A Note About kimp

[Baker]

Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments."

Creative? No. Fallacious? Yes. So please, no more practicing the art of apologetics for the deceptive and antisocial. Thank you in advance.

I'm giving MasterSplinter credit for creative arguments that are about as good as an average "Based on a true story" movie or something akin to Aesop's Fables or the Twelve Labors of Hercules.

His mixture of 2% truth and 98% fantasy is certainly entertaining.

And his stories keep getting bigger and better every time they are told.

Too bad MasterSplinter never met Bank (who did controversial Quake Radios back in 2006).

[Disco]

Internet Arguments - When you have large amounts of time and the worlds greatest library at your fingertips, even the slowest people can make their posts look intelligent.

[MasterSplinter]

[StatiC]

You claim that "highly different viewpoints aren't right or wrong..."

Let's examine this under the most trivial scrutiny.

Is it a right or wrong viewpoint that one race is superior to another? It's wrong, if we would want the fearless diversity you claim to admire. Full stop.

Is it a right or wrong viewpoint that NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) has ethical intentions? It's wrong, if the communal strength you praise would be used to victimize children. Full stop.

And so on. This quite conspicuously means that some highly different viewpoints are easily recognized as right or wrong. And this also means that some other highly different viewpoints are abortive. Your present viewpoints fall into the former meaning, and Master Splinter's viewpoints fall into the latter.

Of course, we also know that without some standard we are incapable of judging a viewpoint as right or wrong. Fortunately, one of the most universal standards we can use is that of desired outcome--in other words, asking "What do I really want, and how will I know I've got it?" As you assert that advancement, more specifically technological or cultural evolution, is of a higher value to you than truth, how truthful or advanced would this community become if every member evolved into the intellectual and behavioural model of Kimp or Master Splinter?

I wonder how many would agree this is an wholly undesirable outcome and by this standard would be not only wrong but tragically so? I really want a better outcome, and so likely does every other intelligent person. And from my own highly different, culturally evolved viewpoint, the saddest fact of all this is that Master Splinter's dissembling has apparently dispossessed you of the power of rational observation.

You say that "manipulating the aether -- the social fabric -- is something that few can do and even fewer master." Nevertheless, Master Splinter is merely acting as a rhetorician, albeit incompetently.

"SOCRATES: And the same holds of the relation of rhetoric to all the other arts; the rhetorician need not know the truth about things; he has only to discover some way of persuading the ignorant that he has more knowledge than those who know." -- Plato, "Gorgias"

Master Splinter filled his defenses of Kimp with straw-men, red herrings, ad hominems, begging the question, post hoc ergo propter hoc, non-sequitors, etc. It's not "creative," it's the representation of defective thinking and deceptive language that has been fully and completely documented as logical fallacy for thousands of years.

On "Fallacy" from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy):
"In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments."

Creative? No. Fallacious? Yes. So please, no more practicing the art of apologetics for the deceptive and antisocial. Thank you in advance.

"The specific problems we face cannot be solved using the same patterns of thought that were used to create them." -- Albert Einstein

HAHA no splint, i didnt send Demiurge after you... i dont know Demiurge yet, but he seems collected for sure.
I may not have the time or desire to even show u the way, but i may have sparked the fire under the one who will.
-good luck

[Demiurge]

I'm giving MasterSplinter credit for creative arguments that are about as good as an average "Based on a true story" movie or something akin to Aesop's Fables or the Twelve Labors of Hercules.

His mixture of 2% truth and 98% fantasy is certainly entertaining.

And his stories keep getting bigger and better every time they are told.

Too bad MasterSplinter never met Bank (who did controversial Quake Radios back in 2006).

Yes, I know you say you give Master Splinter credit because he entertains you. Interestingly, the large media outlets including Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN also share your view, and it's left our society one of the most ill-informed in the industrialized world. It's not Master Splinter's statements that you're crediting. You're crediting him because you feel his controversy has attracted forum activity and increased the site's popularity. As tabloid media gets weak in the knees for the ratings that come from sensationalism and controversy, your claim about his "creative arguments" is as transparently phony as Fox News' "Fair & Balanced." Everyone who has a brain knows Bill O'Reilly talks like a big, blubbering vagina, and everyone also knows that Master Splinter does too.

Why can't we promote BOTH the popularity of QuakeOne.com AND the quality of discussion?

[Demiurge]

Internet Arguments - When you have large amounts of time and the worlds greatest library at your fingertips, even the slowest people can make their posts look intelligent.

I agree that you had large amounts of time and the world's greatest library at your fingertips. I'm curious to know what prevented this from aiding your post. Perhaps the real issue isn't about large time and libraries but taking responsibility to intelligently contribute something useful? So I look forward to any useful contribution you try to make, regardless of how tiny it will be.

