And I'm not gonna be there to say "They're Republicans/Conservatives so you can't really expect them to support you". I'll just say "Your argument is fucking retarded and that's why they're flaming you to death. Shut the fuck up and go be a pothead with your Anonymous friends instead."

Well, I don't think Zinegata is really in a position to say someone has a shitty argument.

Remember, one of his salient points is that he doesn't believe someone who happened to be an avid reader of the situation pre-9/11, because... Well, because he doesn't have to.

Sheesh.

-Crissa

Meikle641 wrote:Zine's from my D&D group, which has an IRC chat. He DMed for us at one time, but now he plays sometimes.

Yeah. I "DM'd for you at one time" through four fucking campaigns. If you feel embarassed being associated with me, then don't bring it up. I didn't fucking mention my association with you until you come barging in and sending a pothead salvo my way.

Crissa wrote:Well, I don't think Zinegata is really in a position to say someone has a shitty argument.

Remember, one of his salient points is that he doesn't believe someone who happened to be an avid reader of the situation pre-9/11, because... Well, because he doesn't have to.

Sheesh.

-Crissa

Crissa, still waiting for your links. If you read so much, surely you can produce some.

Edit: Oh wait, you admit you couldn't find them. Given you're so much older than me, couldn't it be possible you're going a bit senile and are citing stuff you never actually read?

Crissa wrote:Well, I don't think Zinegata is really in a position to say someone has a shitty argument.

Remember, one of his salient points is that he doesn't believe someone who happened to be an avid reader of the situation pre-9/11, because... Well, because he doesn't have to.

Sheesh.

-Crissa

Yeah, I mean what kind of idiot doesn't immediately believe someone with no evidence whatsoever, but who obviously has a political ax to grind.

It's like he believes that it is possible for human beings to lie or convince themselves of things that aren't true through some sort of bias in which they confirm the things they wish were true in their heads.

Kaelik wrote:It's like he believes that it is possible for human beings to lie or convince themselves of things that aren't true through some sort of bias in which they confirm the things they wish were true in their heads.

I hate you so much less now Kaelik.

Kaelik wrote:It's like he believes that it is possible for human beings to lie or convince themselves of things that aren't true through some sort of bias in which they confirm the things they wish were true in their heads.

Sigged!

mean_liar wrote:I hate you so much less now Kaelik.

There's been a lot of that going around recently, and frankly, it's pissing me off.

Kaelik wrote:

mean_liar wrote:I hate you so much less now Kaelik.

There's been a lot of that going around recently, and frankly, it's pissing me off.

I didn't hate you before, but I could start if that would make you feel better.

So, can anyone prove I'm wrong about the government structure of Afghanistan in the Taliban era?

No?

So why the fuck wouldn't you believe me?

-Crissa

Kaelik wrote:

mean_liar wrote:I hate you so much less now Kaelik.

There's been a lot of that going around recently, and frankly, it's pissing me off.

Don't worry, Kaelic, I still hate you. And don't bother responding; I still have you on ignore.

Crissa wrote:So, can anyone prove I'm wrong about the government structure of Afghanistan in the Taliban era?

No?

So why the fuck wouldn't you believe me?

Mu. "You cannot prove me wrong" is not a standard that leads to the truth.
For example I can claim to be about anything on the internet, and most people would not be able to prove me wrong. That doesn't mean that I am telling the truth.

Crissa wrote:So, can anyone prove I'm wrong about the government structure of Afghanistan in the Taliban era?

No?

So why the fuck wouldn't you believe me?

-Crissa

Because you're making what is called an irrational argument in the field of logic.

Anything can be true. I can say "Intelligent life lives on Mars now", and you can't disprove me. Sure, we haven't found any evidence yet, but what if they're using some super-duper technology to fool our probes? (like say, an HP Printer- see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AoAJOF5 ... re=related)

That's why people developed Occam's Razor. Now, people keep summing it up with "Simplest argument wins", but that's not actually true. The true summation of Occam's Razor is "Simplest argument wins if all variables can be evaluated."

Your argument is that "The Taliban made the offer to hand over Bin Laden, but didn't have the capability to do so because their government was too disorganized."

The italicized part has no evidence to support it. It is not a variable that can be evaluated. We need evidence to evaluate whether it's true or not - a Taliban government org chart, eye witness testimony, or you actually living in Afghanistan as opposed to reading about it on the Internet.

