Truth or DARE!!!!!

I'll take Makaze's truth.

Truth or dare?*

 

That impression was correct. However, I also have a personal distaste for the character. I did not have to resort to an answer that was indirect because I did actually dislike Eowyn when you asked me what I disliked about her. The notion that I would speak beyond answering your question was a mistaken expectation on your part.

That is the only difference. I stated that they were both meaningless if you got down to it. If you cut out physical harm, then there is no meaning to any preference. In that case, each person's opinion is a god's opinion to them and yet there are no such things as better preferences. You might as well have asked, "What makes intolerance a bad thing if you take out what makes things bad?"

Intolerance itself is not necessarily a problem. Literally unreasonable intolerance is the problem. By my logic, if one race were demonstrably less efficient than another across the board, then judging a person's value based on race would be valid. As judging a horse by its breed is. I agree with that assessment. However, no such evidence exists, and as such racism is an unreasonable intolerance. It has no basis in demonstrable quality.

The same is true of any other bigoted intolerance. A dislike for sexual deviation is a very common one. If there is no demonstrable evidence of it being an inefficient practice, then not tolerating it is not a reasonable position; you cannot summon an evidenced reason for it. Furthermore, if the evidence that you present is not your personal reason for disliking it, then it ceases to be worth its weight on the table. Evidence exists on all sides of most arguments if you look for it, and using evidence to justify what you believe is invalid. Rather, you should believe what you do based on the evidence you find. Trial and error before probable certainty, always.

To clarify, any dislike or intolerance that will not demonstrably increase the positive value of the world is inefficient and must go. If you cannot explain how the world would be demonstrably better without the thing you dislike, then your dislike is a waste of time and generates unnecessary negativity that could lead to unnecessary violence and bullying. It is important to note that "it would be because it just would" is not a reasonable answer and so will not be accepted.

This is incorrect. While I did express a distaste for the character, I did not say anything at all about quality of the set, including denying any dislike for the quality. This is the second time you have claimed this in a row.

If you like, I will make myself clear: the quality was mediocre. It was at a point where the character could have brought it up if I had liked it, but I did not. I tend to see bad quality things in a better light if I like the characters portrayed. This was not one of those cases. There are also cases where a work can be so high quality that I do not mind the character for the artwork around them. Again this was not the case. It failed to impress me in quality and went on to annoy me as a character, making me more harsh on the graphics than I would have been if it had not been so annoying. The quality remained unchanged, but how tolerant I was of it did not.

Start again, please?

For your truth, what activity would you most like to be doing as of reading this?

Truth.

Truth or dare?*

 

Marushi, stop being passive aggressive.
Makaze, stop responding to her aggressiveness aggressively.

Or rather, do not be condescending. You can be quite.
You two bicker like a married couple.
And it can be quite annoying.

 

Sleeping. I'm not that tired though, and I took a nap earlier today, so it'd be a waste for me to try to sleep now.

For your truth, what mundane everyday things has recently caught your eye that made you stare at it for a little while?

Truth or dare?*

 

Yes, Lili... Though she started it...

Why don't you play since you are browsing?

Bath towels and air ducts. Fascinating things.

Truth.

Truth or dare?*

 

It's a childhood thing, Scar anyways. Grew up watching the movie countless times for whatever reason and Scar's song was always my favorite. I bring him up allot for nostalgic reasons I suppose.

Gahh, I should have expected something time consuming. I'll record 3 of my traits, I can't promise it'll be up really quick, I'll have to get some time and my mic. If not today I think I can Saturday.

 

@Makaze
What is your favorite horror movie?

Truth or dare?*

 

It has to be The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. I doubt you have seen it. Have you?

Truth.

Truth or dare?*

 

Spoiler: Last response to this pointless debate

You misunderstood what I was saying. I said that I was not clear enough in my own statement. When I said "What was so bad about Eowyn?" I meant the set, not the actual character. Therefore, I was not clear in my statements. I was not trying to argue with you with my statements, I was merely trying to explain what my original intent in asking the question was.

Alright. All this, I agree with. I will not pull up any evidence supporting my belief, because that is a debate for another time, and I just want to stick with this one for now.

