Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:
I gave you nothing, as I said before you must read person X manifesto prior to speaking on it.

Honestly, I cannot engage you anymore without suffering a ban, good luck with medical school.

Good luck learning to debate whilst avoiding ad hominem attacks. Although I was using your summation of the goal, I will have to guess that you don't know the goal even after reading the man's manifesto either.

Oh and by the way, medical school will be just fine seeing as though political actions are not a major concern in any medical curriculum thank you for the well wishes.



Something can be important to someone without them having an incredible emotional attachment that causes them to cry at night. Even then you're making an incredible sweeping statement saying that if someone holds something important they cry at night about it. There may be one hundred people who think that children are important but some may not cry themselves to sleep at night because kids are dyeing because they are actually doing something about it. They may be praying for well wishes, donating to charities, or even being actively involved with the children through adoption or just being an aid worker.

Generalizations are always bad.

halonachos wrote:
Good luck learning to debate whilst avoiding ad hominem attacks.

I don't think you know what those are.

halonachos wrote:
Oh and by the way, medical school will be just fine seeing as though political actions are not a major concern in any medical curriculum thank you for the well wishes.

I'm sure that C in chemistry will serve you well.

Ad hominem attacks are attacks against one's person and for the most part are logical fallacies. Sweeping generalizations are also a logical fallacy that you have comitted.

Ah yes, my C in chemistry. The C I got for not doing 4 homework assignments because I happen to have a job at the same time. A C in Calculus, a 4 on the AP exam, got to love standardized testing my friend. But anywho, biochemistry is a tough major and I regret not starting with freshman level classes in my freshman year. A mistake I made, but something I am coping with.

halonachos wrote:Ad hominem attacks are attacks against one's person and for the most part are logical fallacies.

Yes, that is how most people on the internet understand it. However, that conception is incorrect.

If I claim that X is bad, and Y is false because X is bad and Y is connected to X, then I am arguing ad hominem. However, I have done no such thing.

halonachos wrote:
Sweeping generalizations are also a logical fallacy that you have comitted.

Incorrect. I have stated that X is true of category Y because X is a defining characteristic of category Y, but I have no claimed that X is true of all Y.

Please do not misconstrue my, very specific, claims. I do not enjoy being misrepresented.

halonachos wrote:
Ah yes, my C in chemistry. The C I got for not doing 4 homework assignments because I happen to have a job at the same time. A C in Calculus, a 4 on the AP exam, got to love standardized testing my friend. But anywho, biochemistry is a tough major and I regret not starting with freshman level classes in my freshman year. A mistake I made, but something I am coping with.

I do love standardized testing, as I do very well on standardized tests.

dogma wrote:A thing cannot be important without being important to a person.

x=importance, y=being important to someone. A thing cannot be x without being y, which can be a thing is x because it is y.

dogma wrote:No, they'll be ostracized because they want to overthrow the state, the fact that this guy killed kids is irrelevant.

x=they'll y=want to overthrow state.

All x's will be ostracized because of y, never z.

Sweeping generalizations, we cannot be one hundred percent sure that the fact that the goatee wearing fool will not be a factor and nonethelss we cannot be sure about whether or not it will impact the thoughts of other about the conservative party. Going by anecdotal evidence of civilians turning against those who do kill children I believed that it would have an impact, at least partially. You stated flat out that it would never be considered and something else would be used to ostracize them.

Also, while things that are important tend to be important to a person they are not always important to another or not important to society's standards. Typically paying bills and gaining a good education are the most important things a person can work towards. For some finding a romantic interest is the most important, while for others playing videogames and debating on the internet are the most important aspects of their lives. There are many, many different ways that something can be important. To society, to a person, to the race, etc.. so many ways something can be important while not being important to a person.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I do love standardized testing, as I do very well on standardized tests.

They do tend to be relatively easy in my opinion, at least we can agree to doing well on them.

Ahtman wrote:But it is so much easier to be morally outraged. If one doesn't express vast amounts of irrational anger, how will people know that you think shooting teenagers is a bad idea?

So much stuff written by so many people in this thread, and here it all is, summed up perfectly in one sentence.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:But it is so much easier to be morally outraged. If one doesn't express vast amounts of irrational anger, how will people know that you think shooting teenagers is a bad idea?

So much stuff written by so many people in this thread, and here it all is, summed up perfectly in one sentence.

I agree, it went off track with discussing whether or not this man is a coward though. There seems to be two parties, the 'this man is a coward but so are the kids' and the 'nah, this guy is just a coward party.'.

halonachos wrote:
Sweeping generalizations, we cannot be one hundred percent sure that the fact that the goatee wearing fool will not be a factor and nonethelss we cannot be sure about whether or not it will impact the thoughts of other about the conservative party.

So what you're telling me is that you don't know what a generalization is.

