Upload
Login or register

datargumme

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:11/21/2011
Last Login:8/25/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#7953
Highest Content Rank:#1836
Highest Comment Rank:#1871
Content Thumbs: 5236 total,  5784 ,  548
Comment Thumbs: 7275 total,  8615 ,  1340
Content Level Progress: 36% (36/100)
Level 152 Content: Faptastic → Level 153 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 20% (20/100)
Level 267 Comments: Pure Win → Level 268 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:3
Content Views:143723
Times Content Favorited:192 times
Total Comments Made:1248
FJ Points:11938

latest user's comments

#29 - Picture  [+] (20 new replies) 11/16/2015 on We need these +37
#30 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#31 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#50 - taniv (11/16/2015) [-]
I'm going to use this one. A lot.
#32 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#33 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#34 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#36 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#52 - taniv (11/16/2015) [-]
Rhetoric is incredibly important though in debates. Ensuring things are properly defined and lines are properly drawn creates productive and efficient communication. It's a huge hassle when someone says "oh, but I wasn't talking about X2 I was talking about X1" and you're making a point on the entire group of "X", for example, but working through the rhetoric and using it to your advantage against a person is useful. If someone uses it to sidestep your argument, then just use rhetoric to solidify yours and blindside them.
User avatar
#69 - akkere (11/17/2015) [-]
Debates aren't effective models of analyzing objectively appropriate positions for given issues though; going by the fundamental triangle of rhetoric (logos, pathos, ethos) only 1/3 of the rhetoric is pure logical analysis and the other 2/3 is simply appealing to tertiary information disconnected to the bare facts. One could even presume pathos and ethos are objectively fallacious, in fact.
Discussion models are more effective because of the open-ended nature which allows scrutiny to filter out the bare facts, instead of hinging primarily on charismatic appeal.
User avatar
#81 - taniv (11/17/2015) [-]
I firmly agree
#37 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#38 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#39 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#41 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#42 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#43 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#44 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
I did not cross check them all, some of them might also be in the OP.
#149 - JustintheWaysian (11/17/2015) [-]
Doing god's work son
User avatar
#112 - garymotherfingoak (11/17/2015) [-]
thanks b0ss
User avatar
#106 - CodeUltra (11/17/2015) [-]
you're doing gods work, thank you/
#28 - Picture  [+] (23 new replies) 11/16/2015 on We need these +33
#64 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
Arent you supposed to make an argument assuming your premises are correct, and then, after establishing the if then type connection, actually prove that your premises ar e correct?
User avatar
#151 - epicalania (11/17/2015) [-]
You enter the debate with the assumption that your premise is correct but argue with the assumption that it is unknown which is correct.
You can argue things such as "Fact X agrees with my premise" or "Fact Y shows that your premise is incorrect" or "If you see the correlation between facts A & B favours my theory on thing C"

You have to argue from the facts towards your premise, not from your premise to the facts.
You can't say "if my premise is correct, it explains this" - You can, but not as proof, it's used as a support structure to strengthen a proper argument.
#29 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#30 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#31 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#50 - taniv (11/16/2015) [-]
I'm going to use this one. A lot.
#32 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#33 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#34 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#36 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#52 - taniv (11/16/2015) [-]
Rhetoric is incredibly important though in debates. Ensuring things are properly defined and lines are properly drawn creates productive and efficient communication. It's a huge hassle when someone says "oh, but I wasn't talking about X2 I was talking about X1" and you're making a point on the entire group of "X", for example, but working through the rhetoric and using it to your advantage against a person is useful. If someone uses it to sidestep your argument, then just use rhetoric to solidify yours and blindside them.
User avatar
#69 - akkere (11/17/2015) [-]
Debates aren't effective models of analyzing objectively appropriate positions for given issues though; going by the fundamental triangle of rhetoric (logos, pathos, ethos) only 1/3 of the rhetoric is pure logical analysis and the other 2/3 is simply appealing to tertiary information disconnected to the bare facts. One could even presume pathos and ethos are objectively fallacious, in fact.
Discussion models are more effective because of the open-ended nature which allows scrutiny to filter out the bare facts, instead of hinging primarily on charismatic appeal.
User avatar
#81 - taniv (11/17/2015) [-]
I firmly agree
#37 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#38 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#39 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#41 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#42 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#43 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#44 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
I did not cross check them all, some of them might also be in the OP.
#149 - JustintheWaysian (11/17/2015) [-]
Doing god's work son
User avatar
#112 - garymotherfingoak (11/17/2015) [-]
thanks b0ss
User avatar
#106 - CodeUltra (11/17/2015) [-]
you're doing gods work, thank you/
#27 - Picture  [+] (24 new replies) 11/16/2015 on We need these +45
#28 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#64 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
Arent you supposed to make an argument assuming your premises are correct, and then, after establishing the if then type connection, actually prove that your premises ar e correct?
User avatar
#151 - epicalania (11/17/2015) [-]
You enter the debate with the assumption that your premise is correct but argue with the assumption that it is unknown which is correct.
You can argue things such as "Fact X agrees with my premise" or "Fact Y shows that your premise is incorrect" or "If you see the correlation between facts A & B favours my theory on thing C"

