Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Lol my English Teacher hates me. Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]pumpkin475[/m] at 10:16 pm on Oct. 22, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]TheLastMagister[/m] at 9:56 pm on Oct. 22, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]pumpkin475[/m] at 11:36 pm on Oct. 22, 2008[quote]Quote: from [m]TheLastMagister[/m] at 9:15 pm on Oct. 22, 2008[quote]Again, I don't view violence as a negative thing, it's a consequences, just like everything else, cause and effect. Just for some reason if you tell that to someone who is anti-war you will get a dirty look.[/quote]if u dont think it's negative, why make an argument on it with you're teacher? if you simply think it's a consequence, why go through the trouble of trying to make your teacher agree with you on something that you both actually agree on after all? if you're not against the violence that emotion brings, why try to turn the statement at hand around?[/quote] Because she was using love in the context of it being a "solve-all solution"[/quote]ok i see. u did not mention that in your original post.[/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post The Last Magister Posted at 8:55 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 We are reading Tuesdays with Morrie, and she loves the book, and today when we were talking about Morrie's view that love is great and we should all show emotion more often, then I stated that all violence has been caused by emotion in one form or another. She spent the WHOLE hour trying to beat that statement. Couldn't. Lol, she was so pissed at me, and the other kids were just like, "Wow, owned." Would someone like to take me up on it? If you can actually beat me with a valid point I might give you some points... Again, disprove that all violence is caused by emotion, directly or indirectly.

Replies obvious child Posted at 5:19 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 8:07 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Actually, lol, yes, you heat up left-overs because it's a means of self-preservation, aka, caring of one's self. If you'd pay attention to the context, this has nothing to do with accidents. lol. Physical needs are not all emotions. If I am tired and want to sleep, is that an emotion? You haven't defined violence. mysticgohan Posted at 6:22 am on Oct. 27, 2008 Oh heating up leftovers. You don't have to heat them up, you heat them because you want to. Nt all violence however is caused by emotion, some things are honestly just pure chance but for the other 99.9 times out of a 100 emotions are the cause. The Last Magister Posted at 11:07 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Actually, lol, yes, you heat up left-overs because it's a means of self-preservation, aka, caring of one's self. If you'd pay attention to the context, this has nothing to do with accidents. obvious child Posted at 11:04 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 3:59 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Actually, it's rather easy, because humanity is driven by emotion. Everything is done for emotion Come again? Everything? Need does not equate to emotion. I may be hungry but that doesn't mean warming up left overs is due to emotion. All violence IS caused by human emotion, usually caring, of something else or themselves(self-preservation) So if I accidentally hit someone, that was caused by human emotion? How are you defining violence? The Last Magister Posted at 6:59 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Actually, it's rather easy, because humanity is driven by emotion. Everything is done for emotion, even logical decisions are based off a need, and need is self-preservation, which is a love of one's self enough to ensure it's well being. You can program a robot to roll off a cliff, and it will do it over and over, because that is the only action it knows, it doesn't care about itself to do otherwise. All violence IS caused by human emotion, usually caring, of something else or themselves(self-preservation), the only way it could be not, is if someone could possibly kill someone else, without feeling a single thing, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and no matter how hard one tries, it would be impossible, just because of the structure of the human psyche. obvious child Posted at 5:48 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 2:41 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Then I simply argue that you cannot prove my argument is false Actually upon reading your assertion again, you can't prove your assertion is correct. For you to do so would require proving that all acts of violence were caused by emotion. Good luck doing that, especially since many acts were done by dead people and by animals which many, we do not know if they have emotions. Furthermore, given our lack of knowledge about what else may exists out there, you can't prove your assertion in the form that it exists now. You COULD prove that most human violence is caused by emotions. But your assertion of all violence is rather sketchy. At best it is an opinion.   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. Just because someone went to war doesn't mean they did so because of emotions. The Last Magister Posted at 5:41 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 6:07 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 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. justin1990rm Posted at 4:29 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 wtfpwned. obvious child Posted at 4:07 pm on Oct. 26, 2008 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. The Last Magister Posted at 2:55 am on Oct. 26, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 4:39 am on Oct. 26, 2008 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. Then drop the whole programming subject, just don't mention it. Tell me, what is your argument then, having nothing to do with programming. obvious child Posted at 2:39 am on Oct. 26, 2008 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. The Last Magister Posted at 7:16 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 This is ridiculous. Let me give you an analogy to maybe help you understand, as you are still not getting it. What's the difference between a law and a theory? A law states, the theory supports. It's the same as statements and reasons. You have been giving statements(or laws) to defend a previous statement(or law) but you can provide no reason(or theory) to support them. Generally, that would mean the entire statement would be rejected. obvious child Posted at 6:59 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 3:49 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 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. The Last Magister Posted at 6:49 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 ObviousChild, I've come to the conclusion you must be senile. I did not change the subject, I accepted someone else changing the subject. 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? obvious child Posted at 6:30 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 12:49 pm on Oct. 25, 2008 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. Most recent 15 of 50 previous replies displayed.