Change to current terms

[Guest]

I think "dorf" should be added to the glossary, and my votebots will agree.

[Avalanche]

Too many fallacies for me to bother responding.

 

and yet you did. You responded by saying you wouldn't respond, meaning you just wanted to say (rather rudely) that you have nothing to say to oppose what I was saying, and what quite a few other members here are agreeing with me on.

 

You seem to want to argue this into the ground until, what? You just put up the words you want and try to phase them in? I think Sands was right, you just think your terms are better and thus should be made official.

 

Also you keep avoiding taking a vote, like many people here and I have suggested. If you took a poll and it turns out a majority wanted your new terms then we here would all agree, it's what the people want.

 

Argumentum ad populum does sound fair. You have mentioned it twice yet you haven't taken a poll yet..

[Purlox]

and yet you did. You responded by saying you wouldn't respond, meaning you just wanted to say (rather rudely) that you have nothing to say to oppose what I was saying, and what quite a few other members here are agreeing with me on.

 

You seem to want to argue this into the ground until, what? You just put up the words you want and try to phase them in? I think Sands was right, you just think your terms are better and thus should be made official.

 

Also you keep avoiding taking a vote, like many people here and I have suggested. If you took a poll and it turns out a majority wanted your new terms then we here would all agree, it's what the people want.

 

Argumentum ad populum does sound fair. You have mentioned it twice yet you haven't taken a poll yet..

This response is exactly why I didn't bother making a "real" response to any of your previous posts. It's because you write fallacious sentences all the time. You do it in IRC, you do it on the forum and the worst thing is that when someone tells you that what you said is a fallacy you ignore it.

 

If you want me to respond to the previous one, I can, just tell me if you really want it, but for now I will show you how this post was wrong:

1. You (wrongly) assume that the reason, why I didn't want to bother writing a "real" response is because I had nothing to oppose what you said. This is incorrect and it would be easy to see if you checked your post for fallacies, which was the real reason I didn't bother writing anything to you beside the sentence saying why, but I guess you didn't do that.
   
2. As you like to do, you resorted to Argumentum ad populum. For those who can't google it, it is a fallacy also known as "appeal to the people", it's about concluding that something is true if enough people believe it (preferably the majority of people) (e.g. many years ago a lot people believed that planets rotate around Earth, did it make planets rotate around it? I think Galileo Galilei would disagree). You did this fallacy first in the last part of your first sentence "and what quite a few other members here are agreeing with me on" second example of this is in your third paragraph, where you talk about making a poll to see if the majority wants to use those terms. Making a poll about the terms doesn't make any set of terms better or more correct. Then you talk about how Argumentum ad populum is fair, mind telling us more about that?
   
3. The whole second paragraph is incorrect. I'm trying to have discussion on better terms, it doesn't matter if I'm the one who made them, and then use them. After enough people start using them I also want them to be written in the Glossary to help the newcomers. And best would be if at least some of them were always used instead of the terms we use now.
   

[Avalanche]

This response is exactly why I didn't bother making a "real" response to any of your previous posts. It's because you write fallacious sentences all the time. You do it in IRC, you do it on the forum and the worst thing is that when someone tells you that what you said is a fallacy you ignore it.

 

If you want me to respond to the previous one, I can, just tell me if you really want it, but for now I will show you how this post was wrong:

1. You (wrongly) assume that the reason, why I didn't want to bother writing a "real" response is because I had nothing to oppose what you said. This is incorrect and it would be easy to see if you checked your post for fallacies, which was the real reason I didn't bother writing anything to you beside the sentence saying why, but I guess you didn't do that.
   
2. As you like to do, you resorted to Argumentum ad populum. For those who can't google it, it is a fallacy also known as "appeal to the people", it's about concluding that something is true if enough people believe it (preferably the majority of people) (e.g. many years ago a lot people believed that planets rotate around Earth, did it make planets rotate around it? I think Galileo Galilei would disagree). You did this fallacy first in the last part of your first sentence "and what quite a few other members here are agreeing with me on" second example of this is in your third paragraph, where you talk about making a poll to see if the majority wants to use those terms. Making a poll about the terms doesn't make any set of terms better or more correct. Then you talk about how Argumentum ad populum is fair, mind telling us more about that?
   
3. The whole second paragraph is incorrect. I'm trying to have discussion on better terms, it doesn't matter if I'm the one who made them, and then use them. After enough people start using them I also want them to be written in the Glossary to help the newcomers. And best would be if at least some of them were always used instead of the terms we use now.
   

 

You still fail to see again and again that nobody wants a change. No one else here thinks that a change is necessary or will be successful with a poll. I have said time and again I would gladly accept any new terms regardless of who thought them up if a majority of people proved they preferred them in a conclusive poll. Clearly, since you never seem to make any attempt to prove me and all the other people who disagree with you wrong, you know that not enough people want this change. No one wants it, no one thinks it's a good idea and if you keep harping on about it it's not going to suddenly make us all give in a switch to a whole set of new terms.

 

Now to address what you said in the quote.

Where is the proof that I write fallacious things in the irc?

Where is your example of me writing them in the forums?

Where is your quote of me ignoring someone telling me what I said was incorrect?

