Crime & Punishment

Who said I dont like them ? First. I am the number one fan of honesty to thyself. Being honest to what oneself is start by being honest to what oneself was and what oneself thinks.

Who said it is not normal human behavior ? The majority of the World population use games, alcohol, drugs and stress as excuses to do what they always wanted without the burden of having that perceived as their rational decisions.

All the posts in this forums are based on the logic that what cant be proven wrong is by definition right. Trying to offend me as anything just proves my point. Feeling offended by my words just prove me right. The fact that I am never met with silence when I say that prove me right. A sane action of a person who thinks they are not a sadist psycho is to just dismiss this words as non-sense.

Exactly my point.

People are so selfish they complain because they take anything as meant just for them.

doesnt matter if it is in a game, in a forum, or in a bar, or in a university room.

Nice circular logic you have there.

You label players of this game and when they pull you up on it, claim that because they do, you are right.

Games night at your house, must be a complete blast. Heaven forbid anyone wants to play chess, you never know if they will try and murder you or not.

Prattle on more about how you didn't lump a bunch of people together and call them all psycopaths or sociopaths as if videogame behaviour is indicative of mental state. It all sounds like you're making excuses for being judgemental to me. I have, not once, tried to offend you. I just call it like it is, and if you are offended by that, then I suggest you re-examine the accusations you've made of others here in these forums.

I get the impression she's just having a bit of fun trolling.

Think you're wasting your time talking to her.

This is not trolling. What UAE does is trolling. This is incohesive garble about how people that gank are mentally challenged. It happens often on these forums, usually with people who have been beaten by someone and they come on here voicing the excuse that their killer is deranged because he chose to blow up spaceships in a game about blowing up spaceships. You'll have to excuse me, though, but I have been around long enough to detect the hint of bitterness in waffling like this.

Non sequitur.

Again the famous forum argumentation:

"You are wrong because I dont understand what you said, and you are wrong because I dont like to read, and you are wrong because you are wrong, and you are wrong because you dont agree with me, and a miriad of simplistic nonsense."

Or, people who add latin definitions to look smart, when not even in a latin originated language forum we are.

But as you desire, I will indulge you in the latin jabber you seem to like so much:

Ad Hominem: almost everyone here at some point used ofenses personally directed to me as an argument, when I never said anyone here as being something or the subject to which I am refeering. I used the terms majority, most, everyone who does this, and so on, and never actually qulified anyone unless it is a general in which all people includes me aswell.

Ad Antiquitatem: The most used one. In any topic discussed here, with or without me posting, there is at least two posts stating that something is true just because it has been considered truth by many for a long time.

Ad Baculum: Not happening now, but have been happening since long time, is to get people to consider what they are saying and admit error under the penalty of being proved wrong by force ingame by means that actually prove nothing. Ergo, getting to prove eve is pvp centric by ganking me or wardeccing my corp.

Ad Ignorantium: The bright star of gaming foruns, to imply that someone must be educated in order to agree with you and say that they only disagree because they dont know what you talking, OR, by the same token, imply that you are wrong because they cant understand what you say.

Ad Nauseum: Admit it, everyone use this one.

Ad Populum: That is the trolls favorite. Say whatever people are agreeing to drawn numbers for your cause. Even some game devs did this at some point.

Ad Ridiculum: ok, guilty as charded. But I said I would do that, not in latin.

*** Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Sick people like how this sounds, but many people here have a real good time stating that something is true without really showing it to be.

Non Causa Pro Causa: Similar to the above, but regarding the effects they use as principle for an argument.

Non Sequitur: This is actually the weakest one everyone misuses, and that happened here, because of cicle of the above. If you really know what non sequitur means, you know that by itself it means a lot of things and by definition without context it means nothing. But if you imply by it that I am agreeing with something but deying its causes and/or consequences, you wrongly using your latin, as I am not. I may be using causes and consequences you dont agree with, but the structure in which I use them are right. You may not agree my conclusions are right, that doesnt make them wrong or false unless you prove them to be.

Petitio Principii: Again one used to the oblivion. It is almost funny how many people use this retorical practice to feel they are right even if they usually are not.

Post Hoc: This is one the basis for one of the discussions as it is the sole basis used in the devs speech presented, as it may be something every emotional person without anything to hang use. Also called "throwing but the kitchen sink as argument", I even dismiss post hoc when it is used.

Now that we have all the latin jabber out of the drawer, you can pick one and nauseate with it but in the right circumstances.

You are wrong because you are wrong, it's that simple. If you are going to call people sociopaths, you'd better have the damn qualifications to make that call, and you'd better have some evidence other than circumstantial guesswork, such as time spent analysing the subject of your assertion, otherwise it's little more than an angry pejorative. Capiche?

Amost forgot: Having psychological involvement, issues or sickness or refering to psycho shorthand for psychological does not equate to call people psychopaths. You really should get your concepts straight before calling people out on things they havent said. And You may be refeering to sociopaths, which I didnt said either.

Still nothing but "you are wrong because you are wrong".

There is nothing but "he said, she said" mentions and this or that insult, this or that throwing of fallacies definitions that has no relation to the issue, and this or that quotes that just mean concept wars.

But there is no argument to what I said.

It is like me saying a chair is not adequate for your back because of this or that, and you replying: "You are wrong because a chair has a place to support your back". Then I say it is true, but that still not good for your back, and you say "But a GM said that chairs have a place to support you back". And from that point on you keep saying:
"You are wrong, chairs have support for your back", "You are wrong and still wrong because the chair do have support for your back".

You just keep estabilishing properties when I am talking about methods, and say that I am the one not making sense.