Similarly, my statement "Intelligent life lives on Mars now, they just use technology to mask themselves!" is likewise hugely irrational. Because I haven't shown any example of intelligent Martian life, or their masking technology.

So all you're really telling me is that I should intentionally be irrational because I can't disprove... something that hasn't been proven. When the rational course of action is to simply write off an unproven fact until evidence can be presented to evaluate it.

But it doesn't really matter much anyway, because I think I've made my point and we've now moved on to making fun of Kaelik for wanting to be hated in spite of coming up with pretty sniffy quotes. And nobody really cares about what you're talking about now because they don't need a lecture on what's irrational to know that it's plain silly to simply believe you just because you say so.

Zinegata wrote:That's why people developed Occam's Razor. Now, people keep summing it up with "Simplest argument wins", but that's not actually true. The true summation of Occam's Razor is "Simplest argument wins if all variables can be evaluated."

Huh, I thought Ockam's Razor boiled down to 'Given two models of equal explanatory power, the superior model is the simpler one (e.g. the one that uses fewer variables).'.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

Zinegata wrote:That's why people developed Occam's Razor. Now, people keep summing it up with "Simplest argument wins", but that's not actually true. The true summation of Occam's Razor is "Simplest argument wins if all variables can be evaluated."

Huh, I thought Ockam's Razor boiled down to 'Given two models of equal explanatory power, the superior model is the simpler one (e.g. the one that uses fewer variables).'.

Whoops. I may have been spelling it wrong for... 5 years?

However...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Wiki says Occam's Razor...

Even though the guy who proposed it is named Ockham...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham

I'm confused now.

Edit: My favorite summation is this though: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html

Crissa wrote:So, can anyone prove I'm wrong about the government structure of Afghanistan in the Taliban era?

No?

So why the fuck wouldn't you believe me?

-Crissa

It's quite possible that I could prove you wrong. It would just require spending actual time and effort to prove something that has no effect on anything else in the discussion, and is pretty much meaningless.

But yes, as has already been accurately summed up, I don't believe you for the same reason that I don't believe in invisible intangible dragons that live in my garage and breath heatless flames on me all the time.

Because I don't believe things until evidence has been presented.

I could go look for evidence, but since whether or not the Taliban was a pack of assholes or a pack of incompetent assholes isn't really too important to this discussion.

Zinegata wrote:Because you're making what is called an irrational argument in the field of logic.

No, I'm making a claim of authority. It's a weak case, but I made it.

Anything can be true. I can say "Intelligent life lives on Mars now", and you can't disprove me.

But I could point to various other views and evidence that says 'no life has been found so far on Mars'. You've not even bothered to find other evidence on the argument.

Your argument is that "The Taliban made the offer to hand over Bin Laden, but didn't have the capability to do so because their government was too disorganized."

I never said that. No, not just literally. 'This is how the government of Afghanistan was organized' was the topic of one post, and 'The US took no direct diplomacy with them' was in another.

Neither point you've disputed. Yet you pull this quote out as though I typed it. And I did not.

If you believe nothing without 'evidence,' how do you manage in real life? Do you argue with police officers, witnesses, and receptionists?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:'The US took no direct diplomacy with them.'

Neither point you've disputed.

Actually, he did dispute this point. I think there were even links involved.

I'm not sure, because I didn't read them, but they exist, and there is at least a 20% chance they were not rick rolls, so he's certainly beating you up.

Kaelik wrote:

Crissa wrote:'The US took no direct diplomacy with them.'

Neither point you've disputed.

Actually, he did dispute this point. I think there were even links involved.

I'm not sure, because I didn't read them, but they exist, and there is at least a 20% chance they were not rick rolls, so he's certainly beating you up.

Yep. I have already noted that it was the US, not the Taliban, which initiated the diplomatic talks outlining a list of demands to hand over the perpetrators of 9-11, close the terrorist camps, and release foreign nationals being held by the Taliban:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

1.Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda;
2.Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
3.Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
4.Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
5.Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

This would not have resulted in the loss of any lives, and it was initiated by the United States of America. Not the Taliban.

Also, Crissa, I know it hurts your ego, but you're not an authority. And now you're just whining because you don't like this truth.

BTW...

'This is how the government of Afghanistan was organized'

Which leads to the point that "The Taliban couldn't have handed Bin Laden over", because your earlier claim that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden was based on a completely incomplete assessment of the situation.