 

You still haven't come up with any sort of response to what I have posted, fallacies or not. I don't think what I wrote is illegible or uncomprehensible. So you must have been able to understand it, yet you don't seem to have come up with an answer. So you must either not have one, or you choose not to to bluff that you do have an answer that contributes to the discussion, yet you hold onto it for some mysterious reason..

 

Argumentum ad populum. You said this first yourself. Where if the majority of people believe in something, it becomes true? Well there you made your own fallacy. This doesn't exactly apply, now does it? Terms aren't set in stone, they aren't "true". We don't actually physically force our tulpae, we don't actually traverse a wonderland, etc etc. This are the most popular terms for a reason, because they were first, and a majority of people are used to them. It is not a fallacy to say it would be completely stupid to change all that up just because you seem to think it is necessary. Which IS true, otherwise you wouldn't have started up this thread in the first place.

 

You mention in the place paragraph how you believe it is better for the terms to be introduced now, so it's easier on newcomers who come along afterwards and see them and use them.

Well why don't you think for a second: Newcomers don't come in waves, they arrive daily, all the time. There have been newcomers coming along constantly, seeing these terms and using them and none have kicked up any sort of fuss.

It seems to be only in your head that you see a need for new terms. No newbie has wondered what these terms mean or been confused by them.

 

There is no need for new terms. Now don't just casually dismiss this post like my others, otherwise it only serves as further proof that you have nothing good to reply with.

Don't say that isn't the case and you simply didn't reply because you think I got some things wrong. It's a debate. Opposing sides tend to not agree on what the other side says. Dismissing the other side outright proves how weak your side is.

 

The plain facts are this: No one has said we need new terms to replace the ones we currently have (aside from wonderland, which I agree with). I have made statements and people have agreed with my statements. That makes a majority, as far as we can tell, us against you. Until you make a poll and prove it that more people want a change, it will always be a majority vote for no change.

 

Don't ever just dismiss my or anyone else's input because you don't agree.

[412]

I think I'm seeing something coming in the distance, what is the word....

 

Ah yes, shitstorm.

 

Are you a prophet or something?

[Virgil]

So we are going to resolve this by using argumentum ad populum. Sounds fair.

 

Uh, I'll try to explain my confusion.

I don't see any fallacy.

Voting is a (legitimate) method (of decision making); it's not even an argument.

A suggestion is not a conclusion, so no fallacious arguments there.

But suppose someone were to say, "The decision is right, because the majority agreed on it."

Yeah, that would be an argumentum ad populum, but I would refrain from making accusations of committing hypothetical or contingent fallacies, and point it out only if someone has actually committed one. I can see the assumption that people who want to take a vote probably think it's the best way to decide, but that's not a fallacy. Deeming the outcome of the vote (which is fairly unpredictable, so those who want to take a vote may even disagree with it) right would be an argumentum ad populum. The line is thin, but clear.

 

Frankly, it seems to me you just disagree with the idea of taking a vote, so you want to discredit the it by calling it a fallacy.

Don't get me wrong, I do think voting is a shitty method of decision making. I just want to dissuade you from calling it a fallacy. If I'm correct and you just want to convince others that voting could be detrimental, make a proper point instead of dismissing it like that.

 

Incidentally, I think discussion is always better than voting, so ramble on, folks. But it doesn't seem you'll reach an agreement any time soon. And if you really don't, well...

[Avalanche]

Don't get me wrong, I do think voting is a shitty method of decision making. I just want to dissuade you from calling it a fallacy. If I'm correct and you just want to convince others that voting could be detrimental, make a proper point instead of dismissing it like that.

 

I think voting, especially in this case is the best way to reach a conclusion. We are trying to work out what everyone would like the best, out of a set of terms and alternate terms. Thus a vote, by the members whom this result would effect would be the best action.

 

The best set of terms is the one everyone will want to use, the set everyone likes the best and the set everyone agrees on to use together.

 

Thus a vote taken by everyone (or anyone who cares) is the best way in my opinion. Rather than having 7,8,9 people discuss it and effectively come up with what is best for the community without really consulting them. It's not like the community as a whole is ignorant and can get what they personally prefer wrong in a vote.

 

Of course, in other cases besides this, a vote wouldn't be suitable. I'm not outright disagreeing with you on that remark.

[Guest Albatross_]

None of this shit is necessary. Keep the current terms. Everyone knows what they mean and they convey the message quite clearly.

[Phi]

Reasons for lock:

1. The thread has went from discussing terms to discussing why it's stupid to use fallacies, why it's stupid to say it's stupid to use fallacies, and why it's stupid to say it's stupid to say it's stupid to use fallacies.

2. Another thread was opened on another board in a far away land. Having two threads will both detract from discussion in each thread as well as give one side a chance to run away if they run into an argument that they can't fight back against, making it twice as hard to finally reach a conclusion.

3. We need a fresh start that is rid of all this mess.

4. This is a good place to stop. With Alb's post. God knows that the next post will be insulting another user's post or something, creating another storm of insults.

 

I apologize if anybody was in the middle of typing a reply. Unless it was full of insults. Then I'm not sorry.