RMRK is retiring.
Registration is disabled. The site will remain online, but eventually become a read-only archive. More information.

RMRK.net has nothing to do with Blockchains, Cryptocurrency or NFTs. We have been around since the early 2000s, but there is a new group using the RMRK name that deals with those things. We have nothing to do with them.
NFTs are a scam, and if somebody is trying to persuade you to buy or invest in crypto/blockchain/NFT content, please turn them down and save your money. See this video for more information.
Things that make you :mad:

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

*
*crack*
Rep:
Level 64
2012 Most Unsung Member2012 Best NewbieFor frequently finding and reporting spam and spam bots
Sometimes it's better to just not say anything.


Anyway

Quote from: Queen Gracie
:mad: When places sell Pepsi instead of Coke.
THIS :mad: Especially when they've only got Pepsi and every other selectable alternative at that time is just as crap :mad:
All of my scripts are totally free to use for commercial use. You don't need to ask me for permission. I'm too lazy to update every single script post I ever made with this addendum. So ignore whatever "rule" I posted there. :)

All scripts can be found at: https://pastebin.com/u/diamondandplatinum3

*
Rep:
Level 97
Secret Santa 2013 ParticipantSecret Santa 2012 Participant2011 Most Successful Troll
But coke and pepsi both suck. :mad:

*
my name is Timothy what's yours
Rep:
Level 79
Hello
2014 Most Missed Member2014 Best IRC Quote2014 Zero to Hero2012 Zero To HeroSecret Santa 2012 ParticipantContestant - GIAW 9For frequently finding and reporting spam and spam bots2011 Zero to Hero
:mad: Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
:mad: When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.
it's like a metaphor or something i don't know

*
Small Bat Dev
Rep:
Level 76
2012 Best Artistf*ck u >:(2011 Best Artist2010 Best NewbieParticipant - GIAW 11Bronze - GIAW 92011 Most Attractive Female MemberBronze - Game In A Week VII
Quote from: Queen Gracie
:mad: When places sell Pepsi instead of Coke.
THIS :mad: Especially when they've only got Pepsi and every other selectable alternative at that time is just as crap :mad:

I actually make a point of not going to places that don't, or I bring coke and just sit there drinking it really obviously like a complete asshole, because if they're gotta serve shitty drinks, im gonna have a shitty attitude.


**
Rep: +0/-0Level 58
RMRK Junior
...People who argue and get mad over silly things... it annoys me. :P

Having to splice tilesets together in XP makes me fume. :D

RMRK's smilies, I don't like them. :V

When somebody talks to me in a manner that insinuates I don't know what I'm doing, when they're clueless and I know what the (BLEEP) I'm doing... thaaat makes me fairly unhappy~ :D

Yeah... I could post in this thread for hours. >w>;

*
Small Bat Dev
Rep:
Level 76
2012 Best Artistf*ck u >:(2011 Best Artist2010 Best NewbieParticipant - GIAW 11Bronze - GIAW 92011 Most Attractive Female MemberBronze - Game In A Week VII


*
Rep:
Level 97
Secret Santa 2013 ParticipantSecret Santa 2012 Participant2011 Most Successful Troll
:mad: Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
:mad: When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.
I have a giant 50 pound water filter attached to my tap that makes my water fucking delicious, KFC is terrible and is blown out of the water by Popeyes and Chicken Express, Dr Pepper is superior to every drink and Sunkist is alright too.

*
Crew Slut
Rep:
Level 93
You'll love it!
For taking a crack at the RMRK Wiki
:mad: when places don't serve peach pop
:mad: at 99% of the country because of this

*
my name is Timothy what's yours
Rep:
Level 79
Hello
2014 Most Missed Member2014 Best IRC Quote2014 Zero to Hero2012 Zero To HeroSecret Santa 2012 ParticipantContestant - GIAW 9For frequently finding and reporting spam and spam bots2011 Zero to Hero
:mad: Waking up at 4:40 AM, getting only 4 hours sleep ._.
:mad: When people are incredibly opinionated about menial things, i.e. tap water, fried chicken provider, choice of soft drink.
I have a giant 50 pound water filter attached to my tap that makes my water fucking delicious, KFC is terrible and is blown out of the water by Popeyes and Chicken Express, Dr Pepper is superior to every drink and Sunkist is alright too.
I'm okay with all of these things.
it's like a metaphor or something i don't know

**
Rep:
Level 58
Some days I dream that I exist as a mollusk.
Ambiguous Trolls  :mad:

***
I <3 Green Day
Rep:
Level 58
"I'm the finger fucker" -Tre Cool
2013 Best Newbie2012 Best Writer2012 Most Missed Member
The genuinely most provoking thing that I ever encounter is people arguing for some ideology and as the debate plays out, it becomes more and more obvious how the motivation behind their debating is to protect his/her own view, not to find the truth. Whenever a Christian who originally argued through evidence and logic, changes his/her argumentation to revolve around how religion is good for society (which is completely irrelevant) after facing enough opposition, then this has happened.

