Assume Nothing

...If you want to know why people hold grudges against you, it's because of this sort of thing, this "I'm right and everyone else is against me" stance. If there's a clique of TIFers that are out to get you, it's because of this, not because they disagree with you (I'm sure some of them do agree). Just something you can improve on. Not trying to offend you. Could be less blunt about it, but [insert excuse]. Quite frankly, that sort of thing annoys the hell out of me, and I'm not even part of that clique (Unless the Blogscape/HYT/FSC group is out to get you) :razz: It's evident within this thread. Is it unreasonable to suggest that everyone is actually against me at this point? It's not unreasonable at all. You're suggesting that it is unreasonable - I consider that to be a distortion of the truth. I consider myself right when I have sufficient reasoning. I deny that I'm wrong if you are incapable of showing me that I'm in fact, wrong when the reasoning still stands. I admit that I'm wrong when someone does show me that I'm wrong with quotes/evidence/examples + sound reasoning. I don't make a position on something I don't know enough about. It's a simple philosophy. The question here is - why is everyone incapable of quoting, giving evidence/examples, or giving an otherwise well-founded reason based on well-accepted notions? It seems that every time we go onto something relevant, someone has to make a personal criticism that bears no relevance to what we're talking about. EDIT - In response to your own edit - I'm sure HYT/FSC/Blogscape does dislike me + is out to get me, but I don't make any communication with those parties anyway.

It's funny you mention addressing the posts. How do you expect me to address a post when they haven't even shown what they mean? I demand some proof/quotes/evidence/examples so I can offer a counterargument, not to fulfill some egoistic pride thing your clique accuses me of.

Please remind (repeat for clarity for) me - what's determinism (a concept that I'm unfamiliar with) again? A brief explanation (something that explains what you mean) would suffice (be enough).

Or an alternate explanation: They hold a grudge against me for not accepting their flawed reasoning, thus they try to make personal attacks when I post on here, if the topic comes up. It's very clear that people do seem to hold a grudge and post before they've even fully read what I meant. In many instances, it's as clear as it could get, but arrogance seems to dominate. The receiver is always right is such a flawed notion. If that was the case, then misinterpretation wouldn't exist. We all know that's not true. It doesn't matter how clear the person who delivers the message is, someone would misinterpret it. I have been clear, but no, they delete it out when quoting me. It's laughable though. I'm not sure why people are holding onto the past as though it was still relevant today. I've yet to see anyone actually prove any of their bullshit with a shred of evidence. I demand it because it's necessary for settling the dispute. If they're incapable of doing so, then it's their fault. It's not my responsibility to prove your point now, is it?

What? I'll play by your reasoning here. How does not admitting that I'm wrong make it so that I can't judge you for being wrong? Surely you see that this is irrational. There are such things as implications. There is such a thing as figurative language. Just because something is not expressly stated does not mean it does not exist or is not relevant to the topic at hand. You don't seem to recognize this, and this is a large part of everyone's frustration with you. I'm merely illustrating your hypocrisy. I'm not suggesting that this makes you incorrect, but it makes you not the person to judge me because you've implied that you're logically supreme in that respect. It also implies that I'm actually wrong in the first place, which you have neither shown or proven. If you admit that there are implications, then why would you deny that there are inferences? There's a thing about implicit language; it isn't enough, and is too open to (mis)interpretation that makes it so detrimental to the argument. I'm not saying that it wasn't relevant to the topic at hand - rather, I'm saying that it wasn't your point in the first place, so it wouldn't be relevant to the specific argument we were having. I already realise that I'm extremely defensive in my positions, if I feel I'm being misjudged. What's wrong with it, though?

If this isn't criticism on having knowledge on what constitutes good/bad reasoning, then what is it? What's wrong with reading Wiki articles on improving understanding of how people commit flawed arguments? I know you're going to use evasive language, so I'm just waiting for your little response before I post a reply.

That's obviously what everyone has been criticizing you the most for. Also for using words you don't know and not accepting that you're wrong. Don't pretend like we're attacking you because we think you're good at reasoning. Hah. You've done a great job of expressing it. Quote where anyone has said 'stubborn', or something similar without the connotations of 'arrogant'. It doesn't count if you've recently edited it in either. How could you gauge whether I know the words or not? Have you any proof, in the form of evidence or examples? No? I've expressed multiple times that I've been wrong. Scroll up a bit and read. I deny faulty reasoning, and so far, a majority of the posts have been nothing but a critique on the twisted distortion of what I write. I've numerously identified what has been misquoted/interpreted, but oh, you're blind to it. I'd like to see you admit that you're wrong. Can't do it? Then what have you got to judge me?

I'm being criticized and scapegoated for having some knowledge in understanding of what constitutes good reasoning. You've got to love TIF. EDIT - If you criticized that I'm stubborn, militant, argumentative, then I'd accept that to an extent. That's not what you're saying though, is it? Hmm? Is it?

I'm just going to ignore this. You're not going to reason with me in the first place. You've been an absolute time-waste. I don't consider that reasonable criticism because I've expressed that I shall work on reducing the use of overly complex/superfluous terms, but nobody would listen. It's as though you're blind to your own reality; myopic/arrogant/bigoted. I do admit when I'm wrong - you're making a distorted manipulation of what I say/do. If you're going to make any personal criticisms, you better quote me instead of basing it off vague 'Oh, but you've posted 'x' before.' I'm not going to expend energy on finding these posts when you're incapable of doing so yourself. I don't act like I'm intelligent at all. It would be unreasonable to suggest that if I'm doing so, I'm doing so with intention. I accept that some of my posts are unnecessarily wordy. What exactly are we disagreeing on? You, like the other people in disagreement, base everything off unstated (and often flawed) reasoning. I do point out why they're flawed, but oh, you're too blind to see it - or maybe you delete it because you understand that it's a good point, but you don't want to admit it out of an inferiority complex. I never understand the clique that seems to be forming. What happened to the days when people actually read and fully understood what they were criticizing before they criticized? At least it would be a valid criticism. If you're unclear about what I mean, why don't you ask? I don't understand your mentality. You have yet to pull up a single example of your recent claims. EDIT @stolethepie - Hi, completely unfounded claim. Welcome to my 5paragraph lecture about how you know nothing about me.