You have to argue from the facts towards your premise, not from your premise to the facts.
You can't say "if my premise is correct, it explains this" - You can, but not as proof, it's used as a support structure to strengthen a proper argument.
#29 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#30 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#31 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#50 - taniv (11/16/2015) [-]
I'm going to use this one. A lot.
#32 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#33 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#34 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#36 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#52 - taniv (11/16/2015) [-]
Rhetoric is incredibly important though in debates. Ensuring things are properly defined and lines are properly drawn creates productive and efficient communication. It's a huge hassle when someone says "oh, but I wasn't talking about X2 I was talking about X1" and you're making a point on the entire group of "X", for example, but working through the rhetoric and using it to your advantage against a person is useful. If someone uses it to sidestep your argument, then just use rhetoric to solidify yours and blindside them.
User avatar
#69 - akkere (11/17/2015) [-]
Debates aren't effective models of analyzing objectively appropriate positions for given issues though; going by the fundamental triangle of rhetoric (logos, pathos, ethos) only 1/3 of the rhetoric is pure logical analysis and the other 2/3 is simply appealing to tertiary information disconnected to the bare facts. One could even presume pathos and ethos are objectively fallacious, in fact.
Discussion models are more effective because of the open-ended nature which allows scrutiny to filter out the bare facts, instead of hinging primarily on charismatic appeal.
User avatar
#81 - taniv (11/17/2015) [-]
I firmly agree
#37 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#38 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#39 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#41 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#42 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#43 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#44 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
I did not cross check them all, some of them might also be in the OP.
#149 - JustintheWaysian (11/17/2015) [-]
Doing god's work son
User avatar
#112 - garymotherfingoak (11/17/2015) [-]
thanks b0ss
User avatar
#106 - CodeUltra (11/17/2015) [-]
you're doing gods work, thank you/
#26 - A few more  [+] (25 new replies) 11/16/2015 on We need these +86
#27 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#28 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#64 - anon (11/17/2015) [-]
Arent you supposed to make an argument assuming your premises are correct, and then, after establishing the if then type connection, actually prove that your premises ar e correct?
User avatar
#151 - epicalania (11/17/2015) [-]
You enter the debate with the assumption that your premise is correct but argue with the assumption that it is unknown which is correct.
You can argue things such as "Fact X agrees with my premise" or "Fact Y shows that your premise is incorrect" or "If you see the correlation between facts A & B favours my theory on thing C"