Alright, you literally say here that evidence is invalid if the evidence is not your opinion, and then you say that as there is evidence for every side of an argument, using evidence to justify what you believe is invalid. Then you immediately say that you should base your beliefs on the evidence you find. Well, which is it? The three are contradictory. Should I base my beliefs on evidence, or is evidence invalid in regards to justifying my belief? Or is all evidence invalid if it does not support my own belief? Look at the three seperately:

If evidence is invalid because it does not agree with my opinion, and my opinion is that christianity is true, than all evidence supporting every other belief, religion, and philosophy becomes invalid, because the evidence is not my opinion. To say that evidence is only valid as long as it agrees with me is like saying that in a courtroom, during a murder trial, evidence is only valid as long as it agrees with the prosecutor's opinion that the defendant is guilty. That is a faulty system, because that would mean that any evidence suggesting the defendant's innocence is immediately overrulled, as it does not agree with the Prosecutor's opinion that he is guilty.

If I cannot justify my beliefs with evidence, than my beliefs become hysterical heresay, the exact opposite of a logical deduction, and I would resort to believing whatever I wanted based on whatever I felt like at any given moment. If I cannot base my beliefs on any evidence, there is nothing to keep me from believing that all people are really steaks, and I may eat them if I wish. I can believe that I am a bird, and attempt to flap my arms and fly. I can believe that I am really flying, and ignore the evidence of the concrete uder my feet, because to base my beliefs on evidence, namely, to base wether or not I can fly based on the evidence of "This isn't working, I'm still on the ground" is invalid, as I cannot justify my beliefs using evidence.

If I am to base my beliefs on evidence, that would mean that I took a look at all the evidence around me, not just my own opinions, and using the evidence of what I see, drew a conclusion about what I am to believe. So I am to examine all the evidence that is presented to me, I take a look at any religion or belief system, be it Hinduism, Catholicism, Satanism, Christianity, Solopism, you name it, gather the evidence, and draw a conclusion of wether or not it is practical for me to believe it or not based on the evidence presented to me. This is logical, and I agree that this is what needs to be done.

However, this last practice contradicts both of the previous practices, as
1. to examine all evidence, I cannot overrule a particular piece merely because it does not agree with what I personally believe, and
2. because if evidence cannot be used to justify belief, basing your belief on evidence is not justifiable.

You have contradicted yourself with three different practices in one statement. Which of the above am I supposed to do, as I cannot logically do all three of them?

That is both sensible and pragmatic. So then, please explain how the world is demonstrataby better now that I no longer have Eowyn as my avvy and sig. Remember, "it would be because it just would" is not a reasonable answer and so will not be accepted.

Well, not so hard to do in a single post. You act like I respond to your different arguments at different times, insteaad of just once and I make the same point twice in that post.

Oh, so you're saying the quality was not bad, but just mediocre? And the reason you deemed it "bad taste" was because you disliked the character? If you had liked the character, your judgement of the quality would have been brought up, but since you disliked the character, you were harsher on the quality than you would have been had you liked the character or even simply had no opinions on the character at all? The quality was unchanged, but your tolerance of it was not?

You realize you just said that the quality was not what made you intolerant of the avvy, but your dislike of the character? You said that if it had been a character you liked, you would not have minded the quality as badly. But since you dislike the character, your opinion of the quality was brought down more than it would have been normally. So the reason you picked on my avvy and sig set was not the quality, but your personal opinion that caused the intolerance, just like I said. You can use fancy words and cleverly coined phrases, but if you really look at the statements you made, you'd see that you said that you judged my avvy and sig not on their quality, but on your dislike of the character herself, which is exactly what I said you did.

Sigh... somehow, you have dragged me into another debate. I will let you know now, that after saying all that I have said, I intend to forfeit if you choose to continue, because not only do I hate to argue, but I also realize that arguing with you is a waste of time, and I realize that this is not the proper place for a debate. I'll go ahead and post this, so as not to waste all the time and effort I spent putting into it, but I will place it and all my other arguments in spoiler tags so as not to waste thet thread's space. I do not intend to respond to any further arguments you make, I feel I have sufficiently proven to myself all that I set out to prove and can end this argument with a clear concience.

Truth or Dare to the below?