The conclusions are suddenly: "I have wasted my time discussing.", "No matter what I say they will not change their mind." and "I can not tell this to the person's face, well I could but it would be of no use."


I totally agree!
I wanted to only quote a bit of what you said but I don't think that would do it justice, so I quoted it all.
It's a good year when you win an award and give a name to a beer. But you have to make up a sex position to complete it. That would be the Bullwinkle.
     -Tre Cool


***
I <3 Green Day
Rep:
Level 58
"I'm the finger fucker" -Tre Cool
2013 Best Newbie2012 Best Writer2012 Most Missed Member
Kids these days  ::)
Spoiler for:
:P

I see what you did there lol
It's a good year when you win an award and give a name to a beer. But you have to make up a sex position to complete it. That would be the Bullwinkle.
     -Tre Cool


*
Rep:
Level 97
2014 Best RPG Maker User - Engine2014 Most Unsung Member2013 Best RPG Maker User (Scripting)2012 Best RPG Maker User (Scripting)2012 Favorite Staff Member2012 Best Member2012 Most Mature MemberSecret Santa 2012 ParticipantProject of the Month winner for July 20092011 Best Veteran2011 Favourite Staff Member2011 Most Mature Member2011 Best RPG Maker User (Scripting)2011 Best Use of Avatar and Signature Space2010 Best Use Of Avatar And Signature Space2010 Favourite Staff Member
I did not mean to imply that anyone who will not change their minds after a debate are doing this. I was merely talking about those occasions when this actually becomes evident like you said.

I should have been more precise, but yeah. And using Christianity in my post was just an example drawn from recent experience. My post was not about any ideology in particular.
Oh, and sorry for keeping this off-topic stuff on, but I realized to demonstrate what I was talking about, I could now instead of saying that you were right and redefine my allegation, I could have said "but when they don't change their mind the discussion has to go on and we waste more time." Thus changing my argumentation completely while ignoring the fact that you just logically proved me wrong and I am now discussing something else.

Well, I still don't know that it's ever evident, and I certainly wouldn't have thought your latter example outside of the scope of the original debate. In any event, while subjects for debate perhaps require some limitations, I think you should be careful that you are not, in defining the parameters of your debate, structurally privileging arguments that are supportive of your position.

For instance, assuming that in your original example the subject of the debate was the existence of God, I do not see that raising the issue of whether religion performs good in the world is necessarily irrelevant to the original question.

In that I mean it is a perfectly logical argument to say that, if God does not exist, there is no value to human life; absent some divinity, each individual person is worthless - you are simply one speck of dust among seven billion on a tiny planet in a vast and incalculable universe. Your life will be cosmically brief and will likely leave an impact so minimal that not even your great grandson will remember your name. Even if you are one of the rare individuals whose life is remembered by history, such a memorial affects only people whose lives have no more intrinsic meaning than your own, and it certainly doesn't affect you, because you're dead. Arguably, that basic thread of logic is a premise of the Abrahamic religions, with some of the first words in the bible describing life after Eden as "you are dust, and unto dust you shall return." (that line of thought is more fleshed out in Ecclesiastes).

To my mind, that argument is not unrelated to the question of God's existence, since it goes toward the very reason for the hypothesis of God - that is to say, His existence validates the sense of self-worth and altruism that is arguably innate to all human beings. Is it not an unfair constraint to debate a hypothesis without permitting your opponent to advance any observations which form the basis for the hypothesis? To debate gravity and refuse to permit the observation that objects fall down and not up?

Given that rationale, the question of whether religion does good in the world is potentially relevant to the question of whether God or some divinity exists, since it could circumstantially validate the hypothesis outlined above.

I truncated that argument since it was only an example, but my point is only this: if you construct the subject of debate too narrowly, you risk introducing a bias toward your own position, especially where the onus of proof is on your opponent, as it would be on the person arguing the existence of God. It seems to me a narrow debate indeed if you forbid your opponent to raise reasons for his or her belief. If your objective is truth, I would advise against building artificial walls that disadvantage those who do not share your opinion.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2012, 02:54:05 AM by modern algebra »

***
Rep:
Level 57
Noun. The act of illuminating.
Contestant - GIAW 9
I did not mean to imply that anyone who will not change their minds after a debate are doing this. I was merely talking about those occasions when this actually becomes evident like you said.