Stating that X will happen because of Y is not a generalization, in fact it is the opposite of a generalization.

halonachos wrote:
Going by anecdotal evidence of civilians turning against those who do kill children I believed that it would have an impact, at least partially. You stated flat out that it would never be considered and something else would be used to ostracize them.

No, I didn't. When a claim to irrelevance is made it is not in accordance with necessity.

halonachos wrote:
Also, while things that are important tend to be important to a person they are not always important to another or not important to society's standards.

For a thing to be important, it must be important to a person. It does not have to be important to people but it must be important to a person.

A category is not the same thing as a group.

We were talking about those who decide to listen to the goatee killer. You stated that they would be ostracized for trying to overthrow their government. Sure the fact that they'll be ostracized may mainly be true, not all of them will be ostracized for trying to overthrow their government. In fact the goatee killer may well be ostracized for killing kids.

Also, for a generalization you just have to give me an overall reason why something may happen and apply it to everyone. If I state that x will be ostracized for y reason and say that y is the only reason why then it is a generalization. For example; They'll be ostracized(as the x which is a fact they will be ostracized), because they are overthrowing their government(y, which is the assumption being made) which is not true for all of those being ostracized.

Nevertheless things may be important to some and not others while some things may be important to all. What is important to me may or may not be important to you.

As an aside, you are comparing soldiers to teenagers in which there are very few things outside of normal human behaviors that can actually be compared.

As stated before, children and teenagers are not trained to deal with gunmen in the same way as soldiers and law enforcement. I've seen you and matty comparing these kids to soldiers, Al-Qaeda operatives, and I'm surprised you haven't compared them to Rambo by now in all honesty.

There are stark differences between civilians and soldiers, one being the training received in bootcamp. I have not seen any logical comparison between children and soldiers. Matty seems to expect that children should normally grab a rock, sneak up behind a guy, and brain them. Which is all fine and dandy if the child has been conditioned like he has, which in all honestly is most likely not true. Matty, most soldiers, even Al-Qaeda operatives go through training to follow orders and are also conditioned to kill people when necessary.

There are adverse reactions to the killing no matter how much a person is trained, mainly because it tends to be against human nature to kill someone.

So we have basic human nature saying that it is bad to kill a fellow human being, which is present in most humans. Then we have the major difference between children and soldiers, one group is typically trained to overcome that category(medics and medical specialists are trained to kill and save lives, even those of the enemy). One cannot compare soldiers to civilians nor their acts of bravery, one is typically not supposed to fight while the other is and despite them both being human they have a difference in that respect.

As far as Al-Qaeda goes, these individuals are as brave as our soldiers. Both have weapons, training, and the conditioning that goes with each. As far as them have different kinds of weapons and training doesn't mean that one side is braver than the other because it all boils down to their conditioning. Comparing soldiers to terrorists is one thing, but comparing kids to soldiers is a different beast. A 14 year old can be conditioned to be a soldier, US History has taught that exact lesson with the Battle of New Market where 14 year old cadets charged Union lines. The difference between those 14 year old cadets and an average 14 year old being the training and conditioning they received.

halonachos wrote:We were talking about those who decide to listen to the goatee killer. You stated that they would be ostracized for trying to overthrow their government. Sure the fact that they'll be ostracized may mainly be true, not all of them will be ostracized for trying to overthrow their government. In fact the goatee killer may well be ostracized for killing kids.

Sure, but that has no bearing on anyone that listen to him.

halonachos wrote:
Also, for a generalization you just have to give me an overall reason why something may happen and apply it to everyone.

Thankfully I did no such thing.

halonachos wrote:
If I state that x will be ostracized for y reason and say that y is the only reason why then it is a generalization.

Yes, but that isn't what I said.

halonachos wrote:
Nevertheless things may be important to some and not others while some things may be important to all. What is important to me may or may not be important to you.

Yes, I explained this on the last page.

halonachos wrote:
As an aside, you are comparing soldiers to teenagers in which there are very few things outside of normal human behaviors that can actually be compared.

Yes, and?

halonachos wrote:
As stated before, children and teenagers are not trained to deal with gunmen in the same way as soldiers and law enforcement. I've seen you and matty comparing these kids to soldiers, Al-Qaeda operatives, and I'm surprised you haven't compared them to Rambo by now in all honesty.

I'm simply explaining to you, and others, what the word cowardice means; particularly as it applies to people in general.

halonachos wrote:
I have not seen any logical comparison between children and soldiers.

You have been given numerous progressions of logic indicating exactly that. You simply do not like them.

Reason and logic are not the same.

halonachos wrote:
There are adverse reactions to the killing no matter how much a person is trained, mainly because it tends to be against human nature to kill someone.

]

And yet we kill people all the time, which suggests that what you said is false.

halonachos wrote:
So we have basic human nature saying that it is bad to kill a fellow human being, which is present in most humans.

