Post by Zero on Feb 23, 2009 20:23:22 GMT -8
I fear that this was too easy.
www.youtube.com/user/DemonicCollusion VS www.youtube.com/user/kurisu95
Me (Responding to video) - One note on 2012. The difference between Y2K and 2012 is that Y2K was all speculation, and 2012 has the backing of ancient (yet surprisingly astronomically advanced) civilizations. You mentioned this in your video, I know, I just kinda wanted to highlight that. I don't know what's going to happen on 2012. Could be big; could be nothing. Whatever the case may be, it's always to keep an open mind, as there's always the possibility, however small.
Kurisu95 - Well Demonic, if you are reffering to the Myan Calendar, then you, as many other people, are wrong. The direct translations suggest 5012, not 2012. It was an easy mistake by amateurs, the Myan symbols for 2 and 5 are relatively equal, but the true translation shows 5012. Another reason this is logical however, is that every 30 million years, the Earth finds itself in the most dense sector of the Milky Way. This greatly increases our chance of being hit by a meteor, so speculation is wide
Me - I'm afraid that I'm not mistaken. As the Mayan calender reads: 1/2/3/4/5 - ./../.../..../__. 6 is one dot over a line. 7 is two dots over a line. 10 is two lines. 11 is a dot over two lines. As you can see, it's all very simple, and two dots are in fact very dissimilar to a line. Even an "amateur" could see that. Get your facts straight before arguing with someone who can read the fuckin' thing.
Kurisu95 - I'm afraid, that again, you are incorrect. I am fully aware you can read the Myan's numeric system, but that proves nothing in this situation. The date on the calendar did not read 2012, it read 5012, you being able to read the system should prove that yourself. If you infact need more proof, consult an archaeologist, or brush up on your non-existent sources. Again, your knowledge of the numeric system is irrelevant, or infact, entirely helpful. Since you can infact read this system, go read the calendar, then come back and see that you are again mistaken.
Reply
Me - I've seen and studied the calender over and again. You are only aware of my being about to read it because I demonstrated it to you - not because of some preexisting knowledge. You know nothing of my sources and your Ad Homenim style of argument is pure fallacy. If you had any idea of what you were talking about, you'd cite your sources - hopefully something than something more than a weak youtube video. Also, adding "Reply" to the end of your message doesn't make you look like you've trapped me and want to get me come out with whatever it is you want. It only looks like you can't use your argument as form of making your point, and instead have to turn to childish antics and aforementioned fallacies.
Kurisu95 - I don't believe I posted such as "Pre-existent" knowledge. My post was along the lines of "I'm well aware of your knowledge of the system". The fact I end each reply with the word "reply" is not some ingestuic antic, its an end I use for any message that I am replying to, to aware you that I am replying, not sending a "random" message. I'd be glad to know where you got to see the Myan Calendar in person, what an experience. If not in person, then do not trust the source. If you truly know what "Ad Homenin" style argument is, then you wouldn't be using it in this case, rather for a different matter. The next is a quote from your message: "Cite your sources - hopefully something than something more than a weak youtube video" The information I am listing denies the video, not supports it, so my source would not be that. If you would like my reliable sources, then go ahead and ask. As I mentioned earlier, I'd love to know where you saw the calendar in person, truly would.
Reply
Me - Let's organize/simplify this:
1. "I am fully aware you can read the Myan's numeric system" is what you wrote, and I said that you only know this because I proved it to you. Therefore, this was pointless statement to make, unless you were just trying to strengthen your argument by adding somewhat colorful rhetoric (i.e. "I'm well aware of ___")
2. What I said stands, as it makes you look a certain way. A better idea would be to add "In response to ___" or "[username], ..." in the beginning of your message - but that's just an idea.
3. Well, I'm a double major in English and Philosophy and a minor in History, so, let me show you what I know about Ad Homenim. First off: It's not a style of argument. It's a fallacy. Arguments contain fallacies, sure, but they're never based on one, and especially not on any specific kind of fallacy. What you said about my "non-existent" is Ad Homenim, as you're saying that I'm arguing with limited or no knowledge of the matter - which is an attack on my argument's validity and my character. Ad Homenim.
4. "If you would like my reliable sources, then go ahead and ask..." You see, already did. You took my comment as talking about Asa being your source, which it obviously wasn't. He makes no comment about 5012 at all, so I don't see why you would even think of it that way. I've asked for it once and I'll do it once more. Cite your sources that aren't youtube videos. If you don't have any, I'll just have to take a look at those then.
5. Now it gets really interesting: You go on to say that I've seen "the" Mayan calender up close, yet I've never said anything like that. I said that I've studied the calender, yes, but how could possibly argue such a topic and not know that there is more than one? Not more than one kind, mind you, but many different 'copies,' if you will; many were made.
If you want to learn a topic as deep as this: read some books; take some classes. I recommend "The Mayan Prophecies" by Adrian G. Gilbert.
Kurisu95 - 1. In reponse to your second point, I'm not trying to please you, so I will end my message how I desire.
