Because it is the internet.

... and there is no such thing as the "lowest common denominator" on the Internet. If you think you've scraped the bottom of the shattered barrel fragments from the gutter, there's always someone lower.

Sioraf I know you think you sound smart. But you just sound pretentious. Making your arguments more complex on purpose is counter-productive.

The reason is of course that alot of people are attention-seeking idiots, particularily young teens.

Centurian: I object to that statement.

I have to say I'm confused.

This doesn't imply anything about the strength of your argument, mind. It's a serious weakness if you can't get other people to understand you at all, let alone possibly see things your way.

Yeah. After running it through my translator most of the possibilities you've suggested are pretty farfetched. Also I'd say suburban upper middle class boredom is more likely the culprit than urban lower class boredom...

* The obsession with fame, a large part of human nature at least in the West.


It's this one, as Centurian paraphrased it: "The reason is of course that alot of people are attention-seeking idiots, particularily young teens."

Also, I object also Centurian. It isn't counter-productive.

Is this a satire? It seems like a satire.

I would have said so if it wasn't Sioraf. =)

Sioraf- you make it too complicated. Are idiots like Tarablus any different than the bullies that lock freshmen into lockers, throw eggs at cars, or smash mailboxes with baseball bats? It is simply a dark corner of human nature - nothing else.

you should talk "dexter"!

Hey not all teens are attention-seeking idiots. (Granted most are) but hey, not all of them. And some teens are smarter than 40 year olds.

* PDs. ? PD is "Police Department" ? thats got to be satire

* moral collapse ? or maybe the relaxation of our restrictive christian and class based moral code of our ancestors.
* The obsession with fame, thats certainly a part of it.
* technophobiac sabotage ? si this aplot of new Darren Aronofsky movie?
* urban lower classes ? lower classes don't usually get involved in board games. poker game maybe at most.


anyway whatever you were smoking when you wrote that i want some

No... PD is playdiplomacy. I don't know what put that idea in to your mind. =)

(groans)
It's hopeless. It's all hopeless...

Empirically we all observe that there is always someone present on the forum who is causing a stir. A priori I theorise that many possibilities exist but the possibility itself of deciphering which possibility is the most likely to be true is impossible, at least in the realm of possibility which of course is one of the main realms of the a priori.
Sent from: You Sent: 07:56 PM
== Ethics==
Why is all this occuring? I present my aforementioned possibilities thus:
* A major operation of sabotage by the PDs.
* The dominance of moral collapse in a postmodern society in spite of the fact that good and evil are not uniquely theistic ideas.
* The obsession with fame, a large part of human nature at least in the West.
* A campaign carried out by technophobiacs to sabotage forums, ours being but one of the victims.
* The discontent of the urban lower classes who suffer from boredom.
* Both the lack of intelligence and decency combined with the unwillingness to change for the better (these two combined are what I detest about humanity the most, humanity DOES have much potential but refuses to harness it and therefore humans are not limited by being purely empirical beings but rather by the fact that they impose false limits on themselves when the true limits are already in place)
=============================================
Long Defeat
Are we to constantly experience this or will the problem cease if the necessary steps are taken? There are of course varying viewpoints present regarding human nature so I will reserve my judgement on the long defeat for the present time.
=============================================
Simplification
(groans even more loudly)
Using the senses we can all see that there is always someone causing a stir. A priori I claim using evidence that there are many possibilities but it is possibly impossible to figure out which possibility is the most likely to be true is not possible at least where possibilities exist which obviously is a part of the a priori.
Why is all of this happening?
I show to everyone the possibilities I mentioned earlier like this:
* The PlayDiplomats are running a sabotage campaign
* The downfall of doing the right thing in spite of doing the right thing is not an idea for theists alone (nobody will believe me on that but I'm dead serious)
* Westerners are obsessed with being famous and spamming is one way of getting there.
* People who either hate or are afraid of technology are sabotaging many forums and this is just one of the forums being sabotaged as part of the campaign.
* Badly off people that live in towns and cities have little to do so they're annoyed and release their anger here.
* Stupidity combined with intransigence (the foulest combination anywhere)
== Long Defeat ==
(Read the Wikipedia article)
=============================================
Sent from: sean (2221 ) Sent: 01:25 AM
* PDs. ? PD is "Police Department" ? thats got to be satire