You have to argue from the facts towards your premise, not from your premise to the facts.
You can't say "if my premise is correct, it explains this" - You can, but not as proof, it's used as a support structure to strengthen a proper argument.
#29 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#30 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#31 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#50 - taniv (11/16/2015) [-]
I'm going to use this one. A lot.
#32 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#33 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#34 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#36 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
User avatar
#52 - taniv (11/16/2015) [-]
Rhetoric is incredibly important though in debates. Ensuring things are properly defined and lines are properly drawn creates productive and efficient communication. It's a huge hassle when someone says "oh, but I wasn't talking about X2 I was talking about X1" and you're making a point on the entire group of "X", for example, but working through the rhetoric and using it to your advantage against a person is useful. If someone uses it to sidestep your argument, then just use rhetoric to solidify yours and blindside them.
User avatar
#69 - akkere (11/17/2015) [-]
Debates aren't effective models of analyzing objectively appropriate positions for given issues though; going by the fundamental triangle of rhetoric (logos, pathos, ethos) only 1/3 of the rhetoric is pure logical analysis and the other 2/3 is simply appealing to tertiary information disconnected to the bare facts. One could even presume pathos and ethos are objectively fallacious, in fact.
Discussion models are more effective because of the open-ended nature which allows scrutiny to filter out the bare facts, instead of hinging primarily on charismatic appeal.
User avatar
#81 - taniv (11/17/2015) [-]
I firmly agree
#37 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#38 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#39 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#41 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#42 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#43 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
#44 - datargumme (11/16/2015) [-]
I did not cross check them all, some of them might also be in the OP.
#149 - JustintheWaysian (11/17/2015) [-]
Doing god's work son
User avatar
#112 - garymotherfingoak (11/17/2015) [-]
thanks b0ss
User avatar
#106 - CodeUltra (11/17/2015) [-]
you're doing gods work, thank you/
#30 - If you look at the flename right over the image, you can see a…  [+] (1 new reply) 11/14/2015 on Sick Burn +8
User avatar
#103 - habedi (11/15/2015) [-]
ok, but what's the rekt?
#38 - I am not an astronomer, so i dont know, but my guess would be … 10/10/2015 on Lowest Sound +1
#36 - It is longer than that. We take the inverse of the frequen…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/10/2015 on Lowest Sound +21
User avatar
#37 - rzkruspe (10/10/2015) [-]
Ah yes, how stoopid of me I divided by 60 three times dunno why, don't ask
That's still a pretty fucked up number for a wave period.
How can we be sure it's truly a wave if we haven't witnessed even one whole period yet ?
User avatar
#40 - thesoulseeker (10/10/2015) [-]
Well I assume it's a similar situation to the orbit of Pluto.
We haven't witnessed a whole orbit, since it's period is ~248 years, but based on the observed trajectory we can show that Pluto must be in orbit.

In other words it might be an extrapolation of the collected data.
User avatar
#38 - datargumme (10/10/2015) [-]
I am not an astronomer, so i dont know, but my guess would be that there is some correlation between the length of a period to something more easly meassureable, like its heat output or something like that.
#33 - Anyone have source on the vid?  [+] (2 new replies) 10/10/2015 on this is Bruce. +2
User avatar
#38 - newdevyx (10/10/2015) [-]
User avatar
#133 - tacticalhog (10/11/2015) [-]
hey, my mirror account is useful for once
#76 - 616 hours here  [+] (5 new replies) 09/08/2015 on The ride never ends, +11
#100 - molestedbeggar (09/09/2015) [-]
641 and both 100%

(my steam for rebirth achievements is bugged for some reason)
#112 - sequel (09/09/2015) [-]
Not 100% for original.

It's all about Eternal God now for Original Binding of Isaac.
MFW eternal mom's heart takes ages even with mom's knife + dmg ups + Max's head.
User avatar
#148 - molestedbeggar (09/09/2015) [-]
eternal was not made with edmund's involvement so for all intents and purposes it does not exist.
User avatar
#149 - sequel (09/09/2015) [-]
Yeah, I say screw it too and make a reason why I won't attempt to complete the game.

My reason is the D6 makes items disappear.
#83 - anon (09/08/2015) [-]
Devil time.
#101 - You are thinking about Grommash's son  [+] (1 new reply) 08/09/2015 on In case of more leakage +1
#111 - Whytemane (08/09/2015) [-]
I deserve that. Wasn't fully awake and in pain, so wasn't thinking clearly.