[f-7]

Why didnt you list Stern News? from the NAMBLA comment i have a feeling you might be a fan..

[Demiurge]

Why didnt you list Stern News? from the NAMBLA comment i have a feeling you might be a fan..

I can't specifically identify your reference to Stern News yet. Please feel free to elaborate. As for your feelings related to NAMBLA fanaticism, perhaps this is a concern you can take up with your preferred mental health provider or parish priest, whichever makes you feel better. :p

[MasterSplinter]

Demiurge,

I am flattered that you paint me out to be one of the Illuminati. I wish I could accept the portrayal, but, I just don't see myself that way. I humbly take my own experiences and hold on to them... Although Kimp has never done anything wrong to me, and I do not deny anyone of their experience, I hold on to my own, and simply suggest motives and causes to the effects. I truly believe I know, with conviction, of what happened to Kimp and the events that lead up to the traumatic impact on the QuakeOne.com community. I was there, for a year, front row, silent, and observing behaviors of my peers interacting with Kimp. Relative to my experience, Kimp is one of us who got shutout.

Only Kimp can destroy my validity on this. I've gone out on a limb, to practice my ideals, and subjected myself to the green-eyed monster that bites me every day for simply holding an opinion. I've been called countless names, boxed, banned, and categorized for my belief. Yet, everyone holds the opinion that I am a “nice guy”...up until they can't sway me on an idea.

I am obviously a threat, for what, I do not know... I've read all 23 of your posts over the year you've been a member, and have to say you are not a savory character either. Do you have another screen-name, or am I missing something? No representation of humor or comradery in your posts. It seems you like to take the opportunity to jump in on a fight and try to control it. Is that what is happening here? It's not like you are a major player in the subject, or have anything at stake... Your participation in the forum for technical information might be there, but, the social aspect is lacking. My objective is to include everyone, and yours is to segregate. What is your screen name on the game-servers? Do you even play Quake?

I have a feeling you're just trying to live up to your alter-ego called: Demiurge.

dem�i�urge (děm'ē-�rj')
n.
1.
A powerful creative force or personality.
2.
A public magistrate in some ancient Greek states.
3.
Demiurge A deity in Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and other religions who creates the material world and is often viewed as the originator of evil.
4.
Demiurge A Platonic deity who orders or fashions the material world out of chaos.

Personality doesn't particularly stick out to me, 2. doesn't seem applicable, maybe 3 and 4 work. As a craftsmen, maybe you recognize my masterful structure of expression.

[Wolv]

Lolcats

[R00k]

Master Splinter's big adventure has Solecord's logo on the pillar...who's the queer on the bar?

[MasterSplinter]

Master Splinter's big adventure has Solecord's logo on the pillar...who's the queer on the bar?

Whoa R00k. That's me dancing up there! I'm placating for my life. I am at the QuakeOne.com bar, trying use my wit to get out of a precarious situation. Which one of these bikers are you?

[Demiurge]

I know you want to defend Kimp, but the way you do it is awful. There's nothing to discuss with you because my choices are to respond to your specific, barely intelligible, mental belches or ignore you. Nevertheless, I'll use your statements to provide a lesson on the Anatomy of Master Splinter Nonsense.

Demiurge,

I am flattered that you paint me out to be one of the Illuminati. I wish I could accept the portrayal, but, I just don't see myself that way. I humbly take my own experiences and hold on to them...

Your characterization of being a member of the Illuminati is entirely unrelated to anything I've said of or about you. This is an instance of your use of the Straw Man fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Although Kimp has never done anything wrong to me, and I do not deny anyone of their experience, I hold on to my own, and simply suggest motives and causes to the effects. I truly believe I know, with conviction, of what happened to Kimp and the events that lead up to the traumatic impact on the QuakeOne.com community. I was there, for a year, front row, silent, and observing behaviors of my peers interacting with Kimp. Relative to my experience, Kimp is one of us who got shutout.

You're committing the Relativist fallacy here because you're claiming that what has been documented objectively by other people about Kimp simply doesn't have any bearing whatsoever for your subjective view of Kimp.

The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented.
2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

Examples:
1. Jill: "Look at this, Bill. I read that people who do not get enough exercise tend to be unhealthy."
2. Bill: "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."

1. Jill: "I think that so called argument you used to defend your position is terrible. After all, a fallacy hardly counts as an argument. "
2. Bill: "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."

1. Bill: "Your position results in a contradiction, so I can't accept it."
2. Dave: "Contradictions may be bad on your Eurocentric, oppressive, logical world view, but I don't think they are bad. Therefore my position is just fine."

Only Kimp can destroy my validity on this.

This is an instance of the Genetic fallacy because you claim that Kimp as the origin of the premise is the only thing that can support or undermine your position.

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).

Examples:
1. "The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a fascist program."

2. "I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."