* moral collapse ? or maybe the relaxation of our restrictive christian and class based moral code of our ancestors.
* The obsession with fame, thats certainly a part of it.
* technophobiac sabotage ? si this aplot of new Darren Aronofsky movie?
* urban lower classes ? lower classes don't usually get involved in board games. poker game maybe at most.


anyway whatever you were smoking when you wrote that i want some
=============================================
PDs can either mean Progressive Democrats (a party that recently ceased to exist) or Play Diplomats. I already had a name for the PHPlayers so I needed one for the PlayDiplomacy users so I thought "Hey, the party and the site have the same initials and I hate both of them, bingo."
Yeah, talk about your liberalism and atheism, I can't give a rat's about either or their opposites.
As for the rest of your post well it's just your usual "pro-postmodernist Nietzsche reading assume everyone who dosen't agree with you is a drug addict in spite of the fact that most people in any group don't take drugs argumentum ad populum" mentality that is destroying society.

Sioraf, if you act like you are talking down to people (with the repeated groans) you aren't going to get alot of traction.

@Pandarsenic. Which statement are you objecting to? I made two. Luckily, I'm going to have to defend both of them.

@Thucydides, you said counter productive, so I assume you were objecting to my first statement. I'm not sure why. Perhaps you like arguments to go deep and have a certain complexity? I admit I worded that badly to make it sound like that was bad. I meant complex in the sense that it is difficult to understand due to language used. In essay writing it is proper etiquette to keep the argument clear and not to use literary flourishes. I hope I interpreted you correctly.

@SgtSilver. I wasn't saying that all young teens are attention-seekers/idiots. just they are more likely to be than 40 year olds. 40 years olds can be stupid, but they have generally matured to a point where they don't hold those traits as much or as strongly.

So this isn't satire? That's a shame, it really looks like one. There's so much pedantry here you can bake a cake.

It's a shame you lump lack of intelligence in with lack of decency... the two are wholly independent. And as for the possibilties you list, the only plausible one is lack of common decency.

As for ending the problem? End the individualistic notion of rights without duties that has pervaded and still pervades post-Renaissance Western society, and instil a common respect for others into children.

@SgtSilver. I wasn't saying that all young teens are attention-seekers/idiots. just they are more likely to be than 40 year olds. 40 years olds can be stupid, but they have generally matured to a point where they don't hold those traits as much or as strongly.

Ok. Im looking back and I realize your point. Sorry about the misunderstanding

Sioraf, if you act like you are talking down to people (with the repeated groans) you aren't going to get alot of traction.
=============================================
I'm not trying to talk down to anyone it's just I usually post the same way and am understood so I'm puzzled more than anything regarding why confusion is present here.
=============================================
Sent from: Invictus (110 ) Sent: 05:24 PM
So this isn't satire? That's a shame, it really looks like one. There's so much pedantry here you can bake a cake.
=============================================
Well bon appebloodytit.
=============================================
Sent from: RiffArt (398 ) Sent: 06:17 PM
It's a shame you lump lack of intelligence in with lack of decency... the two are wholly independent. And as for the possibilties you list, the only plausible one is lack of common decency.

As for ending the problem? End the individualistic notion of rights without duties that has pervaded and still pervades post-Renaissance Western society, and instil a common respect for others into children.
=============================================
I didn't mean to lump them together it's just together is where I keep seeing them. The solution you mention is indeed a valid one and I hope (if indeed hope exists) that more will take note and hopefully implement it.
=============================================

(preface; sorry about the long post- I'm trying to explain to Sioraf why he doesn't make sense, shiver :D)

Sioraf as Killeens.

I didn't want to have to do this, but since you are acting all pretentious I'm going to have to say. Your arguements are dumb, your arguementation style is dumb, and if you can't effective communicate them (which evidently you cannot) then its a totally useless project anyway.

