Aids Needle

[KA0Z R4VR]

Hey, live in vegas. Watch the news. Don't use the internet to prove your clamis, because unlike you, I did not find this on the internet; it just so happened that I used AIM to tell someone else about it. Logical thinking-5 seconds-really.





EDIT:
redboriqua702 (3:30:44 PM): shashakiro is going to ban us for hacking knowledge
Hello R4VR (4:30:55 PM): lmfao!
redboriqua702 (3:31:00 PM): ^_^

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by redraver

actually
we are
because the only proof we had was aired on TV days ago
you dont live in vegas
niether do you go online to watch the news casts from vegas
so you cannot disprove what we are saying
you are going nowhere

"I can't disprove what you're saying"? There's no evidence whatsoever to what you're saying. There's nothing to disprove.

"Logical thinking"? You're the one whose argument consists of one single fallacy. Maybe you're the one who should learn how to logically think.

[KA0Z R4VR]

Uhm, the context in which we are talking about [the AIDS needles] is what you are trying to disprove - PWNT #1

And, logical thinking that you SHOULD NOT use the internet to disprove what you think is an internet claim.

Do you NOT have 5 seconds to think deeply for once?

LMFAO "To logically think..." = split infinitive = lesser logic = PWNT #2

[redraver]

and the evidence to what we are saying was aired on TV
which is a much more reliable source then that of the internet

a newscast would not be made for an urban myth with no evidence
it DID happen
so they DID a newscast

[KA0Z R4VR]

Originally Posted by redraver

and the evidence to what we are saying was aired on TV
which is a much more reliable source then that of the internet

a newscast would not be made for an urban myth with no evidence
it DID happen
so they DID a newscast

PWNT #3

[Tokzic]

lmfao

I'm sure saying "PWNT" makes you feel victorious and special, but you're getting nowhere.

Want to see "PWNT #1" and "PWNT #2"?

One - your logic means your entire argument is invalid.

Two - here's the precise equivalent of your stance in this thread. "THERE'S NO PROOF DRAGONS DON'T EXIST, SO THEREFORE THEY EXIST".

[KA0Z R4VR]

Want another 'PWNT'? You are STILL using internet sources as your back-up. I like the dragon thread - great deus ex machina - but it doesn't cut it.

PLUS wiki is the worst EVER internet source you could use; for instance [since you like them so much] I can re-write any entry on there. ANYONE CAN! You thought a bit more deeply, but still not logically.

[redraver]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

Two - here's the precise equivalent of your stance in this thread. "THERE'S NO PROOF DRAGONS DON'T EXIST, SO THEREFORE THEY EXIST".

no
what we are trying to prove is that just because
You didnt see the evidence
doesnt make it a False or invalid claim

"YOU'RE NOT GOD"
your not the judge of what is true or not



PS. you fail

[KA0Z R4VR]

Yeah, we are not trying to proove something that doesn't exists. That is illogical [if you ever learned proofs in math], we are doing the opposite. Your logic is not consistant

First - You accuse the internet of incredibility

Second - You use the internet to attempt to disprove our facts

Third - You should know better than to use dragons against ANY topic if you are trying to make a point. They don't exist! Don't use something that don't even exists!!!!! Especially if you challenge logicla thinking.

[Tokzic]

But that's what you're doing. There is nothing to indicate that there are actually HIV-infected needles anywhere but your word that there was a news article on it, which is worth as much as the dragontologist's word that dragons exist. Both you and the dragontologist say "THERE'S NOTHING TO DISPROVE WHAT I SAY IS TRUE," which is logical fallacy, which is hilarious because you love spewing crap about logical thinking constantly when you can't even do it yourself.

So basically you're wrong and unless you have proof you can't convince anyone of it. Bye.

[KA0Z R4VR]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

But that's what you're doing. There is nothing to indicate that there are actually HIV-infected needles anywhere but your word that there was a news article on it, which is worth as much as the dragontologist's word that dragons exist. Both you and the dragontologist say "THERE'S NOTHING TO DISPROVE WHAT I SAY IS TRUE," which is logical fallacy, which is hilarious because you love spewing crap about logical thinking constantly when you can't even do it yourself.

So basically you're wrong and unless you have proof you can't convince anyone of it. Bye.