3. "Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media's credibility, don't we."

I've gone out on a limb, to practice my ideals, and subjected myself to the green-eyed monster that bites me every day for simply holding an opinion. I've been called countless names, boxed, banned, and categorized for my belief. Yet, everyone holds the opinion that I am a “nice guy”...up until they can't sway me on an idea.

This is a simple Appeal to Pity fallacy.

An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument. The form of the "argument" is as follows:

1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity.
2. Therefore claim C is true.

I am obviously a threat, for what, I do not know... I've read all 23 of your posts over the year you've been a member, and have to say you are not a savory character either. Do you have another screen-name, or am I missing something? No representation of humor or comradery in your posts. It seems you like to take the opportunity to jump in on a fight and try to control it. Is that what is happening here? It's not like you are a major player in the subject, or have anything at stake... Your participation in the forum for technical information might be there, but, the social aspect is lacking. My objective is to include everyone, and yours is to segregate. What is your screen name on the game-servers? Do you even play Quake?

I have a feeling you're just trying to live up to your alter-ego called: Demiurge.

dem�i�urge (děm'ē-�rj')
n.
1.
A powerful creative force or personality.
2.
A public magistrate in some ancient Greek states.
3.
Demiurge A deity in Gnosticism, Manichaeism, and other religions who creates the material world and is often viewed as the originator of evil.
4.
Demiurge A Platonic deity who orders or fashions the material world out of chaos.

Personality doesn't particularly stick out to me, 2. doesn't seem applicable, maybe 3 and 4 work. As a craftsmen, maybe you recognize my masterful structure of expression.

This whole mess is the Poisoning the Well fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

Examples of Poisoning the Well
1. "Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."

2. "Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart."

3. You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.

Experience shows that your statements here are similar in nature to the things you've been spewing on these forums in defense of Kimp since the beginning. It's not creative or worthwhile, it's utterly useless. And the sooner you improve the way you handle these issues, the sooner I'll express my support for what you're doing. Meanwhile, I don't have time to waste in dealing with your childish behavior.

[badaim]

I know you want to defend Kimp, but the way you do it is awful. There's nothing to discuss with you because my choices are to respond to your specific, barely intelligible, mental belches or ignore you. Nevertheless, I'll use your statements to provide a lesson on the Anatomy of Master Splinter Nonsense.



Your characterization of being a member of the Illuminati is entirely unrelated to anything I've said of or about you. This is an instance of your use of the Straw Man fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.



You're committing the Relativist fallacy here because you're claiming that what has been documented objectively by other people about Kimp simply doesn't have any bearing whatsoever for your subjective view of Kimp.

The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Claim X is presented.
2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

Examples:
1. Jill: "Look at this, Bill. I read that people who do not get enough exercise tend to be unhealthy."
2. Bill: "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."

1. Jill: "I think that so called argument you used to defend your position is terrible. After all, a fallacy hardly counts as an argument. "
2. Bill: "That may be true for you, but it is not true for me."

1. Bill: "Your position results in a contradiction, so I can't accept it."
2. Dave: "Contradictions may be bad on your Eurocentric, oppressive, logical world view, but I don't think they are bad. Therefore my position is just fine."



This is an instance of the Genetic fallacy because you claim that Kimp as the origin of the premise is the only thing that can support or undermine your position.

A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).

Examples:
1. "The current Chancellor of Germany was in the Hitler Youth at age 3. With that sort of background, his so called 'reform' plan must be a fascist program."

2. "I was brought up to believe in God, and my parents told me God exists, so He must."

3. "Sure, the media claims that Senator Bedfellow was taking kickbacks. But we all know about the media's credibility, don't we."



This is a simple Appeal to Pity fallacy.

An Appeal to Pity is a fallacy in which a person substitutes a claim intended to create pity for evidence in an argument. The form of the "argument" is as follows:

1. P is presented, with the intent to create pity.
2. Therefore claim C is true.



This whole mess is the Poisoning the Well fallacy.

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

Before Class:
Bill: "Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of eurocentric fascist."
Jill: "Yeah."

During Class:
Prof. Jones: "...and so we see that there was never any 'Golden Age of Matriarchy' in 1895 in America."

After Class:
Bill: "See what I mean?"
Jill: "Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn't."

Examples of Poisoning the Well
1. "Don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel."

2. "Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart."

3. You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend's boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.

Experience shows that your statements here are similar in nature to the things you've been spewing on these forums in defense of Kimp since the beginning. It's not creative or worthwhile, it's utterly useless. And the sooner you improve the way you handle these issues, the sooner I'll express my support for what you're doing. Meanwhile, I don't have time to waste in dealing with your childish behavior.

Type much?. this has to be the longest post I've seen here

[StatiC]

.up until they can't sway me on an idea.

keep telling yourself that too

- fail