Im not having an arugment, Im trying to explain my point of view verithax, as I said razorvine didnt understand it to start with so im trying to explain it to him though the use of a few questions, its really simple and could have been finished ages ago if people actually answered the instead of over analyzing the question like I was setting some insidious trap for them, it really is just a few simple questions

Men and women think differently.

The stereotypical male brain is better at mechanics.

Though many men do not possess this, and many women do..

Generally, men make better car mechanics.

QED. Kinda.

Also, girls are usually raised differently than boys - conditioning.

Oh come on thats a junky argument you two, is there actually any evidence that guys are better at mechanical stuff?

Sure there are more guys who are car mechanics, there are more guys in pretty much every job, does that mean your better at it that us?

I didn't argue that Ferlas.

I couldn't mend a car. Wouldn't know where to start. Wouldn't be interested.

Broadly, you'll find more men who are good at mending cars than women. This is to a certain extent determined by the way our brains work.

I'm arguing no more than that. Let's not start a 50 page Ferlas special.

Actually, is that proven? I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out women are actually better at mechanics than men, regarding brain capabilities.

I do not believe its true, as mechanics is normally something built from experience. Thats why I used it as an example.


As for the qusetion about killing and compassion and using the word "most." Since your talking about intent, you would have to consider the intent of the actions, and in a place like Celest, I don't think most people are thinking about thier actions on any such level, unless your say.. a follower of Isune, in which case any and all of your actions would be for compassion, even if others dissagree.

I would disagree with the sentence: "Killing is not compassionate." and I would also disagree with the phrase that "Killing is compassionate." Infact, I'd probabbly argue that there is no sentence which I would agree with that is written "(Action) is/is not compassionate"

Killing can be compassionate (I feel dumb for just arguing this).
That's because compassion is a personal, subjective feeling.

If I kill you for that very reason, it's a compassionate killing. The fact someone else feels completely different about it is her problem, so to speak.

So simply put, I need to take lessons from you ;P

Actually, I believe that there is a sort of proof. I was, I don't remember why, listening to a public radio feature on sex. The specific act being that about a transsexual, who went from being a woman to being a man. After taking her testosterone treatments, he/she said that spacial thinking and engines and the like made more sense.

Also, she-now-he started thinking sports cars were sexy. Do consider that at the time he had about 5 times the testosterone of the average male.

Bzzt!
You have just brought in-game considerations into this argument.
Your post has been declared invalid and is now withdrawn from the argument.
I will not argue any further on that point unless you wish to do so in-game, in-character.

Remember: analysis of the strengths or weaknesses of the argument external to the game.




The only thing of any interest left here, is where you think you are going with this.

I answered Yes last time, so I'll answer No this time.
You may assume this pattern for all future questions.
For all questions regarding a reason, assume "Because the moon is made of blue cheese"

I realise the above is a little difficult to comprehend, so just in case you do insist on dragging this out over the next month or two:
B: No I dont agree with that because the moon is made of blue cheese.








If this is what Ferlas is on about, then she should just say so.
Its a good and fair point.

It does however do nothing to disprove that "Using compasion as an excuse for killing is an inherently weak argument".
Except perhaps to prove that is is possible to use compassion as an excuse for killing. But then, I could use the excuse that the moon was made of blue cheese too. It doesn't make it a good excuse.

What Ferlas is trying to do, and what you're so unsubtly skipping around, is argue in such a way that you can't just dismiss her whole argument after it's been made based on an incorrect evaluation of the point she's making. She's trying to force you to accept that every individual point she makes is true because then you won't be able to dismiss the points as a whole.

Your flat-out refusing is just punching holes in your position. If you have a valid argument AGAINST any given point she makes then you just should say so rather than avoiding it. It would be much more reasonable and make everything much smoother.

Untrue.
I am refusing to buy into the euthanasia argument, because, frankly, its way to complicated an issue. If we have this much trouble with the simple stuff, imagine how hard it would be be to rationally discuss a complex issue.

Instead, I am in fact, for the purpose of the arguement, conceeding to any point she might make... just in order to see where she is going. As I said, for the purpose of progressing her case, consider me to agree to whichever point she needs me to agree on.

I know this can be safely done, because I am absolutely sure that it has no relevance to my original claim: "that using compassion as an excuse for killing is an inherently weak argument".

Once Ferlas enlightens us all as to where she thinks her point is leading, then I am confident that this can be proved (if necessary).

If, of course, Ferlas does not intend that her point has relevance to my claim, then one must wonder why she challenged my statement, and why she is continuing to argue now.

Well... not really. Moon isn't made of blue cheese and it's a fact that everyone can see (I guess...). Even if not, why would it affect your relations with other people? Unless you're some kind of psycho who thinks the blue moon orders him to kill or something like that.
It is a weak and far fetched argument indeed, but it's valid enough I think. Why make such a big deal about it?

Im still waiting for you to answer the question and not just avoid it with a nonsensical comment.

Either you agree with me or you don’t and you provide a valid reason why you don’t agree.

Or you can take the other option and admit that you really did understand my point at the start but you ignored it completely because you were unable to come up with a valid counter argument.

My point is: You people took a thread and warped it beyond recognition. I blame Rauros, Razorvine, and Ferlas. Shame on you people. Shaaame.

I was having a lot of fun watching. Don't stop them!

There is indeed scientific evidence that males and females excell in different areas. Our brains are configured differently. Though the differences are so small they allow for a huge number of exceptions, males tend to be geared more towards technical abilities (math, engineering, ect.) and females to more abstract areas (writing, painting, ect.). Both genders should, and for the most part are, be equal under the law. Assuming they are completely equal biologically as well, though, is silly. That's not how nature works.

Before all the feminists firebomb my house, remember that I said the differences are very SMALL. I'm sure there are a million girls who can kick a guy's ass at math or mechanical work, and I'm sure there are a million guys that can write better than your average female. Now that I've finished covering my ass...

Quoted for truth.

You have failed to respond to all but one of the answers I supplied.
I have offered to conceed all points so that you might get to a point
I have offered no counter argument because the only issue of interest left here, is what you think you are saying.
If you will not progress your point further there is little more that I can do.

My claim: "using compassion as an excuse for violence is an inherently weak argument"
It is up to you to show how your statements have any relevance.