No, it is not. I watched a news broadcast reposting it = proof.
You make up words like dragonologists = WTFLAMEROFLWAFL
We have no mistake in our reasoning because we are not trying to prove whether its real or not. It is real, hence there is nothing to disprove.
You are trying to label this as another online website gimmick when in reality, this has nothing to do with any evidence you may find online, because like I said, this was reported on TV in Las Vegas. You keep throwing this word fallacy at me in hopes to confuse or belittle my logic when in fact you are the only one with a self-absorbed reasoning issue. YOU for some reason can not comprehend that this was not found online, nor is there a report online because, in fact, it happened in the city where I live and watch the news, THEN on top of that you attempt to disprove the credibility of the internet while using the internet to disprove it. Redundancy is a common ignorance in an arguement, but self contradictions make your arguement as void as the reports you come up with. There is no debate here. It happened in Vegas. Done deal.

lmfao
dragonologist. wow. lmfao.

[Relambrien]

Kaos and redraver, I would love for you to come into CT and get ripped to shreds by everyone who actually knows how to debate.

So let's get started on this.

Originally Posted by redraver

actually
we are
because the only proof we had was aired on TV days ago
you dont live in vegas
niether do you go online to watch the news casts from vegas
so you cannot disprove what we are saying
you are going nowhere

Logical fallacy #1: Argumentum ad Ignorantium. A fallacy in which you conclude that something must be true because it has never been proven false, or vice versa. You are saying that because what you are saying has not been proven false, that what you are saying is true.

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

Uhm, the context in which we are talking about [the AIDS needles] is what you are trying to disprove - PWNT #1

It is not his job to disprove what you are saying. It is your job to prove what you are saying. The burden of proof falls on the one who presents the idea. The idea has been presented that there are AIDS needles on gas stations, now it's your job (and redraver's job) to prove it, since you (together with him) brought it up.

Originally Posted by K40Z R4VR

And, logical thinking that you SHOULD NOT use the internet to disprove what you think is an internet claim.

Do you NOT have 5 seconds to think deeply for once?

So what you're saying is, you shouldn't use the Internet as evidence against something -said on the Internet-? Look at the OP; that was an AIM conversation and therefore on the Internet.

Originally Posted by K40Z R4VR

LMFAO "To logically think..." = split infinitive = lesser logic = PWNT #2

http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/w...grammarian.htm. Since you have no effective rebuttal, you are trying to point out minor grammar mistakes in an attempt to make it seem as if you are more credible than Tokzic.

Originally Posted by redraver

and the evidence to what we are saying was aired on TV
which is a much more reliable source then that of the internet

Yet you have no evidence that it was in fact aired on TV. Guess what? Here in Delaware I just saw a newscast showing that the whole AIDS needle thing was false and a hoax. There, now I've done the same thing as you, and my statement is just as credible as yours since neither has any evidence.

Originally Posted by redraver

a newscast would not be made for an urban myth with no evidence
it DID happen
so they DID a newscast

You seem to be blissfully naive. Newscasts are in fact made for erroneous reports all the time; all you need to do is search a little for them and you can find them easily.

Originally Posted by K40Z R4VR

Want another 'PWNT'? You are STILL using internet sources as your back-up. I like the dragon thread - great deus ex machina - but it doesn't cut it.

Because all Internet sources are always completely invalid. That's certainly logical.

Originally Posted by K40Z R4VR

PLUS wiki is the worst EVER internet source you could use; for instance [since you like them so much] I can re-write any entry on there. ANYONE CAN! You thought a bit more deeply, but still not logically.

I love this argument. This is why:

Originally Posted by devonin in "Wikipedia and Critical Thinking"

I was going to preface the start of my post with some number of the innumerable dismissals that get bandied about in CT each and every time someone references or quotes from wikipedia. However, I'm sure you can all remember plenty of them, so I'll save myself the time of finding them and save you the time of reading them.

I find such dismissals of the use of wikipedia insulting and ignorant, frankly. Yes, we are all aware that anybody can come and change the text of wikipedia. Yes we are all aware, in fact, that many people entertain themselves all day by doing just that. But this is where a little discernment on the part of both the users of wikipedia, and those who read threads where wikipedia is referenced.

First, some general statements about Wikipedia:

Encyclopedia Britannica in 2000, did a study of Wikipedia and concluded that on subjects for which EB had entries, the entries on Wikipedia for the same subjects were in most cases -equally- as accurate, and in most cases -more- complete.

Every Wikipedia page has an edit history showing you who edited, and what they edited, going back to the day the page was created, which is freely searchable and readable by users.

