A world without money.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

"herp derp stupid econ theory" <-- ok let's allow this
"herp derp flat earth theory" <-- ok let's lock this

ok there

[devonin]

Re: A world without money.

Okay, so you failed. No posting in CT for a week please.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

just because you are mod here does not mean you get to dictate the terms of who "succeeds" and "fails" on a logical basis.

i didn't fail -- you just fail at keeping obvious trash out of a forum. stuff that doesn't warrant serious discussion.

explain to me, minus the obvious impetus for its creation, why you chose to lock the flatearth thread.

[Mulie]

Re: A world without money.

Your argument was challenged at least a few times and at least on one occasion you responded with feigned ignorance, with the justification that your point had not yet been made. But if those propositions weren't good enough, what would have been needed to deconstruct your logic?

People continued posting, extending the false debate. I think those are the basic premises under which Devonin locked it.

It may also have been in part because of the static between you two, but you'd already conceded.

And clearly you're "trolling", Rubix. You're not stupid.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

Doesn't matter -- what propositions would be good enough to deconstruct someone's belief in God?

Some people are just so thick that no amount of reasoned logic will sway their opinions because they will dodge or misconstrue what contradicts them and push forth additional argument into new areas falling under the same broken premises.

If people can get away with that crap here about economics, I should be able to do it about flat Earth. It shouldn't matter if I don't actually believe it or if it's a "false debate" because this is a "critical thinking" forum.
this is ffr lololololololol

[Mulie]

Re: A world without money.

But this is a forum, and everyone has a right to post. If rebuttals had to be logically sound, else be deleted, even if it were beyond the person's ability, things would be awfully dull.

In the end if you can't convince a person of something, that's your failing as well.

edit

Doesn't justify The Flat Earth thread because Rubix's rejection was false...

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

It's not my failure if someone is blatantly choosing to ignore facts and reasoned logic.

Whether or not the forum would be "dull" is irrelevant. If it's meant to be a platform for serious discussion, then it should be maintained that way. If you're going to let crap stand, then you need to let crap stand.

There's no reason why the flat Earth thread should be removed other than arbitrary "you don't really believe that" reasoning, which shouldn't matter in a "critical thinking" forum.

Are you guys really having trouble understanding this?


"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

-What Dev is saying is that it's OK to enter this forum and act like a pigeon if that is indeed the way they play. You either have to take the pigeon seriously or let it continue crapping on the board. Actually wanting to have a serious chess match against someone who plays chess? Forget about it

[Mulie]

Re: A world without money.

Are you saying someone in this thread was choosing to ignore your responses? If not, your thread was unjustified (and therefore locked) because you chose to ignore reason, unlike the people that were arguing with you here, who (I think) sincerely weren't convinced.

edit

-What Dev is saying is that it's OK to enter this forum and act like a pigeon if that is indeed the way they play. You either have to take the pigeon seriously or let it continue crapping on the board. Actually wanting to have a serious chess match against someone who plays chess? Forget about it

No one is saying you can't debate on your own terms. You were only chewed out because you began resorting to ridicule in an effort to get your point across. That's not debate, and it doesn't belong here.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

People ignore responses whether they're intentionally doing it or not. Debate any serious Creationist who "disbelieves" in evolution and you'll see what I mean. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la" is not okay. But apparently if you're "actually stupid," it's okay to do this?

[Mulie]

Re: A world without money.

If a person is "actually stupid", they're not intentionally ignoring the other side, and they continue trying to argue their point... Then yes, they're still debating.

You don't necessarily have to convince them of anything.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

Like I said, you're basically saying if someone is a retarded pigeon who craps on the board instead of actually playing chess, it's okay as long as they're doing so with the actual intent of "engaging in the game" whilst doing so?

Ok there sport

If they're allowed to do this, then my Flat Earth thread should stand unharmed.

[Mulie]

Re: A world without money.

If it shits all over your game and knocks all the pieces over with the intent of playing, yes, it is justified. Your Flat Earth thread was not justified because you're not a retarded pigeon. Hence the locking.

This argument's not going anywhere.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

Shouldn't matter if I am a "retarded pigeon" or not. This is a "Critical Thinking" forum. Shouldn't matter if I "agree" or not.

Being legitimately ignorant / unwilling to listen to reason doesn't grant you free passage to crap on the board.

[Mulie]

Re: A world without money.

You weren't thinking critically, unlike the others. Being more correct doesn't grant you free passage to crap on the board.

edit

Last post.

[Reincarnate]

Re: A world without money.

Sure I was. The same logic invoked in that thread is no different from the logic in this thread "critically speaking." In both cases, it's shitting upon reason.

If people are going to be allowed to shit on reason and ignore counterarguments just because they're either incapable of knowing any better or stubbornly dogmatic, then I should be able to pull the same shit, too.

Honestly, are you really not following this? Further proof that this forum is full of retards.