And even then, the above is an extremely flimsy point.

You linked the government of Iran's org chart without any proof that Iran and Afghanistan have the same government. Excuse me, but as crazy as Iran is, they don't force women to wear fucking carpets, they actually treat their Jews decently, and while they are an "Islamic" republic they don't take the Koran to its literal extremes as an excuse to blow up Buddhist Statues or outlaw television.

Hell, they actually even have elections that matter to some extent. Plus rival political parties. If Iran didn't have such a hard-on for the whole "America is the Great Satan" thing they'd be America's best buddy and most promising example of democracy in the Middle East next to fucking Israel.

Just because they're "Islamic" governments doesn't mean that they're the same! That's honestly thinking in extremely stereotypical ways, on the same level as thinking all Muslims are terrorists.

Zinegata wrote:You linked the government of Iran's org chart without any proof that Iran and Afghanistan have the same government. Excuse me, but as crazy as Iran is, they don't force women to wear fucking carpets, they actually treat their Jews decently, and while they are an "Islamic" republic they don't take the Koran to its literal extremes as an excuse to blow up Buddhist Statues or outlaw television.

Hell, they actually even have elections that matter to some extent. Plus rival political parties. If Iran didn't have such a hard-on for the whole "America is the Great Satan" thing they'd be America's best buddy and most promising example of democracy in the Middle East next to fucking Israel.

Actually, they do make their women wear carpets, and their elections are shams, and their political parties are even more shams. See, you know how the Candidates in US elections are either rich white guys who like poor people or rich white guys who hate poor people? In Iran, all the parties are islamic guys who hate women and jews.

Zinegata, you do know your link doesn't actually support any claim of direct contact. Why would you link to something that contradicts your statement?

And hasn't there been several pages pointing out that the ultimatum was stupid and ultimately still unfulfilled?

As to why Iran isn't friends with the US? They don't like our rich white people, who propped up a government that was deposed in my lifetime and not yours in a revolution[/url], involving the deaths of Americans? This is why they have F-14 fighters, for instance. And why we sold chemical weapons for Saddam in Iraq to use on Iranian troops?

No one older than twenty years old in Iran hasn't been injured or remember a near relative killed by that American-backed fighting.

No wonder they don't like the United States!

-Crissa

Kaelik wrote:

Zinegata wrote:You linked the government of Iran's org chart without any proof that Iran and Afghanistan have the same government. Excuse me, but as crazy as Iran is, they don't force women to wear fucking carpets, they actually treat their Jews decently, and while they are an "Islamic" republic they don't take the Koran to its literal extremes as an excuse to blow up Buddhist Statues or outlaw television.

Hell, they actually even have elections that matter to some extent. Plus rival political parties. If Iran didn't have such a hard-on for the whole "America is the Great Satan" thing they'd be America's best buddy and most promising example of democracy in the Middle East next to fucking Israel.

Actually, they do make their women wear carpets, and their elections are shams, and their political parties are even more shams. See, you know how the Candidates in US elections are either rich white guys who like poor people or rich white guys who hate poor people? In Iran, all the parties are islamic guys who hate women and jews.

Nah. Iran just makes their women wear a doormat, not a carpet.

Point is, they're not as extreme as the Taliban, who blew up World Heritage sites to piss off millions of Buddhists worldwide in the name of their faith.

Iran, by contrast, does actually treat its own Jews with a measure of decency. Jewish places of worship are actually not burned to the ground regularly in Iran. I've read a couple of articles where some Iranian politicans have even expressed embarassment how their current president denies the Holocaust, although it may be more of a rivalry thing than an honest sentiment.

And yeah, much of the Iranian electoral process and political parties is a sham. But compared to Afghanistan, which has no elections and no public political debate, that's still a huge improvement in terms of allowing public political discourse. Here's what the Taliban have to say about their own government (from the wiki article):

The Sharia does not allow politics or political parties. That is why we give no salaries to officials or soldiers, just food, clothes, shoes and weapons. We want to live a life like the Prophet lived 1400 years ago and jihad is our right. We want to recreate the time of the Prophet and we are only carrying out what the Afghan people have wanted for the past 14 years

Yeah. They actually said what Iran is doing - even if it's just a sham - is heresy according to the Sharia, period.