According to Wikipedia, entries on current events, and celebrities are the most vandalized, and entries on esoteric academic matters are the least vandalized. Conversely, esoteric academic entries have writers who pay the most and closest attention to edits, to revert them.

So what we get from all this, is that while yes, changes and vandalizing can and do happen, they chance is greatly reduced that a page on an academic subject will be vandalized, the chance is greatly increased that it will be reverted by the author quickly, and what is there is generally the even match, if not the superior to formal print encyclopaedia.

Where I'm going with this is this:

There is NO reason to dismiss somebody's evidence simply because that evidence comes from wikipedia.

This is an informal discussion forum on a game website, not a formal debate or defense of thesis, as such, the burden of evidence is greatly reduced. Even if someone is providing evidence from a print source, here in CT we don't demand bibliographical information, and page-specific citation, nor should we. We ask only that people point to some kind of corroborative evidence.

When people reference Wiki, you are free to go to the site yourself, view the exact text of the quote, view the exact bibliographical citation provided -for- the quote, and you can take that information to a library, look up the book, and directly see the text if you are so inclined.

This is true of all pieces of writing. If I cite a source in an essay, the only circumstance in which I should be required to produce that source directly to you is if you doubt the veracity of it, and were unable to find it yourself to check.

Wikipedia is held to fairly stringent standards of citation, and for discussion for the purposes of discussion, in a forum like this, it is a more than adaquate source.

So seriously folks...if you have an intrinsic problem with Wikipedia being used as a reference material, the onus is on -you- to track down the source being referenced, and prove that it is not a valid source. Simply quoting that someone used Wikipedia and spouting off some "Duur, Wiki isn't usable, my teacher told me so" answer really should not fly here.

Here's the tl;dr version:

The most vandalized articles on Wikipedia are those of current events and celebrities. The least vandalized are those of relatively low popularity, particularly esoteric academic subjects. Those articles also tend to have the most people looking at it to make sure it doesn't get screwed up.

Vandals aren't going to destroy a page no one will look at; that's pointless. Instead, they'll focus on the high-profile pages like George Washington or Martin Luther King or Barry Bonds. And in all honesty, just how much traffic do you think a Wikipedia page on logical argument is going to get? The only people going there are going to be the ones caring about it, and who won't vandalize it unless they have been goaded to attack that specific page.

Also, Wikipedia has very strict citation standards, so you can just go to the references section at the bottom and click on the one pertaining to the part you want to check, and see exactly where the editor got the info from.

Originally Posted by redraver

no
what we are trying to prove is that just because
You didnt see the evidence
doesnt make it a False or invalid claim

"YOUR NOT GOD"
your not the judge of what is true or not

It makes it an indefensible claim which, because it has no evidence for others to check, has no reason to be believed. All you are saying is that you saw the report on television. Okay, yeah, because that's a really convincing piece of evidence. I still don't believe it for a second.

If you want to be taken seriously, post some evidence others can go to and verify.

[stretchypanda]

You keep saying this story was aired on the news where you live.

I don't know of any television news station that doesn't has a website.

If the story was covered recently it shouldn't be hard for you to search this stations website and link us to an article.

Or you can continue to just claim it really was on the news and get mad when we don't take your word for it.

[Pumble]

aids

[Tokzic]

this thread is the equivalent of critical thinking rape

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

this thread is the equivalent of critical thinking rape

Which is why it's in Chit Chat.

[KA0Z R4VR]

Wow, you have done your research, but on the same note:

1.The conversation did in fact take place online, yet the source comes from a live broadcast. So the reliability does not fall on the fact that it was spread via AIM, so that was a poinltess time consuming quote.

2. Yes, it is his job to disprove. In math and logic you are to disprove the skeptical if you can come across the means of doing to. the burdon of proof fell on us and was delivered when it was clearly stated that this instance was NOT found online, but here in Vegas. It is his job to try to disprove where our facts came from, and no blatantly point it out on unreliable internet sources.

3. Yes new reports do come from erroneous reports, but it is up to them to prove it. And in which that they come across any skeptical report the burden of proof must fall on them in order to maintain integrity as a news team. Thousands of lives depend on whether or not the news they recieve is accurate or not.

4. According to this guys logic, he does not believe in the credibility of online sources, and as for which, most are inaccurate or completely false. Want to test it out. www.firstname.lastname.isgay.com - Prime example of how reliable the internet is [although using that is contradicting it does make a point]

5. Yes I am pointing out a grammatical flaw to exploit his ignorance. Its common in areguements as you did in mine.

6. Wiki sucks. Get a real book andread up. Anyone can come up with the right reasons to re-write any entry they choose. As long as you can prove some fault in an entry you can edit it. As you said finding an erroneous report is easy if you take the time. Why not do it on wiki?