2. You are incorrect stating an Ad Homenin is not an argument. Definition: An argument consiting of replies to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a charasmatic feature, by belief or personality. Therefore, you are wrong.
3. Here you see, is I did not state Asa as my source, in fact I souly denied it. I get my sources from a number of books, essays, and research papers. If you would like the names, or the sites to purchase them, inquire further.
4. I never said you've "Seen the Mayan Calendar Up Close", again, I asked -if- you had. I did not once inferr otherwise.
-Reply
(He adds in a following post):
In response to your second point, I'm not here to please, so I'll take ideas whatever way I want.
You also mentioned the Ad Homenin style. And you mentioned it incorrectly. The definition is: An argument/argumentative style in which one tries to please another by targetting their charismatic or personal likes/dislikes in a way to find victory.
I did not infact say that you had seen it in person. Rather I asked -if- you had seen it in person. Sadly, I find you wrong again.
If you would like my sources, none of which are of "Asa" then here they are: A number of books, essays, documentaries, and University Lectures. I have also seen a copy of the Mayan Calendar, (you were right in saying there are more than one) in person before when I was visiting London.
-Reply
Me - 1. Why don't you reply to my first point?
2. Nothing you do would please me. Whether or not you wish to is not my concern.
3. I swear, if I go to Wikipedia and find that definition, I'll never stop laughing. I recently sat through a 2 day long lecture on the 5 canons of classical rhetoric, with the main focus on Invention and the 6 most common fallacies, one of which was Ad Homenim - I'm not wrong. I'd do some real research before arguing.
4. I told you already - you're not understanding what I wrote. Go back and reread the message. Also, I see that you can't cite any sources. In fact, I'm having trouble believing that you even read things like those, giving the ethos you portray in your writing and what I've on your channel. So, if you cannot cite a single source proving that the date prophesied by the ancient Mayans that the planet Venus dies and the Earth's population is drastically reduced is on December 22, 5012, I don't see any reason for you to continue on with your futile efforts. You are wrong.
5. "I'd love to know where you saw the calendar in person" - Inference.
"Sadly, I find you wrong again." - What you find all seems to be wrong regardless. What you think of me is not my concern. You are wrong, and that's not opinion.
"University Lectures" - What kid goes to a University that doesn't know the meaning of Ad Homenim? What kid attends lectures at a University in which the professor speaking knows nothing of the subject? What kid would have money spent in order to go to such lectures? What kid would have all this and still not be able to write with proper spelling and grammar? Apparently you. I'm not buying it.
www.youtube.com/user/DemonicCollusion VS www.youtube.com/user/kurisu95
Me (Responding to video) - One note on 2012. The difference between Y2K and 2012 is that Y2K was all speculation, and 2012 has the backing of ancient (yet surprisingly astronomically advanced) civilizations. You mentioned this in your video, I know, I just kinda wanted to highlight that. I don't know what's going to happen on 2012. Could be big; could be nothing. Whatever the case may be, it's always to keep an open mind, as there's always the possibility, however small.
Kurisu95 - Well Demonic, if you are reffering to the Myan Calendar, then you, as many other people, are wrong. The direct translations suggest 5012, not 2012. It was an easy mistake by amateurs, the Myan symbols for 2 and 5 are relatively equal, but the true translation shows 5012. Another reason this is logical however, is that every 30 million years, the Earth finds itself in the most dense sector of the Milky Way. This greatly increases our chance of being hit by a meteor, so speculation is wide
Me - I'm afraid that I'm not mistaken. As the Mayan calender reads: 1/2/3/4/5 - ./../.../..../__. 6 is one dot over a line. 7 is two dots over a line. 10 is two lines. 11 is a dot over two lines. As you can see, it's all very simple, and two dots are in fact very dissimilar to a line. Even an "amateur" could see that. Get your facts straight before arguing with someone who can read the fuckin' thing.
Kurisu95 - I'm afraid, that again, you are incorrect. I am fully aware you can read the Myan's numeric system, but that proves nothing in this situation. The date on the calendar did not read 2012, it read 5012, you being able to read the system should prove that yourself. If you infact need more proof, consult an archaeologist, or brush up on your non-existent sources. Again, your knowledge of the numeric system is irrelevant, or infact, entirely helpful. Since you can infact read this system, go read the calendar, then come back and see that you are again mistaken.
Reply
Me - I've seen and studied the calender over and again. You are only aware of my being about to read it because I demonstrated it to you - not because of some preexisting knowledge. You know nothing of my sources and your Ad Homenim style of argument is pure fallacy. If you had any idea of what you were talking about, you'd cite your sources - hopefully something than something more than a weak youtube video. Also, adding "Reply" to the end of your message doesn't make you look like you've trapped me and want to get me come out with whatever it is you want. It only looks like you can't use your argument as form of making your point, and instead have to turn to childish antics and aforementioned fallacies.