Firstly: The Long Defeat. Essentially this is a ptetentious term to begin with, a Tolkienesque description of fighting a losing battle.
#1- I don't really know what kind of battle we're fighting, and if we 'lose' what then? Total inanity? Kind of sounds like one of your posts....
#2- This itself is a rather Christian term about the fall of man. I don't think it is exactly relevant here.

Anyway, you also seem to misunderstand what the term 'a priori' means and when it is appropriate to use that term. Unless you want me explicitly spell it out, suffice to say an arguement about fighting a losing battle and reasons why has NOTHING to do with a priori knowledge. A priori refers to reasons without empirical observence. So... exactly the opposite of what you are doing.

The statement:
A priori I theorise that many possibilities exist but the possibility itself of deciphering which possibility is the most likely to be true is impossible, at least in the realm of possibility which of course is one of the main realms of the a priori.
What does this mean Sioraf? I don't think even you know.

Now, to your 'theories';

* A major operation of sabotage by the PDs.
- Sure, the other website cares enough to sabotage. Rolls eyes.
* The dominance of moral collapse in a postmodern society in spite of the fact that good and evil are not uniquely theistic ideas.
- Being a jerk doesn't require moral collapse of society, dumbass :P
* The obsession with fame, a large part of human nature at least in the West.
- Yes, this is somewhat to blame for a relatively simplistic problem
* A campaign carried out by technophobiacs to sabotage forums, ours being but one of the victims.
- If you wanted to bring out every single ridiculous reason in existence this list is not nearly exhaustive enough
* The discontent of the urban lower classes who suffer from boredom.
- As has been stated, boredom over the internet is much more likely in the upper classes/ more wealthy and really isn't about class at all.
* Both the lack of intelligence and decency combined with the unwillingness to change for the better (these two combined are what I detest about humanity the most, humanity DOES have much potential but refuses to harness it and therefore humans are not limited by being purely empirical beings but rather by the fact that they impose false limits on themselves when the true limits are already in place)
- I too detest stupid people. And I detest stupid ways of explaing that dislike. Can you explain to me what precisely you mean by 'pure empirical being'?
Furthermore, intellgience is totally seperate from your definition of decency. Although I must say I find your lack of intelligence quite indecent :P


Oh, and my personal favourite Sioraf quote:
"pro-postmodernist Nietzsche reading assume everyone who dosen't agree with you is a drug addict in spite of the fact that most people in any group don't take drugs argumentum ad populum"


Sorry, so you're accusing everyone who disagrees with you to be a Nietzsche post-modernist?
And you believe we believe that you take drugs and accuse 'people at large' of abusing the argumentum ad populum fallacy?


Sioraf, my conclusion is thus;

You are a master of obfustication. Taking simple issues and complicating them not only big words you do not understand, but excessive and irrelevant lines of reasoning is the mark of someone who is looking for fame.

It is not something to be proud of.

I won't say I'm a genius, or even very smart, but I do think that I can generally understood.

And that, my friend, is the raison d'etre of language that you seem to miss.

So stop being so high and mighty. Geesh :P

"I'm not trying to talk down to anyone it's just I usually post the same way and am understood so I'm puzzled more than anything regarding why confusion is present here."

Too be honest, you are usually more cogent. And what is with the groans then?

If you want to be taken seriously, never *groan* before explaining something someone claims you explained poorly.

Is it really that complicated? It is the internet. You are anonymous. You can be a jerk if you feel like it, and there are no consequences.

Don't complicate things for the sake of complication.

Sent from: Friendly Sword (165 ) Sent: 07:08 PM
(preface; sorry about the long post- I'm trying to explain to Sioraf why he doesn't make sense, shiver :D)

Sioraf as Killeens.

I didn't want to have to do this, but since you are acting all pretentious I'm going to have to say. Your arguements are dumb, your arguementation style is dumb, and if you can't effective communicate them (which evidently you cannot) then its a totally useless project anyway.

