Liche - 2nd Warning

Liche wrote:

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

LICHE
you receive a warning for your slander. Since this your last warning was in summer 2008 for insulting after you have been insulted and you have no other warnings, you will not receive a ban yet. But the next spamming, slander or insults will result in suspension from 3 to 7 days.

your losing my support
that is an opinion'
i bet if he offended me
nothing wouldh appen
but when it happens to an admin.....

enviro wrote:

your losing my support
that is an opinion'
i bet if he offended me
nothing wouldh appen
but when it happens to an admin.....

Stop being an idiot. That is not an opinion that is an accusation, a slanderous one. And I didn't even request Liche to be banned, it's just Kenzu enforcing rules.

no one mentioned you zel
i dont accuse, jsut pointing out
buti odnt know the circumstances sooo
im not the best

its a freakign opnion!
This is NOT a slader.
In his opnion he thinks that he does that, is it true?
maybe
but it is a opnion!

Yea, it actually is opinion...but what ever.

Liche wrote:

Yea, it actually is opinion...but what ever.

It's not an opinion, it's an arguement, an accusation and an attack yowards my performance as administrator. It's your duty to back such a statement up demonstrating its validity. If you fail to do so and your accusation is proven false it is slander.

I've already explained to you the difference between opinion and arguement more than once. How many times do you need things to be explained to you in order to understand them?

I'd say it's an opinion, as well as a slanderous accusation founded on the strange workings of Liche's mind, since this accusation is otherwise baseless. Liche couldn't even cite some incriminating evidence when asked to do so on more than one occasion as i recall.

Black_Cross wrote:

I'd say it's an opinion, as well as a slanderous accusation founded on the strange workings of Liche's mind, since this accusation is otherwise baseless. Liche couldn't even cite some incriminating evidence when asked to do so on more than one occasion as i recall.

An opinion is based on a subjective truth. An arguement is objective. In this case his whole statement is objective but false. He's stating that I've banned people because of their ideology. There's nothing subjective there but the intention.

And yes, he indeed failed to provide any foundation for his claims rendering them baseless. He reincided in slander again by stating that everytime he excerts his opinion he is accused of being slanderous.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Black_Cross wrote:

I'd say it's an opinion, as well as a slanderous accusation founded on the strange workings of Liche's mind, since this accusation is otherwise baseless. Liche couldn't even cite some incriminating evidence when asked to do so on more than one occasion as i recall.

An opinion is based on a subjective truth. An arguement is objective. In this case his whole statement is objective but false. He's stating that I've banned people because of their ideology. There's nothing subjective there but the intention.

And yes, he indeed failed to provide any foundation for his claims rendering them baseless. He reincided in slander again by stating that everytime he excerts his opinion he is accused of being slanderous.

that is called a hyperbole, I was saying that because me (and CoolKidX) it seemed for no reason I was being accused of Slander.

Liche wrote:

that is called a hyperbole, I was saying that because me (and CoolKidX) it seemed for no reason I was being accused of Slander.

Would you mind to structure your arguements in a comprehensible way?

Kenzu wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

LICHE
you receive a warning for your slander. Since this your last warning was in summer 2008 for insulting after you have been insulted and you have no other warnings, you will not receive a ban yet. But the next spamming, slander or insults will result in suspension from 3 to 7 days.

wth???

wat?????

ok I can just say communism capitalism and all political Ideolagies are slander based on the same argument you have.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

that is called a hyperbole, I was saying that because me (and CoolKidX) it seemed for no reason I was being accused of Slander.

Would you mind to structure your arguements in a comprehensible way?

I think you take this to technically you all ways claim I am dodging or using some form of technique for arguing. Most of the time I can't counter because I don't know what your talking about (and I sense you feel the same about my posts).

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

An opinion is based on a subjective truth.

A good one, yes, but this isn't a necessary qualification for an opinion.

Liche wrote:

I think you take this to technically you all ways claim I am dodging or using some form of technique for arguing. Most of the time I can't counter because I don't know what your talking about (and I sense you feel the same about my posts).

You're using argumentative fallacies, not techniques. You either dodge arguements, or incur in fallacies like hyperbolae, slander and ad hominem.

When I accuse you of somehting I epxlain what I'm accusing you of and why.

Black_Cross wrote:

A good one, yes, but this isn't a necessary qualification for an opinion.

An opinion cannot be disproven unless it is based on misinformation.

"Blue color is nice" is an opinion and it's imposible to refute that because it's a matter of personal taste. "This chair is comfortable" that's another opinion based on an entirely relative truth. The only way to disprove such statements would be in case the subject didn't know the meaning of one of the words and was using them incorrectly.

"Saddam Hussein was a bad man because he attacked France" The opinion is "Saddam Hussein is a bad man" but, the opinion is false because it is based in wrong information. The statement would imply that Saddam Hussein wouldn't be a bad man hadn't he attacked France. Since objectively he didn't atack france, the opinion is invalid.

The opinion "Saddam Huseein was bad" relies on the false arguement "he attacked France".

If I say "Black_Cross hates policemen because he used to have a policeman as boyfriend that dumped him" it's not an opinion, it's an accusation in which I state a reason for which you hate policemen. Said statement can be proven false or true. Since you have stated your reasons to hate policemen this is a slander and an arguement ad hominem to disprove your real reasons to hate policemen. It is both an offense and an argumentative fallacy, not an opinion.

