"We got a lot of smart people here and i'm pretty sure we got a lot of people thinking how stupid you and SLEAVE are."
I was talking with Sampson and this is actually quite funny, he told me that he would not bother arguing with someone like you. You knew you were wrong all the time and you have been searching for a way for this discussion to end without you looking bad.
What is funny, cause no one here likes you in any way.
Oh i didnt saw this before, if you prove your claim people will accept that as truth, if you do not prove your claim it will just be false, or even if its true people will think that its false ( like they should do ) because that its how logic tell us to act.
I like the red car example, lets use it.
I said that 'the car is red', yet didn't prove it, so it's false or assumed to be false. Flawless logic. (i used sarkasmn, idk if u can even understand that so i made this sidenote)
So you did a statement, people didnt believe you, and so you wanted wave to prove otherwise. As already mentioned 1 post before, no. That sentence is simply you making shit up, amazing.
This last part is what doesnt make sense, you should never ask anyone to prove otherwise a statment when you know that none believes your statement. Well you CAN do that, but it will make no sense. That's complete bullshit. Just because you think that it is not true, doesn't mean that all share the same opinion.
And finally: compring this discussion with something like 'god exists' or 'god doesn't exist' is plain stupid.
I was talking with Sampson and this is actually quite funny, he told me that he would not bother arguing with someone like you. You knew you were wrong all the time and you have been searching for a way for this discussion to end without you looking bad. Yes talking to a known and unpopular troll really is a good comparison to 'smart people'. You tell me that 'you knw you were wrong' yet i made you udnerstand that you where wrong. Where are you trying to go at?
Dorkly: Well you do not need to prove it blunt that its actually right, but then no one can accept that as true, for the sake of logic people should take that as a lie. So if know i'm wrong, how come i'm right? Are you even trying to make sense at any point? If yes, then let me tell you, you really suck at it.
What is funny, cause no one here likes you in any way. Interesting 'fact'.
Why is plain stupid tell me ? its a good example, see that its the difference isnt it blunt ? When i see one of your examples i actually talk back to it, you just call it stupid.
If you claim that x car is red and i am looking at the car i see a proof, if i am looking at a proof its confirmed so its truth, if you claim that the car is red and i am far away and i cant see it, the normal and rational thing for me to do is not believe you until you prove your claim.
"Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes the claim? Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims to offer reason and evidence in support of those claims."
I dont care if you dont like the source it does make perfect sense, for the sake of logic beliving in claims and statments that people make without proofs is illogical
" most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. "
"So if know i'm wrong, how come i'm right? Are you even trying to make sense at any point? If yes, then let me tell you, you really suck at it."
You are clearly not included when i say people, you are the one doing the claim to start with, but everyone else ( the ones who think with logic ) will think that you are lying.
Oh now i realize why you are trying to defend yourself so hard about all of this, everything you say its bullshit.
I have a 6k account and a lot of 5k accounts, i have a lot of pc´s, everything you say you do not prove and you expect people to believe you lol so funny
@Dorkly:
Dude, you are able to prove if the car is red or not, you cannot prove if god exists or doesn't exist. Are you out of your mind? So the 'rational thing' is to basically deny everything anyone says to you, even if the probability is extremely high, until you see it for urself? You sure have some extremely weird fantasies going on.
And there it is again, bringing up the burden. I mean SLEAVE at least realized it's a stupid fucking idea to get that shit into the discussion but you seem to be a special kind of stupid. And it's not a good thing.
You know i'm not even kidding here, but when i discussed with SLEAVE, even though i gotta admit i think he is somewhat stupid, i at least felt that i was getting some slow progress with him. I felt like i was getting somewhere.
With you it's like trying to teach my dog quantum physics. You bring up the same shit all over again, you keep on making false statements and you keep on coming with idiotic ideas. Therefore i will stop argue with you, since i might aswell try to teach my wall how to move. If SLAEVE want's to join in, i will gladly proceed, but as for you Dorkly, i really don't think i will get anything out of you, go play with ur friends in your sandbox or something. This is 2 high for you. Maybe someone else wants to try and enlighten you.
Dorkly:
One, give me one person who uses this forum that believes your 6k mmr bullshit, one person that thinks that you are nice or you help someone here
since you wrote 'or' means i only have to fulfill 1 of your demands. I'll choose sunrise, i added him like 4 hours ago and helped him with optimizing his dota. I also got a fuckton of other people who i coach and help otherwise.