Firstly: The Long Defeat. Essentially this is a ptetentious term to begin with, a Tolkienesque description of fighting a losing battle.
#1- I don't really know what kind of battle we're fighting, and if we 'lose' what then? Total inanity? Kind of sounds like one of your posts....
#2- This itself is a rather Christian term about the fall of man. I don't think it is exactly relevant here.

Anyway, you also seem to misunderstand what the term 'a priori' means and when it is appropriate to use that term. Unless you want me explicitly spell it out, suffice to say an arguement about fighting a losing battle and reasons why has NOTHING to do with a priori knowledge. A priori refers to reasons without empirical observence. So... exactly the opposite of what you are doing.

The statement:
A priori I theorise that many possibilities exist but the possibility itself of deciphering which possibility is the most likely to be true is impossible, at least in the realm of possibility which of course is one of the main realms of the a priori.
What does this mean Sioraf? I don't think even you know.

Now, to your 'theories';

* A major operation of sabotage by the PDs.
- Sure, the other website cares enough to sabotage. Rolls eyes.
* The dominance of moral collapse in a postmodern society in spite of the fact that good and evil are not uniquely theistic ideas.
- Being a jerk doesn't require moral collapse of society, dumbass :P
* The obsession with fame, a large part of human nature at least in the West.
- Yes, this is somewhat to blame for a relatively simplistic problem
* A campaign carried out by technophobiacs to sabotage forums, ours being but one of the victims.
- If you wanted to bring out every single ridiculous reason in existence this list is not nearly exhaustive enough
* The discontent of the urban lower classes who suffer from boredom.
- As has been stated, boredom over the internet is much more likely in the upper classes/ more wealthy and really isn't about class at all.
* Both the lack of intelligence and decency combined with the unwillingness to change for the better (these two combined are what I detest about humanity the most, humanity DOES have much potential but refuses to harness it and therefore humans are not limited by being purely empirical beings but rather by the fact that they impose false limits on themselves when the true limits are already in place)
- I too detest stupid people. And I detest stupid ways of explaing that dislike. Can you explain to me what precisely you mean by 'pure empirical being'?
Furthermore, intellgience is totally seperate from your definition of decency. Although I must say I find your lack of intelligence quite indecent :P


Oh, and my personal favourite Sioraf quote:
"pro-postmodernist Nietzsche reading assume everyone who dosen't agree with you is a drug addict in spite of the fact that most people in any group don't take drugs argumentum ad populum"


Sorry, so you're accusing everyone who disagrees with you to be a Nietzsche post-modernist?
And you believe we believe that you take drugs and accuse 'people at large' of abusing the argumentum ad populum fallacy?


Sioraf, my conclusion is thus;

You are a master of obfustication. Taking simple issues and complicating them not only big words you do not understand, but excessive and irrelevant lines of reasoning is the mark of someone who is looking for fame.

It is not something to be proud of.

I won't say I'm a genius, or even very smart, but I do think that I can generally understood.

And that, my friend, is the raison d'etre of language that you seem to miss.

So stop being so high and mighty. Geesh :P
=============================================
Flame Wars are located here actually:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=7

"Friendly" Sword indeed...

man I want some curlyfries right about now

Why did you just copy and paste his whole argument when he posted it two posts previously, and then say next to nothing?

That's where I've heard "The Long Defeat" before, it's from Lord of the Rings! Thanks, Friendly Sword. It was driving me crazy.

So I suppose Sioraf is comparing us to the elves of Middle Earth? Also, your thesis is horribly structured and contradictory, Mr. Killeens, a death knell for any argument.

"A priori I theorise that many possibilities exist but the possibility itself of deciphering which possibility is the most likely to be true is impossible, at least in the realm of possibility which of course is one of the main realms of the a priori."

You're saying that a possibility is impossible, and seem to be saying that there is an actual realm of possibility. That's just a turn of phrase, not an actual realm with a sovereign which you can go outside of.

It doesn't make you sound smart, it's just wordy. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Are you sure this isn't a satire?