When they say that Marx wrote "Das Kapital" because his nervous system had been crippled by a skin disease he had they're making an arguement that can be proven wrong or false. They're trying to state that Marx's ideas were simply product of a disease rather than rational thinking. Since they have no evidence to prove that, their arguement is a slanderous ad hominem against Marx's arguements instead of trying to refute them. They're not excerting an opinion, they're making a false arguement.

What I was saying is, you are claiming I do stuff I never heard of. (except slander every one knows that)

and too me it sounds like your accusing me of this. I didn't know what trolling was until you yelled at me on Chatbox for it.

Liche wrote:

What I was saying is, you are claiming I do stuff I never heard of. (except slander every one knows that)

If someone without language commits murder and he's accused of "Murder", a strange sound to him when pronounced, he's still commiting murder.

When you come up with exagerations to distract from the focal point of arguement it is called "hyperbole". When you focus on an individual's personal characteristics to try disproving his point instead of adressing a point you're incurring in ad hominem. When you try to make a point through an example unlinked to the discussion you're engaging in a paralelism.

You were accusing me of ad baculum, which is that I use my authority as administrator, to ban people just for their ideology. You're accusing me of being biased so you're focusing on me rather than my arguements, making it an ad hominem. And it's false as I proved right after you accused me, which makes it a slanderous argumentative fallacy.

Liche wrote:

and too me it sounds like your accusing me of this. I didn't know what trolling was until you yelled at me on Chatbox for it.

There's always a first time to learn about the names of certain activities.

Or you are being to technical and this is just how I speak?

Kenzu wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot bans people for HIS ideology... It's just Zealot is in favor of you guys so you think it is just.

LICHE
you receive a warning for your slander. Since this your last warning was in summer 2008 for insulting after you have been insulted and you have no other warnings, you will not receive a ban yet. But the next spamming, slander or insults will result in suspension from 3 to 7 days.

What?
...What?
I mean, it's not as stupid as when I was banned, but what the fuck is this?
In other words, that is an opinion, it doesn't matter if it's 'slanderous', it's fine. It's an accusation. If there's no evidence for it, bring that up, there's no need for a fucking warning.

Liche wrote:

Or you are being to technical and this is just how I speak?

We're both engaging in discussion, right? Well, there are certain terms that define the kind of arguements you are employing. They are called that way regardless on wether you know that term or not. Do you understand that? Wether you know what ad hominem is or not (and I already explained to you what it is) is not unexpendable for you to engage in it. Got it?

Now, that question is besides the discussion. Do you have any arguements to refute my points?

Stos wrote:

What?
...What?
I mean, it's not as stupid as when I was banned, but what the fuck is this?
In other words, that is an opinion, it doesn't matter if it's 'slanderous', it's fine. It's an accusation. If there's no evidence for it, bring that up, there's no need for a fucking warning.

Kenzu's rules. I never supported neither a ban nor a warning. But I indeed want that incident to be pointed out.

And, it's not an opinion Stos. It's a very consice, concrete and specific statement that is either true or false, it's not matter of personal perspective.

If I say "Stos is lifting the box" and you're just standing in front of the box my arguement is false. There's no other option. No one can have the opinion that you're lifting the box. Such a statement is either false or true.

So it is with this accusation. He clearly said that I was banning people for their ideology. Which is either true or false, not a matter of personal perspective.

When he made that accusation I refuted his possition by presenting the arguements I employed to ban all the persons I have banned. Instead of adressing those points he dismissed the arguements and kept with his original statement engaging in an argumentative fallacy known as "ad hominem". Instead of adressing and disproving my arguements, all he did was to accuse me of something (directing to my person) that besides is a "true or false" statement, not an opinion.

It would have been an opinion if he said something like "I think that..." or "in my opinion" prior to his statement. Expressing doubt instead of stating it.

My arguements then would have served as a clarification to take him out of his mistaken opinion or he could have now engaged in a debate on why my arguements show that I did base on ideology to ban those persons.

But he simply stated that and avoided debate, engaging in plain slander and fallacies.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

And, it's not an opinion Stos. It's a very consice, concrete and specific statement that is either true or false, it's not matter of personal perspective.

If I say "Stos is lifting the box" and you're just standing in front of the box my arguement is false. There's no other option. No one can have the opinion that you're lifting the box. Such a statement is either false or true.

We're getting caught up in technicalities. I suppose since the issue at hand is verifiable, it is not an opinion. But the point remains the same it is slanderous since he can't back up his assertion. It's not really important to debate over the definition of opinion, which is what this really is.

Black_Cross wrote:

We're getting caught up in technicalities. I suppose since the issue at hand is verifiable, it is not an opinion. But the point remains the same it is slanderous since he can't back up his assertion. It's not really important to debate over the definition of opinion, which is what this really is.

I'm just explaining why such a thing cannot be considered an opinion which is very important because silencing opinions is wrong and attacking them is fallacious in itself.

Thread closed?

this has all ready gone off topic, and I accepted my warning from the begining, so unless you guys object I say we close the thread.


plus you guys could make a knew thread explaining what your definition of opinion is.

Liche wrote:

Thread closed?

this has all ready gone off topic, and I accepted my warning from the begining, so unless you guys object I say we close the thread.


plus you guys could make a knew thread explaining what your definition of opinion is.

Everything said in this thread is within the topic.