Kurisu95 - I don't believe I posted such as "Pre-existent" knowledge. My post was along the lines of "I'm well aware of your knowledge of the system". The fact I end each reply with the word "reply" is not some ingestuic antic, its an end I use for any message that I am replying to, to aware you that I am replying, not sending a "random" message. I'd be glad to know where you got to see the Myan Calendar in person, what an experience. If not in person, then do not trust the source. If you truly know what "Ad Homenin" style argument is, then you wouldn't be using it in this case, rather for a different matter. The next is a quote from your message: "Cite your sources - hopefully something than something more than a weak youtube video" The information I am listing denies the video, not supports it, so my source would not be that. If you would like my reliable sources, then go ahead and ask. As I mentioned earlier, I'd love to know where you saw the calendar in person, truly would.
Reply
Me - Let's organize/simplify this:
1. "I am fully aware you can read the Myan's numeric system" is what you wrote, and I said that you only know this because I proved it to you. Therefore, this was pointless statement to make, unless you were just trying to strengthen your argument by adding somewhat colorful rhetoric (i.e. "I'm well aware of ___")
2. What I said stands, as it makes you look a certain way. A better idea would be to add "In response to ___" or "[username], ..." in the beginning of your message - but that's just an idea.
3. Well, I'm a double major in English and Philosophy and a minor in History, so, let me show you what I know about Ad Homenim. First off: It's not a style of argument. It's a fallacy. Arguments contain fallacies, sure, but they're never based on one, and especially not on any specific kind of fallacy. What you said about my "non-existent" is Ad Homenim, as you're saying that I'm arguing with limited or no knowledge of the matter - which is an attack on my argument's validity and my character. Ad Homenim.
4. "If you would like my reliable sources, then go ahead and ask..." You see, already did. You took my comment as talking about Asa being your source, which it obviously wasn't. He makes no comment about 5012 at all, so I don't see why you would even think of it that way. I've asked for it once and I'll do it once more. Cite your sources that aren't youtube videos. If you don't have any, I'll just have to take a look at those then.
5. Now it gets really interesting: You go on to say that I've seen "the" Mayan calender up close, yet I've never said anything like that. I said that I've studied the calender, yes, but how could possibly argue such a topic and not know that there is more than one? Not more than one kind, mind you, but many different 'copies,' if you will; many were made.
If you want to learn a topic as deep as this: read some books; take some classes. I recommend "The Mayan Prophecies" by Adrian G. Gilbert.
Kurisu95 - 1. In reponse to your second point, I'm not trying to please you, so I will end my message how I desire.
2. You are incorrect stating an Ad Homenin is not an argument. Definition: An argument consiting of replies to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a charasmatic feature, by belief or personality. Therefore, you are wrong.
3. Here you see, is I did not state Asa as my source, in fact I souly denied it. I get my sources from a number of books, essays, and research papers. If you would like the names, or the sites to purchase them, inquire further.
4. I never said you've "Seen the Mayan Calendar Up Close", again, I asked -if- you had. I did not once inferr otherwise.
-Reply
(He adds in a following post):
In response to your second point, I'm not here to please, so I'll take ideas whatever way I want.
You also mentioned the Ad Homenin style. And you mentioned it incorrectly. The definition is: An argument/argumentative style in which one tries to please another by targetting their charismatic or personal likes/dislikes in a way to find victory.
I did not infact say that you had seen it in person. Rather I asked -if- you had seen it in person. Sadly, I find you wrong again.
If you would like my sources, none of which are of "Asa" then here they are: A number of books, essays, documentaries, and University Lectures. I have also seen a copy of the Mayan Calendar, (you were right in saying there are more than one) in person before when I was visiting London.
-Reply
Me - 1. Why don't you reply to my first point?
2. Nothing you do would please me. Whether or not you wish to is not my concern.
3. I swear, if I go to Wikipedia and find that definition, I'll never stop laughing. I recently sat through a 2 day long lecture on the 5 canons of classical rhetoric, with the main focus on Invention and the 6 most common fallacies, one of which was Ad Homenim - I'm not wrong. I'd do some real research before arguing.
4. I told you already - you're not understanding what I wrote. Go back and reread the message. Also, I see that you can't cite any sources. In fact, I'm having trouble believing that you even read things like those, giving the ethos you portray in your writing and what I've on your channel. So, if you cannot cite a single source proving that the date prophesied by the ancient Mayans that the planet Venus dies and the Earth's population is drastically reduced is on December 22, 5012, I don't see any reason for you to continue on with your futile efforts. You are wrong.
5. "I'd love to know where you saw the calendar in person" - Inference.
"Sadly, I find you wrong again." - What you find all seems to be wrong regardless. What you think of me is not my concern. You are wrong, and that's not opinion.
"University Lectures" - What kid goes to a University that doesn't know the meaning of Ad Homenim? What kid attends lectures at a University in which the professor speaking knows nothing of the subject? What kid would have money spent in order to go to such lectures? What kid would have all this and still not be able to write with proper spelling and grammar? Apparently you. I'm not buying it.