I should have been more precise, but yeah. And using Christianity in my post was just an example drawn from recent experience. My post was not about any ideology in particular.
Oh, and sorry for keeping this off-topic stuff on, but I realized to demonstrate what I was talking about, I could now instead of saying that you were right and redefine my allegation, I could have said "but when they don't change their mind the discussion has to go on and we waste more time." Thus changing my argumentation completely while ignoring the fact that you just logically proved me wrong and I am now discussing something else.

Well, I still don't know that it's ever evident, and I certainly wouldn't have thought your latter example outside of the scope of the original debate. In any event, while subjects for debate perhaps require some limitations, I think you should be careful that you are not, in defining the parameters of your debate, structurally privileging arguments that are supportive of your position.

For instance, assuming that in your original example the subject of the debate was something tedious like the existence of God, I do not see that raising the issue of whether religion performs good in the world is necessarily irrelevant to the original question.

In that I mean it is a perfectly logical argument to say that, if God does not exist, there is no value to human life; absent some divinity, each individual person is worthless - you are simply one speck of dust among seven billion on a tiny planet in a vast and incalculable universe. Your life will be cosmically brief and will likely leave an impact so minimal that not even your great grandson will remember your name. Even if you are one of the rare individuals whose life is remembered by history, such a memorial affects only people whose lives have no more intrinsic meaning than your own, and it certainly doesn't affect you, because you're dead.

To my mind, that argument is not unrelated to the question of God's existence, since it goes toward the very reason for the hypothesis of God - that is to say, His existence validates the sense of self-worth and altruism that is arguably innate to all human beings. Indeed, I would argue that that premise is the foundation of the Abrahamic religions, with some of the first words describing life after Eden as "you are dust, and unto dust you shall return." Is it not an unfair constraint to debate a hypothesis without permitting your opponent to advance any observations which form the basis for the hypothesis? To debate gravity and refuse to permit the observation that objects fall down and not up?

Given that rationale, the question of whether religion does good in the world is potentially relevant to the question of whether God or some divinity exists, since it could circumstantially validate the hypothesis outlined above.

I truncated that argument since it was only an example, but my point is only this: if you construct the subject of debate too narrowly, you risk introducing a bias toward your own position, especially where the onus of proof is on your opponent, as it would be on the person arguing the existence of God. It seems to me a narrow debate indeed if you forbid your opponent to raise reasons for his or her belief. If your objective is truth, I would advise against building artificial walls that disadvantage those who do not share your opinion.

Just to conclude clearly, I change my position while humbly admitting that I was wrong.

What enrages me, I think is the type of person who is sincerely bad at debating seriously (which I think we all can agree about) and generalizing such persons into any kind of method of argumentation et cetra was an error. Thank you for this correction.  ;)

*
Rep:
Level 97
2014 Best RPG Maker User - Engine2014 Most Unsung Member2013 Best RPG Maker User (Scripting)2012 Best RPG Maker User (Scripting)2012 Favorite Staff Member2012 Best Member2012 Most Mature MemberSecret Santa 2012 ParticipantProject of the Month winner for July 20092011 Best Veteran2011 Favourite Staff Member2011 Most Mature Member2011 Best RPG Maker User (Scripting)2011 Best Use of Avatar and Signature Space2010 Best Use Of Avatar And Signature Space2010 Favourite Staff Member
:mad: With that I can agree.

In any event, I was really just trying to annoy everyone else in this thread :)

« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 10:50:30 PM by modern algebra »

*******
RMRK's Mom
Rep:
Level 88
I intend to live forever - so far so good.
2014 Most Missed Member2013 Most Mature Member2013 Kindest Member2013 Best Counsel2013 Queen of RMRKBronze SS AuthorBronze Writing Reviewer2012 Kindest Member2012 Best Counselluv u bb <3Secret Santa 2012 ParticipantFor taking a crack at the RMRK Wiki2010 Kindest Member
well you failed.  I quite enjoyed that :P

Does that make you :mad:
TOO BAD :mad:


*
my name is Timothy what's yours
Rep:
Level 79
Hello
2014 Most Missed Member2014 Best IRC Quote2014 Zero to Hero2012 Zero To HeroSecret Santa 2012 ParticipantContestant - GIAW 9For frequently finding and reporting spam and spam bots2011 Zero to Hero
I renounce my atheism, modern algebra is clearly God.

Also Holk and Arlen.
it's like a metaphor or something i don't know

*
RMRK's dad
Rep:
Level 86
You know, I think its all gonna be okay.
For going the distance for a balanced breakfast.Project of the Month winner for June 2009For being a noted contributor to the RMRK Wiki2013 Best WriterSilver Writing ReviewerSecret Santa 2013 Participant
I get  :mad: when I have had ZERO sleep and my job gives me forced overtime.

Not that I'm complaining. No-ho. Nope.
:tinysmile: