DarkStalka
Profile Options
#91
0
Dont worry in 12 or so months you will be playing something else haha :P
0
0
any argument based on a logical fallacy is invalid.
especially when you use it incorrectly.
its like if a UFO enthustiast said if i was skeptical of alien vistors he'd have to say hes skeptical on the great wall of china, because he's seen neither. that's wrong because clearly other evidence suggest the GWOC exists.
0
0
Most people's definition of content, in a game, pertain to races, classes, dungeons, zones, in-game gear, etc. It does not relate to vanity items.
Your problem is, my combative novie friend, is that in order for reductio ad absurdum arguments to be valid - you have to PROVE SOMETHING.
0
Mom.... Mom....Mooooommmm!!! Mommmmmmmmm!!! Mom They are still being mean on the forums. Mom.. (Crumplecorns mom)" Son will you STFU and clean your cage, its bed time!"
0
MrEvo35 on 05/17/2012, 09:29 AMThe fact that you are so mad that you feel the need to repeatedly post, but cannot muster anything beyond the most childish of ad hominems, fills me with a special kind of joy.Mom.... Mom....Mooooommmm!!! Mommmmmmmmm!!! Mom They are still being mean on the forums. Mom.. (Crumplecorns mom)" Son will you STFU and clean your cage, its bed time!"
Ha ha, I double posted unnecessarily, my apologies.
0
Crossus on 05/17/2012, 09:25 AMThe content of a game is the content of a game. To say that some content of the game is in fact not content is absurd. I have no doubt that you could round up a gaggle of idiots to say exactly that, but it would change nothing.Most people's definition of content, in a game, pertain to races, classes, dungeons, zones, in-game gear, etc. It does not relate to vanity items.
Spikoli on 05/17/2012, 09:25 AMActually an argument can be valid without ever actually proving anything in practice. You are thinking of soundness. Regardless, the point of a reductio ad absurdum is to show the flaws in an existing argument, not to prove anything indepedent.Your problem is, my combative novie friend, is that in order for reductio ad absurdum arguments to be valid - you have to PROVE SOMETHING.
0
this is just an elaborate way for a feeble minded fool to basically repeat U MAD BRO, U MAD?
0
0