EDIT: Sorry, LARiA, I didn't read your post until I had already posted this. And, sorry if I came off as passive-aggressive. lol I'll try to not do that anymore. XD

 

I will acknowledge the more annoying conflicts... I am sorry, Lili, but I cannot leave something unfinished...

Spoiler

You are not to believe at any point. I apologize for my bad wording, but I hope you will pick up on it on your own next time. I have detailed this before in previous arguments. You are not to believe in certainty at any point along the line. Rather, you are to experiment and make use of things in accordance with their pragmatic consistency. You are to construct a model of the facts based on how consistently you can use them to prove points. If new facts are presented, then you must revise the model to become more efficient at proving the point. If you have a ball point hammer and use it, but later notice that it would be more effective with a flat end due to the pattern of ricochets you receive, would you be said to have believed in the ball point hammer before, and to believe in the flat point one now? I should think not, if I had my way. You simply used the one that seemed best at the time, like a good scientist would.

The reason why I said it the way I did before was because it is dangerous to believe something without evidence and then go searching for it because you believe there must be some. "I am right, so there must be evidence." And then you got looking. That is a rather foolish way to handle any situation.

You should base your actions on evidence, but never should you believe, with or without it. Do you understand the distinction?

Based on my previous experiences, what annoys me also annoys others, and others often agree with me about the quality of art, even if they are not as harsh as I can be. The world is demonstrably better because you have been forced to deviate to something different. Your current avatar is far better by my standards, and not just because of the character, but because of the colours and placement as well. The world is only better if your set is higher quality. Quality is normative and therefore can be judged with a somewhat objective stick. That is why I had you get rid of the pineapple set as well; it was not higher quality than the Eowyn set, and so annoyed more people, and so brought more negative energy into the world. In essence, I wished to lower the number of people who would be annoyed when they saw your posts, based on my experiences with such annoyance in the past. Do you get it now?

No, they were two different posts. You said that in your previous post and again in the one I was responding to. Please read again.

I judged it on both. It works in the same way a judgment of a person would. Say that you have two equally ugly people. One of them is a very pleasant person and the other is not. You will be more accepting or less judging of the ugliness of the pleasant person by default. This does not mean that you believe they are less ugly; it simply means that they have other traits that make up for it.

On the flipside, say that you have two equally boring or unpleasant people. One of them is beautiful and the other is not. You will be more tolerant of the beautiful person by default for the same reason. This does not mean that you do not acknowledge the faults in their personality; it simply means that they have traits that compensate for it. And so on.

You act as if I must judge it on one or the other. This is not the case. The reason why it appears to hinge on the character to you is because having a character (that is annoying or pleasant) is optional while being beautiful or not is a default attribute that applies simply by nature of being an image. Please, try again.

A clear conscience, eh?

Truth...

Truth or dare?*

 

lol, yup.

For your truth, hmm...
What is your "style" at present, when you choose what you wear, what style do you lean more towards than others? Are you goth, punk-rock, preppy, sloppy, hipster, gangstah, skater, a mix of all these things, what is your stye at present?

 

Right now, my style is "whatever I happen to put on in the morning". I am not very rigorous about my style in the least. I am hipster, I guess, but the proper term would be 'indifferent'. I have no scene. I am my own person by most standards. I only need to make my own clothes for the illusion to be complete.

Truth or dare?*

 

Finally got it doooone... *dies* Except one song, but I got really bad allergies after you gave me this. :\

http://www.kh-vids.net/showthread.php?121288-Why-did-you-make-me-sing-D&p=3613983#post3613983

And I'm taking a truth, dang it. D:

Truth or Dare?

 

I'll take a dare.

@Makaze What was the last movie that you saw that left a very big impact on you after watching it?

Truth or dare?*

 

I dare you to put I LOVE PONIES! in big rainbow letters in your signature for... three days. :3

 

I make crappy rainbows. XDX

 

Tell me about your impressions of me, first and current.

The Talented Mr. Ripley. It is hard to exaggerate how much it affected me. It comes extremely highly recommended.

Truth.

Truth or dare?*

 

I dare you to record yourself singing a song from any musical of your choosing and post it in the spam zone.

Truth

Truth or dare?*

 

How many times have you changed your name? ((I couldn't think of a good one >_<))

Dare

Truth or Dare