That's like citing common sense, which is just an appeal to your own bias. It is both lazy, and foolish.

halonachos wrote:
Then we have the major difference between children and soldiers, one group is typically trained to overcome that category(medics and medical specialists are trained to kill and save lives, even those of the enemy). One cannot compare soldiers to civilians nor their acts of bravery, one is typically not supposed to fight while the other is and despite them both being human they have a difference in that respect.

Apparently human nature allows all humans to be compared, but civilians and soldiers are not subject to the same comparison. One wonders where these independent races of civilians and soldiers came from if not humanity.

dogma wrote:And yet we kill people all the time, which suggests that what you said is false.

Yet we have people who suffer from psychological conditions because they feel guilty for killing somebody, which suggests that what you said about me being false is false.

dogma wrote:Apparently human nature allows all humans to be compared, but civilians and soldiers are not subject to the same comparison. One wonders where these independent races of civilians and soldiers came from if not humanity.

As you have said, a category is not the same as a group. Soldiers and civilians are categories of a group of people. There are reasons why these people are in different categories and expected to do different things in the same situations. Battlefield: LA spoiler here as an example. At one point the marines are trying to get the civilians off of a bridge, a civilian picks up a gun and starts shooting at the aliens while the soldiers are doing the same. The civilian is braver than the soldiers at this point, while both are doing the same action, one is doing something abnormal for their category while the other is doing what is expected of them. If the man had ran, it would be expected for him to do so but if the soldiers had ran then they would be cowards.

Of course there has to be some amendments made to this, because not everything out of the ordinary for a category of people will mark them as either brave or as a coward due to different societal roles for different societies. If this man believes that he is not a coward and has done an amazing act then he is a hippocrite. According to another poster it is against Norwegian mythos to kill an unarmed opponent as it would be cowardly and if his goal was to attack those who would allow immigrants in then it could be said that he wanted to preserve Norwegian culture and heritage. By killing unarmed children he is a coward to his own society as passed down by his culture's mythos, if he thinks otherwise then he is bastardizing his own culture.

As far as not liking the comparisons, I tend not to like things that make no sense which is why I don't like FLCL.

halonachos wrote:Also, for a generalization you just have to give me an overall reason why something may happen and apply it to everyone.

dogma wrote:Thankfully I did no such thing.

dogma wrote:...they'll be ostracized because they want to overthrow the state, the fact that this guy killed kids is irrelevant.

They'll=everyone who follows him, ostracized=what is happening, want to overthrow state=why it will happen. It also assumes that everyone who follows him will want to overthrow the current leadership, which may also be false in some cases.

halonachos wrote:I agree, it went off track with discussing whether or not this man is a coward though. There seems to be two parties, the 'this man is a coward but so are the kids' and the 'nah, this guy is just a coward party.'.

The way I took Ahtman's comment, he was saying that a lot of people wanting to call this guy a coward are doing so because they want to show lots of moral outrage about what happened. This means calling the guy a coward, because cowards are bad, and what this guy did was very bad indeed.

The other party involved appears to be a people who are being pedantic, or just stirring up the people who want to show moral outrage.

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:I agree, it went off track with discussing whether or not this man is a coward though. There seems to be two parties, the 'this man is a coward but so are the kids' and the 'nah, this guy is just a coward party.'.

The way I took Ahtman's comment, he was saying that a lot of people wanting to call this guy a coward are doing so because they want to show lots of moral outrage about what happened. This means calling the guy a coward, because cowards are bad, and what this guy did was very bad indeed.

The other party involved appears to be a people who are being pedantic, or just stirring up the people who want to show moral outrage.

Either way, the guy killed kids and people have differing opinions of whether he is or isn't a coward. According to his culture he should be considered a coward for killing unarmed people and if he really loves his own culture he should admit to that fact.

halonachos wrote: According to his culture he should be considered a coward for killing unarmed people and if he really loves his own culture he should admit to that fact.

I didn't see any such thing about that on the wiki page for Norway. There was an entry for waffles, but no list of things Norwegians consider cowardly even when they aren't actually cowardly, just terrible.

halonachos wrote:
They'll=everyone who follows him, ostracized=what is happening, want to overthrow state=why it will happen.

You're drawing an inference rather than following an implication.

halonachos wrote:
It also assumes that everyone who follows him will want to overthrow the current leadership, which may also be false in some cases.

Nope, not at all.

halonachos wrote:Either way, the guy killed kids and people have differing opinions of whether he is or isn't a coward.

Which is kind of the thing, the argument is ridiculous. Either way he's a monster for killing a whole bunch of people, who cares if he showed bravery or cowardice along the way?

According to his culture he should be considered a coward for killing unarmed people and if he really loves his own culture he should admit to that fact.

You should be careful about using myths to define another nature's culture. Especially scandanavian myths, because there is some fethed up stuff in there.

Which is kind of the thing, the argument is ridiculous. Either way he's a monster for killing a whole bunch of people, who cares if he showed bravery or cowardice along the way?

Agreed. Thoroughly.

Indeed.