Banned for not posting twenty roll-eye smileys to make a sarcastic, but fallacious point.

That's absolutely irrelevant once again. Define equivalent. EDIT - it's laughable how you omit anything that could actually damage your position though, obfuscator. You should rename yourself to 'Fallacious'.

Because they mean practically the same thing. Something assume is incapable of understanding. I'm not implying that inferences are bad reasoning, I'm implying that you're not inferring at all, you're assuming. But you refuse to admit that because you have some sort of infallibility complex, apparently. Wrong. I'm simply irritated when you manipulate what I say to make your position look stronger than it really is. If you're going to criticize that my inferences are assumptions, thus implying that I'm doing something wrong, then you've got to illustrate how it makes my position worse. I understand the differences between the terms - it looks like you refuse to accept that. Okay then, since you are so certain that my inferences are not inferences, but in fact, assumptions - then show me how you've come to that conclusion. If you're incapable of doing so, then don't make ill-founded judgements. I like how you criticize me of having an infallibility complex when that more closely describes yourself. EDIT - Oh, an appeal to ridicule, Hedgehog? Laughable that you can even dare criticize me of poor argumentation when you're doing it more-so.

It's still absolutely irrelevant to the conversation until you pull up both definitions and examine the differences in meaning.

It depends on how you define assumption. I go by a strict definition of acceptance of a truth without a basis of (well founded) reason, or a lack of evidence. I consider assumptions, by that definition, as bad reasoning. It's implied in his snide posts that inferences are bad reasoning, which is blatantly untrue.

You've admitted that there's differences. In the case of inference vs. assumption, the difference is significant. Given that you're likely to overlook what I'll post, I'll put it in big writing for you. The difference is reasoning and evidence, making your point moot.

Oh, and since you're going to be a smart-ass, here's the actual definitions of them in·fer·ence/ˈinf(ə)rəns/ Noun: A conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning. The process of reaching such a conclusion: "order, health, and by inference cleanliness". as·sump·tion/əˈsəm(p)SHən/ Noun: A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market". The action of taking power or responsibility: "the assumption of an active role in regional settlements". To reiterate - try reading for once. It helps.

If you're going to base it on synonyms, sure. It's foolish to think that they all mean the same thing - try actually reading the definition for once. No, not just taking a look, I mean actually reading it and processing it through your brain. The difference is similar to the difference between hearing and listening. I like how you're always wearing highly filtered lenses though.

I think it might be an evolutionary thing to discourage cannibalism, since it's going to be against the species' interest to eat each-other. Going beyond that - I see nothing wrong with consensual cannibalism - not to suggest that I would partake in it.

You just automatically assume I'm talking about you? Wow. You're not that important :rolleyes: It's an inference; you're quoting me and criticising consistently with your previous personal criticisms. You're misusing terms as well - stop it, it just makes you look foolish. I shall edit this for your viewing pleasure :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oh, and I've been searching through record-breaking stuff. Previously Unseen Digital Resolution This is back when 2000 lumens was considered good. It's now over 3000. I deem this superior to ' ' in one respect: battery life. This thing lasts over 6h, as opposed to 5 minutes BeyBlade level: Godmode http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuT028b04ag Oh, and really fast guns.

Perhaps appropriate, but sometimes people don't know their audience and use completely redundant words since the majority of people would have to look up a word before understanding it. If that were a talk to a big group, then many simply wouldn't understand it. At least on the internet people can look up words, but it's still an inconvenience. I wouldn't use archaic/unused words frequently on TIF for example, since users would end up skipping my posts or find themselves googling a lot of them. I still maintain that the occasional use of a more complex term, such as when talking about metaethical theories, is permissible. It's permissible if you know how to use them. If you don't know how to use them, it comes off as pretentious, arrogant, and generally makes the person look like an idiot. Not referring to anyone in particular, of course. Just in general. It's obvious that you're disguising the personal criticism aimed at myself as a comment 'in general'. The use of evasive language in general is rather irritating. Given that you're addressing me, here's my brief response - I still maintain that by limiting my vocabulary to terms I understand with absolute certainty, it would still be permissible to use them.

Insufficient amounts with threat of redundancy.

Perhaps appropriate, but sometimes people don't know their audience and use completely redundant words since the majority of people would have to look up a word before understanding it. If that were a talk to a big group, then many simply wouldn't understand it. At least on the internet people can look up words, but it's still an inconvenience. I wouldn't use archaic/unused words frequently on TIF for example, since users would end up skipping my posts or find themselves googling a lot of them. I still maintain that the occasional use of a more complex term, such as when talking about metaethical theories, is permissible.

Or, any 'spirit' in general. In the context of RS, 'the spirit of the game' is an evasive way to say 'our narrow vision that discounts emergent gameplay.' EDIT: Please don't hesitate to write long paragraphs on school related irritations. I'm sure many users here can closely relate.

The inconsistent censorship on school networks. It's easy to accidentally click on the wrong link on imgur.