7. Evidence did not occur online, it was broadcasted. If and when I get my hands on this broadcast I would be happy to show you.

"0N0Z...the News didn't report the teleprompter or .ini OR judge!??! WTF H4X!"
Losers. Once you get into a real debate come talk to me. Ended

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

1.The conversation did in fact take place online, yet the source comes from a live broadcast. So the reliability does not fall on the fact that it was spread via AIM, so that was a poinltess time consuming quote.

Yet you offer no proof that it was in fact a live broadcast, only your own word. That is not proof by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

2. Yes, it is his job to disprove. In math and logic you are to disprove the skeptical if you can come across the means of doing to. the burdon of proof fell on us and was delivered when it was clearly stated that this instance was NOT found online, but here in Vegas. It is his job to try to disprove where our facts came from, and no blatantly point it out on unreliable internet sources.

Exactly, it was stated that it was found in Vegas, therefore the one who stated that must prove that it was indeed found in Vegas. Right now, all we have is your own word, which is not proof by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

3. Yes new reports do come from erroneous reports, but it is up to them to prove it. And in which that they come across any skeptical report the burden of proof must fall on them in order to maintain integrity as a news team. Thousands of lives depend on whether or not the news they recieve is accurate or not.

Two words: FOX News.

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

4. According to this guys logic, he does not believe in the credibility of online sources, and as for which, most are inaccurate or completely false. Want to test it out. www.firstname.lastname.isgay.com - Prime example of how reliable the internet is [although using that is contradicting it does make a point]

I'll let Tokzic reply to this since it was directed at him.

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

5. Yes I am pointing out a grammatical flaw to exploit his ignorance. Its common in areguements as you did in mine.

I did not point out a grammatical flaw; I pointed out a logical fallacy. By nitpicking at grammar that does not affect the interpretation of the sentence in any way, you are doing something utterly useless. However, pointing out a logical fallacy shows that a conclusion cannot logically be drawn from the premises given, therefore more evidence or reason is required for the conclusion to be valid.

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

6. Wiki sucks. Get a real book andread up. Anyone can come up with the right reasons to re-write any entry they choose. As long as you can prove some fault in an entry you can edit it. As you said finding an erroneous report is easy if you take the time. Why not do it on wiki?

Try reading the quote this time. Particularly the section on which parts of Wiki are most vandalized.

Originally Posted by KA0Z R4VR

7. Evidence did not occur online, it was broadcasted. If and when I get my hands on this broadcast I would be happy to show you.

Please do; this is what we mean by proof. If you can show us this broadcast, that is evidence for your idea that the event is actually occurring.

[stretchypanda]

All you have to do is go to the website of the station. If you don't know the call letters for the station, type in "New [channel number here] Las Vegas" in Google and you'll get it.

Then it's just a matter of using the site's search feature.

Tokzic very quickly provided evidence that you're wrong. If I wasn't lying, my first move would be to find all the evidence I could to support my statements. You're still on FFR blowing smoke out of your ass. =)

[Tokzic]

Love to.

Originally Posted by K40Z R4VR

4. According to this guys logic, he does not believe in the credibility of online sources, and as for which, most are inaccurate or completely false. Want to test it out. www.firstname.lastname.isgay.com - Prime example of how reliable the internet is [although using that is contradicting it does make a point]

You're summarizing all sites on the internet as "the internet" and calling all the sites on the internet unfactual and unreliable. The fact is that I am not referencing any unfactual information. Just because your English teacher doesn't accept any sites from the Internet doesn't mean that nothing on the net is to be believed.

Also... extreme irony:

Originally Posted by K40Z R4VR

5. Yes I am pointing out a grammatical flaw to exploit his ignorance. Its common in areguements as you did in mine.

hahahahahahaha

You realize that I have only made one slight flaw in this entire thread, and this flaw did not make my point difficult to understand?

Your spelling and grammar are both completely atrocious, though to this point I haven't pointed it out. In the two sentences I quoted above, for example, both sentences are run-on, you misspell "arguments", and you use the possessive form of "its" rather than the contraction of "it is".

The fact that you think we need to learn how to debate is a joke. Stop embarassing yourself.