Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://beta.conquerclub.com/forum/
saxitoxin wrote:
It appears you've committed a logical fallacy, Mets, what we refer to in the Latin as argumentum ad misericordiam.
Metsfanmax wrote:Again, you keep on referring to this "we." Are you perhaps suffering from some disorder where you find yourself dealing with multiple personalities? I believe there is medication for that.
Metsfanmax wrote:I doubt that you, or the moron, are actually "well schooled" in Latin. And if the moron has had formal education in Latin, apparently it had no effect, since he uses these phrases without any apparent understanding of what they mean.
saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:I doubt that you, or the moron, are actually "well schooled" in Latin. And if the moron has had formal education in Latin, apparently it had no effect, since he uses these phrases without any apparent understanding of what they mean.
you seem upset/loud
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:I doubt that you, or the moron, are actually "well schooled" in Latin. And if the moron has had formal education in Latin, apparently it had no effect, since he uses these phrases without any apparent understanding of what they mean.
you seem upset/loud
saxitoxin wrote:
This JPG is a classic example of argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy.
Metsfanmax wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Except, that is the kind of "evidence" ICR uses frequently.
In truth, here is how they will see this:
To them, evolution is dependent upon the idea that ALL previous forms MUST be inferior to all later forms. Sometimes they even refer to "complexity" or such. So, to them anything that shows that things perhaps did not evolve as quickly or even reversed is considered "proof" that evolution fails.
It is just one more example of why the Institute for Creation Research depends upon MISunderstanding evolution to put forward their ideas, why it is absolutely critical that kids be taught real science and not this fakery.
I'm not too familiar with the the institute in question, but based on the quick search I just did it seems like your assessment of them is correct; I don't want to unfairly judge them, though. Is it true that they base their arguments on misconceptions of evolutionary science, instead of outright rejection of it?
saxitoxin wrote:Oh well, this is getting old. Fun, though.
What trick do you guys want me to get Metsfanmax to do next?
I only have him trained to do this one, and it will require a "synapse lapse" via time break to get him oriented to a new one but get your suggestions in now via PM.
I'll pick the best one by EOW and do it in a few months. (PS - keep it realistic. This Pavlovian dog routine is about as complex as I can engineer over a message board.)
DirtyDishSoap wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:DirtyDishSoap wrote:Who cares?
People who understand that science is critical to our society.
If it really was critical I'd rather focus on the now then our past, dismiss religion and the theories of how we came about and have people start working on my flying car.
saxitoxin wrote:Oh no! After all this you're really still seeing these phantasms? We've demonstrated, repeatedly, your situational application of logic in ways that confound the imagination and accost the reasoned senses. But still you're convinced you are a purveyor of Reason?
Mets - you're really Dr. John Nash, aren't you?
(BTW, with a tedious heart I feel it necessary to point-out your most recent logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy - an amphiboly to be exact - to assume that "roller-coaster of emotion" equals "mutual exclusion of emotion and logic.")
Woodruff wrote:DirtyDishSoap wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:DirtyDishSoap wrote:Who cares?
People who understand that science is critical to our society.
If it really was critical I'd rather focus on the now then our past, dismiss religion and the theories of how we came about and have people start working on my flying car.
The problem is that many children are being educated OUT of science. Thanks to that, your flying car becomes more distant!saxitoxin wrote:Oh no! After all this you're really still seeing these phantasms? We've demonstrated, repeatedly, your situational application of logic in ways that confound the imagination and accost the reasoned senses. But still you're convinced you are a purveyor of Reason?
Mets - you're really Dr. John Nash, aren't you?
(BTW, with a tedious heart I feel it necessary to point-out your most recent logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy - an amphiboly to be exact - to assume that "roller-coaster of emotion" equals "mutual exclusion of emotion and logic.")
Metsfanmax has really gotten to you, hasn't he? <laughing>
King Doctor wrote:Dear Mr Squeaky Squire,
Saw this and thought of you.
Love and huggles,
The King (of Doctors)
Or, in Latin, El Kingo del Doctoriosos
Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Woodruff wrote:Metsfanmax has really gotten to you, hasn't he? <laughing>
He sure has! <giggle>
Woodruff wrote:I just want to say...outside of this whole thread...that is an outstanding picture. Has had me laughing at it all day.
Army of GOD wrote:All Day : 20 Minutes :: "I'm Leaving and Never Coming Back to Conquer Club" : He returns a few days later
saxitoxin wrote:What trick do you guys want me to get Metsfanmax to do next?
saxitoxin wrote:Not to nit-pick, Dubya, but he only posted it 20 minutes ago, per the time stamp.
Gang, first one to complete this analogy wins a $10 iTunes gift card. I'll submit the winner for inclusion in the '12 edition of the MAT.
Topic:
Woodruff
Equation:
All Day : 20 Minutes :: "I'm Leaving and Never Coming Back to Conquer Club" : ?
Metsfanmax wrote:Thank you! You see, it was only through saxitoxic's wisdom that I learned how to troll - by making all my posts non sequiturs. I really do think it's a clever technique.