I have a 6k account and a lot of 5k accounts, i have a lot of pc´s, everything you say you do not prove and you expect people to believe you lol so funny because it's so hard to make 5k smurf accounts.
because PC's are soooooo expensive
yeah it's so unlikely that i made 5k smurfs despite every idiot being able to do so. It's also very unlikely that i'm an adult who actually has a job and can afford a fucking PC which almost doesn't cost shit compared to other stuff people have.
Only a small kid wouldn't believe it since they are so stupid they can't imagine living as an adult.
despite all your offensive posts, im still wanting to know (i asked you 3 hours ago) why this particular case do not get into a burden of proof case, what does this particular case have so special that its not included in it? because when you accuse someone, again, you are the one supposed/expected to prove.
you are accusing someone, that itself is why the "burden of proof" was thought of in first place, its both logical and social desirable that whoever accuses/claims something against other, that the guy who is claiming prove his points. Why, again, this particular case where you accuse wave does not fit the "burden of proof" shit?
and even if this is true, your logic was flawed. Let's take an example:
You and Wave are class mates, you guys are hanging out with some friends, then Wave say "hey guys Blunt is gay". You know that you are gay, but anyways you say "no I'm not", then Wave says "if you're not, then prove you arent. You can't, right? Because you know you are".
Even if this come out as a true, Wave's logic would still be flawed because he is not following a logical sequence in his thoughts. So are you. Even if Wave have been really shadowbanned, it doesn't mean that what you are saying was logical acceptable.
In every fucking accusation the guy who's claiming shit is the one supposed to support what he's saying with evidences. Apparently, your case is not one of those because simply you dont want it to be. I don't even know why we keep on arguing if you did not answered this question I made 3 hours later, i'm gonna ask one last time: What excuses you to have to prove your point here? You are accusing someone, why in this specific case the burden of proof is not acceptable?
So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.
"Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by Richard Carrier at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
These claims are asserted by those holding belief in the existence of such phenomena. They do not usually assert such criticisms against those who claim that there are no phenomena such as those not believed in by the defenders of the existence of a deity or miracles. For example believers in deity or miracles do not criticize those who claim that there are no tooth fairies or that there are no leprechauns.
^This explains why when you make a claim is your job to prove it and not someone to disprove it, when someone says that god exists THEY shall prove it, otherwise it shall be taken as false.
" So the 'rational thing' is to basically deny everything anyone says to you, even if the probability is extremely high, until proved it ? "
IT IS, i do not apply that to my daily life because it would be close to imposible, but that its the rational thing to do, about the high probability it really depends on what claim we are talking about, but unless EXTREMELY high it should be proven before believing it.
"It might be true so i am going to believe " THAT its bullshit
But thanks blunt, you proved my point with your last post, i bring arguments, i bring sources, while you insult.
"You and Wave are class mates, you guys are hanging out with some friends, then Wave say "hey guys Blunt is gay". You know that you are gay, but anyways you say "no I'm not", then Wave says "if you're not, then prove you arent. You can't, right? Because you know you are".
Even if this come out as a true, Wave's logic would still be flawed because he is not following a logical sequence in his thoughts. So are you. Even if Wave have been really shadowbanned, it doesn't mean that what you are saying was logical acceptable."
This is a pretty fucking good point that i am pretty sure he has no answer to, but he didnt really gave an answer to anything, he just keep insulting us while dodging the questions.
Anyway this shit is starting to bore me so i am just going to sleep, next time if you are going to shittalk about someone blunt at least learn how to do it please, i am pretty sure you can get better insults.
murs, i dont know for sure cause I never been shadow banned as far as I know, but I think its some kind of punishment that you supposedly do not know that you're being under. If im not wrong, you take ages to find a game and is put versus other shadow banned players. I think it's some kind of way for Valve to track who is cheating/being very toxic and keep they away from community WITHOUT the knowledge of the punished (perhaps to avoid the guy to create another account and dodge the punishment).
Also, Sampson has said it is IP related, so it doesn't matter if you create another account, you'd still be banned.
everything I said above was assumptions I made but I think this is somewhat near the definition of shadow ban
"We got a lot of smart people here and i'm pretty sure we got a lot of people thinking how stupid you and SLEAVE are."
I was talking with Sampson and this is actually quite funny, he told me that he would not bother arguing with someone like you. You knew you were wrong all the time and you have been searching for a way for this discussion to end without you looking bad.
What is funny, cause no one here likes you in any way.
Oh i didnt saw this before, if you prove your claim people will accept that as truth, if you do not prove your claim it will just be false, or even if its true people will think that its false ( like they should do ) because that its how logic tell us to act.
I like the red car example, lets use it.
I said that 'the car is red', yet didn't prove it, so it's false or assumed to be false. Flawless logic. (i used sarkasmn, idk if u can even understand that so i made this sidenote)
So you did a statement, people didnt believe you, and so you wanted wave to prove otherwise.
As already mentioned 1 post before, no. That sentence is simply you making shit up, amazing.
This last part is what doesnt make sense, you should never ask anyone to prove otherwise a statment when you know that none believes your statement. Well you CAN do that, but it will make no sense.
That's complete bullshit. Just because you think that it is not true, doesn't mean that all share the same opinion.
And finally: compring this discussion with something like 'god exists' or 'god doesn't exist' is plain stupid.
I was talking with Sampson and this is actually quite funny, he told me that he would not bother arguing with someone like you. You knew you were wrong all the time and you have been searching for a way for this discussion to end without you looking bad.
Yes talking to a known and unpopular troll really is a good comparison to 'smart people'. You tell me that 'you knw you were wrong' yet i made you udnerstand that you where wrong. Where are you trying to go at?
Dorkly: Well you do not need to prove it blunt that its actually right, but then no one can accept that as true, for the sake of logic people should take that as a lie.
So if know i'm wrong, how come i'm right? Are you even trying to make sense at any point? If yes, then let me tell you, you really suck at it.
What is funny, cause no one here likes you in any way.
Interesting 'fact'.
Why is plain stupid tell me ? its a good example, see that its the difference isnt it blunt ? When i see one of your examples i actually talk back to it, you just call it stupid.
If you claim that x car is red and i am looking at the car i see a proof, if i am looking at a proof its confirmed so its truth, if you claim that the car is red and i am far away and i cant see it, the normal and rational thing for me to do is not believe you until you prove your claim.
"Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes the claim? Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims to offer reason and evidence in support of those claims."
I dont care if you dont like the source it does make perfect sense, for the sake of logic beliving in claims and statments that people make without proofs is illogical
" most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. "
"So if know i'm wrong, how come i'm right? Are you even trying to make sense at any point? If yes, then let me tell you, you really suck at it."
You are clearly not included when i say people, you are the one doing the claim to start with, but everyone else ( the ones who think with logic ) will think that you are lying.
"What is funny, cause no one here likes you in any way."
One, give me one person who uses this forum that believes your 6k mmr bullshit, one person that thinks that you are nice or you help someone here
Oh now i realize why you are trying to defend yourself so hard about all of this, everything you say its bullshit.
I have a 6k account and a lot of 5k accounts, i have a lot of pc´s, everything you say you do not prove and you expect people to believe you lol so funny
@Dorkly:
Dude, you are able to prove if the car is red or not, you cannot prove if god exists or doesn't exist. Are you out of your mind? So the 'rational thing' is to basically deny everything anyone says to you, even if the probability is extremely high, until you see it for urself? You sure have some extremely weird fantasies going on.
And there it is again, bringing up the burden. I mean SLEAVE at least realized it's a stupid fucking idea to get that shit into the discussion but you seem to be a special kind of stupid. And it's not a good thing.
You know i'm not even kidding here, but when i discussed with SLEAVE, even though i gotta admit i think he is somewhat stupid, i at least felt that i was getting some slow progress with him. I felt like i was getting somewhere.
With you it's like trying to teach my dog quantum physics. You bring up the same shit all over again, you keep on making false statements and you keep on coming with idiotic ideas. Therefore i will stop argue with you, since i might aswell try to teach my wall how to move. If SLAEVE want's to join in, i will gladly proceed, but as for you Dorkly, i really don't think i will get anything out of you, go play with ur friends in your sandbox or something. This is 2 high for you. Maybe someone else wants to try and enlighten you.
Dorkly:
One, give me one person who uses this forum that believes your 6k mmr bullshit, one person that thinks that you are nice or you help someone here
since you wrote 'or' means i only have to fulfill 1 of your demands. I'll choose sunrise, i added him like 4 hours ago and helped him with optimizing his dota. I also got a fuckton of other people who i coach and help otherwise.
I have a 6k account and a lot of 5k accounts, i have a lot of pc´s, everything you say you do not prove and you expect people to believe you lol so funny
because it's so hard to make 5k smurf accounts.
because PC's are soooooo expensive
yeah it's so unlikely that i made 5k smurfs despite every idiot being able to do so. It's also very unlikely that i'm an adult who actually has a job and can afford a fucking PC which almost doesn't cost shit compared to other stuff people have.
Only a small kid wouldn't believe it since they are so stupid they can't imagine living as an adult.
despite all your offensive posts, im still wanting to know (i asked you 3 hours ago) why this particular case do not get into a burden of proof case, what does this particular case have so special that its not included in it? because when you accuse someone, again, you are the one supposed/expected to prove.
you are accusing someone, that itself is why the "burden of proof" was thought of in first place, its both logical and social desirable that whoever accuses/claims something against other, that the guy who is claiming prove his points. Why, again, this particular case where you accuse wave does not fit the "burden of proof" shit?
and even if this is true, your logic was flawed. Let's take an example:
You and Wave are class mates, you guys are hanging out with some friends, then Wave say "hey guys Blunt is gay". You know that you are gay, but anyways you say "no I'm not", then Wave says "if you're not, then prove you arent. You can't, right? Because you know you are".
Even if this come out as a true, Wave's logic would still be flawed because he is not following a logical sequence in his thoughts. So are you. Even if Wave have been really shadowbanned, it doesn't mean that what you are saying was logical acceptable.
In every fucking accusation the guy who's claiming shit is the one supposed to support what he's saying with evidences. Apparently, your case is not one of those because simply you dont want it to be. I don't even know why we keep on arguing if you did not answered this question I made 3 hours later, i'm gonna ask one last time: What excuses you to have to prove your point here? You are accusing someone, why in this specific case the burden of proof is not acceptable?
So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim.
"Negative statements often make claims that are hard to prove because they make predictions about things we are in practice unable to observe in a finite time. For instance, "there are no big green Martians" means "there are no big green Martians in this or any universe," and unlike your bathtub, it is not possible to look in every corner of every universe, thus we cannot completely test this proposition--we can just look around within the limits of our ability and our desire to expend time and resources on looking, and prove that, where we have looked so far, and within the limits of our knowing anything at all, there are no big green Martians. In such a case we have proved a negative, just not the negative of the sweeping proposition in question."-Richard Carrier, "Proving a Negative "(1999) by Richard Carrier at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
These claims are asserted by those holding belief in the existence of such phenomena. They do not usually assert such criticisms against those who claim that there are no phenomena such as those not believed in by the defenders of the existence of a deity or miracles. For example believers in deity or miracles do not criticize those who claim that there are no tooth fairies or that there are no leprechauns.
^This explains why when you make a claim is your job to prove it and not someone to disprove it, when someone says that god exists THEY shall prove it, otherwise it shall be taken as false.
" So the 'rational thing' is to basically deny everything anyone says to you, even if the probability is extremely high, until proved it ? "
IT IS, i do not apply that to my daily life because it would be close to imposible, but that its the rational thing to do, about the high probability it really depends on what claim we are talking about, but unless EXTREMELY high it should be proven before believing it.
"It might be true so i am going to believe " THAT its bullshit
But thanks blunt, you proved my point with your last post, i bring arguments, i bring sources, while you insult.
OH, you are still holding to that " i am 6k " bullshit ? damm man i thought that was over long ago
"You and Wave are class mates, you guys are hanging out with some friends, then Wave say "hey guys Blunt is gay". You know that you are gay, but anyways you say "no I'm not", then Wave says "if you're not, then prove you arent. You can't, right? Because you know you are".
Even if this come out as a true, Wave's logic would still be flawed because he is not following a logical sequence in his thoughts. So are you. Even if Wave have been really shadowbanned, it doesn't mean that what you are saying was logical acceptable."
This is a pretty fucking good point that i am pretty sure he has no answer to, but he didnt really gave an answer to anything, he just keep insulting us while dodging the questions.
Anyway this shit is starting to bore me so i am just going to sleep, next time if you are going to shittalk about someone blunt at least learn how to do it please, i am pretty sure you can get better insults.
so when is concede and blunt going to prove im "shadowbanned"
they both seem to have lots of experience regarding that ban, thank god valve is banning these toxic fucks
disregard that, a mod should ban these two 2014ers
what is shadowban? related to shadowblade?
murs, i dont know for sure cause I never been shadow banned as far as I know, but I think its some kind of punishment that you supposedly do not know that you're being under. If im not wrong, you take ages to find a game and is put versus other shadow banned players. I think it's some kind of way for Valve to track who is cheating/being very toxic and keep they away from community WITHOUT the knowledge of the punished (perhaps to avoid the guy to create another account and dodge the punishment).
Also, Sampson has said it is IP related, so it doesn't matter if you create another account, you'd still be banned.
everything I said above was assumptions I made but I think this is somewhat near the definition of shadow ban
Blunt looks like admiral bulldog
lol.. i thought the same but didn't want to hurt his feelings :> scandinavians think alike!
Guys I have a great idea on how to improve this forum.
LMAO murs is back
wanna play sometime
finally blunt realized he has no arguments to reply back my last post and now he started to dodge this thread
tipical