---

I'm demanding specific examples and proof or calling BS, with violent applications.

---

Which would be the fallacy of changing the subject. Now, if you want to go back to your original argument instead of dishonestly trying to change the subject, that would be appreciated.

Let's go over the facts again
1) Non-emotional beings could engage in violence
2) You claimed that they could only do so through programming
3) I pointed out that programming can change due to unintended malfunctions/interactions of software

Now you are claiming for evidence of violence caused by this. That is a change of argument away from the issue of programming.

Try again. And your school still sucks.

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo

---

No, actually, I didn't change the topic, another member tried to, and I addressed it, when really it had nothing to do with you, and if you decided to go along with that, then support it with evidence, because honestly, I didn't want to change the subject. Nice try though.

---

Amusing. Another poster pointed out a flaw in your argument. That was not changing the subject. It was showing that your claim had a weakness. You made a reply to them that had a bad assumption in it that ignored reality. I pointed it out. Now you are changing the subject away from the issue of programming being capable of being modified without human intention to actual programming conflicts that cause violence. That is tangential to the issue.

Your school seriously sucks as they clearly did not teach you critical thinking.

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo

---

Quote: from TheLastMagister at 12:22 pm on Oct. 25, 2008

---

No, actually, I didn't change the topic, another member tried to, and I addressed it, when really it had nothing to do with you, and if you decided to go along with that, then support it with evidence, because honestly, I didn't want to change the subject. Nice try though.

---

Amusing. Another poster pointed out a flaw in your argument. That was not changing the subject. It was showing that your claim had a weakness. You made a reply to them that had a bad assumption in it that ignored reality. I pointed it out. Now you are changing the subject away from the issue of programming being capable of being modified without human intention to actual programming conflicts that cause violence. That is tangential to the issue.  

Your school seriously sucks as they clearly did not teach you critical thinking.

---

Can I be perfectly honest in asking; are you baked right now? I keep asking you to reinforce the position they took, as you sided with them, meaning, please, prove a situation where programming has been changed, not by human hands, to cause violence. Otherwise, this argument has no validity.

Tell me, are you one of those students who always lost points on papers for never citing specific examples and giving general abstract arguments?

-------
I'm not wasted potential, you're just not worth my time.
The impossibility of perfection will tear me apart.
There's only so much you can do.
The Broken.

---

wow. TLM getting owned

---

---

Can I be perfectly honest in asking; are you baked right now? I keep asking you to reinforce the position they took, as you sided with them, meaning, please, prove a situation where programming has been changed, not by human hands, to cause violence. Otherwise, this argument has no validity.

---

Thanks for admitting you are changing the subject. You clearly were never taught critical thinking in your piss excuse for a school. Again, let's recap. You claimed that emotions caused violence. Someone pointed out that non-emotion being could cause violence. You claimed that would be only possible if they were specifically programmed by emotion being to cause violence. I pointed out that programming can be modified without any action by such beings. Therefore your argument regarding the issue of requiring programming by emotional being for violence is wrong as programming can be changed independent of our existence. Get it now?  

---

Tell me, are you one of those students who always lost points on papers for never citing specific examples and giving general abstract arguments?

---

Apparently you are one of those students who can't understand how his arguments are fatally flawed and must be failing the most basics of abstract theory.

I never argued that programming malfunctions now are causing violence in non-emotional beings. I just pointed out that your argument on programming ignores reality.

It is not my fault you cannot handle that your arguments are full of holes.

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo

All I asked for, since another member changed the subject, and you took their side by stating programming can change itself without human aid, in such a way that could cause violence, to name a specific example.

Fatally flawed? Which argument is flawed, the original statement, or the opposition that cannot name one example to support itself?

-------
I'm not wasted potential, you're just not worth my time.
The impossibility of perfection will tear me apart.
There's only so much you can do.
The Broken.

---

ObviousChild, I've come to the conclusion you must be senile. I did not change the subject, I accepted someone else changing the subject.

---

Debate master you are not.

Again, all that person did was point out that your argument has a hole. They are not changing the subject. They pointed out that violence could be caused by beings without emotions which directly contridicts your claim that all violence is caused by emotions. That person is still discussing the original topic but instead of supporting your claim they argued that you are in fact wrong in your assertion. No change of subject has occurred.

You then claimed that such beings would only be able to cause violence due to the programming of emotional beings, therefore supporting your original claim.

I shot that down by arguing that programming can be changed, modified or malfunction independent of the existence of emotion based beings, therefore supporting the original criticism of your assertions.

When faced with this, you changed the subject to ask for erratic programing that has caused violence. That is no longer the original subject. Instead, it is about actual instances of where erratic programing has led to emotion less beings causing violence. We have left the issue of whether or not emotions cause violence.

Clearly, logic is not strong with you.

---

All I asked for, since another member changed the subject, and you took their side by stating programming can change itself without human aid, in such a way that could cause violence, to name a specific example.

---

lol. Read above for why your statement is flawed.  

---

Fatally flawed? Which argument is flawed, the original statement, or the opposition that cannot name one example to support itself?

---

Your claim that programing cannot be changed independent of emotional beings.

Your school must really suck.

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo

You'd rather discuss programing causing violence now rather then deal with the flaws in your original statements.

It was you who changed the subject.

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo

---

I'm not the one not getting it. You just don't want to defend your original argument in light of the current problems with it.  

You'd rather discuss programing causing violence now rather then deal with the flaws in your original statements.

It was you who changed the subject.

---

Therefore, the original criticism dealing with non-emotional beings and violence still stands as an argument against your original assertion.

Post edited at 4:07 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 by obvious child

-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo

---

My argument is that your claim on programming is false. Nothing more.

Therefore, the original criticism dealing with non-emotional beings and violence still stands as an argument against your original assertion.

---

Then I simply argue that you cannot prove my argument is false, as you cannot even support your own argument. I can provide plenty of examples of emotion causing war, so I have evidence that war is caused by emotional beings, not any other type of being, artificial or otherwise.

-------
I'm not wasted potential, you're just not worth my time.
The impossibility of perfection will tear me apart.
There's only so much you can do.
The Broken.