Again, not grasping the main point of that sentence, I didn’t mean it literally. I meant it in a way that you make something out of something you just read that is so out of context that it cannot get more messed up. You did it again by reading what I wrote literally.
Also, some people do what they don’t want to do to get to the position in life where they wanna be, so thats another fallacy.
You have proof, you can check framerate of the video, also Jdog posted another clip with the timer on top so you are liar in the end once again, as always.
The proof of it being 2,4 sec is also in the video. Video is the evidence.
That’s you assuming I am a delusional clown, according to you. You clearly dont realize how delusional you sometimes look on these forums, while all others with counterarguments to your arguments are wrong, according to you.
That’s like saying you feeling bad is your own choice, which isn’t true. It’s an emotional reaction out of your control. You can influence it with your conscious mind, but you can’t control it. People don’t always do things they want to do.
But that jdog did a recording while showing the time coil was up, up above.
They do. If they wanted to not do it more, they’d not do it. But they instead do it, therefore they wanted it. It’s quite simple logic, really. Yes, they may be reasons why they wanted to do it and they might not like it, but they want to do it anyway, for its benefits (or whatever reason they have).
Oh, I didn’t know that you wouldn’t understand that, its a common phrase used in many conversations, I thought you would be a little bit more aware of that since you run around using phrases expecting people to understand what the hell u are on about.
I did not deny your opinion, I denied your blatant lies, since there was enough proof to prove that you are lying and ignoring facts calling them ‘opinions’.
Oh btw, you ignored the fact that he recorded it with a stopwatch on screen, literally ignored it so you wouldnt have to think of an excuse and so you try and change the subject completly, once again. So pathetic.
You seem to be equating the act of doing it to wanting to do it. They’re two separate things. You can actually do things you don’t want to do. You can not want to do something but want what comes after and still do it, but that doesn’t mean you want to do it. It only means you want what comes after.
But of course, if you keep equating it like you do, then you’ll never understand the reasoning behind this argument.
Which yet again brings me back to concrete thinking.
In your example you want to do it, because of what comes after. Yes, if the “what comes after” wouldn’t exist, you might not want to do it then, but that’d be different example. You literally gave me example in which you do want to do it.
disagreeing isn’t not understanding
you failed to provide counterexample
but you tried, I admire that, but I explained now why it doesn’t work (actually even before, but what can you do) therefore come up with another
Also you compare two different things that’s why your example is wrong and why you don’t see it. When you say “you don’t want it” then you refer to not wanting to do something, but when you say “you do it because of what comes after” that’s actually different example. In the first example you didn’t mention what comes after at all, therefore as such is diffferent example to which you compare it to.
If you said “you don’t want to do it despite what comes after” then that’d be same example, yes, (“you don’t want to do it” is not). But then again, if you don’t want to do it despite what comes after, then you won’t do it.
Simply put you’re saying you’d not want to do it in situation X, but you do it in situation Y. Therefore you don’t want to do it in situation Y. Which isn’t correct logical conclusion.
In your situation X you don’t want to do it, and you don’t do it. In different circumstances (situation Y) you do want to do it (because what comes after) and then you do it.
You accused me of lying and when I provided another proof you totally ignored me and changed topic. Pathetic.
Also i agree with boys. You can actually do some stuff you didnt want to. Such as hurting someone accidentaly. Like imagine you hurt some animal crossing the road while driving a car. You hurt it (that means you did something) even tho you didnt want cos it was accident.
Your thinking is so straightforward. It almost looks like you believe there is always 1 truth.
Why even wasting time with this kid who is clearly mentally ill? You have proven you are 100 procent right, People who talk against this facts are just lying.
Mostly cos I’m chilling at school and theres nothing to do. + improving in argumentation since thats something I’ll hopefully do a lot in future. Even tho his arguments are kinda weak.
He is similar like Türiel the paladin forum’s troll. Every time he is countered he just swap topic or call everyone childis and idiots cause he is the only rigth man here.
Fanatic little boy who only read what he want to read and grab things out from the context and ofc its will mean absolutly else…
There’s no “in”. It’s the act of doing it or not doing it, and wanting to do it or not wanting to do it. The other circumstances are kind of irrelevant.
Kind like talking about how 1+1=2 but then how you can keep that going to make it lead to 3, 4, 5, 6 and so on. The cause of doing it is that you want what comes after, yes. But the act of doing it is an isolated matter, which you can still not want to do yet do it.
You remind me of the horseshoe report I linked to over a month ago.
This might work if humans were hyper-rational, profit-maximizing automatons, but they are not.
While it’s taken out of context, it strangely describes how you’re trying to spin it. This is why I said you can’t understand this argumentation as long as you seem to equal one to the other.
It’s not that your argument can’t be understood. It’s just that your argumentation doesn’t include all relevant factors, such as human psychology. You’re still stuck with that concrete thinking, and fail to grasp the abstract.
I used this sentence to tell him the exactly same thing as you did, he somehow managed to twist it to: “As does literally everybody. Noone does what they don’t want to do. Otherwise they’d not do it.”
This guy wants to argument with us, but ignores evidence that he’s wrong and then proceeds to change topic and keeps quoting people out of context to then just later, if there is nothing to respond to someone say one simple word: “No.” Thinking how good he is at arguing with people, yet he fails to grasp most basic concepts of argumentation practically. Don’t get me wrong, if he doesn’t use google to identify what argument fallacies are or what other concepts of argumentation are, he knows his stuff on theoretical plane, but it still does not mean he knows how to use it practically. I wouldn’t call myself or any other guy on these forums to be really good at arguing, but some people here definitely have better understanding of practical argumentation than Whisperer thinks he does just because he knows his stuff theoretically.
Also, just keep spamming most of his forum posts with this post here and the video that proves that he was wrong and he might stop ignoring you or just stop posting because even the last 2 people on these forums that take him serious will start thinking that he’s a clown.
This boy is totalled busted in his mind, you even proved everything and hes still claiming. He didnt understand anything yet.
Leave this lonely and sad person alone, you wont be able to discuss with him.
But we’re not talking in isolated matter. You don’t do it in isolated matter. You do it in the exact opposite. Taking into account isolated matter (aka situation you’re not in) is exactly why you’re wrong.
Because if you look at situation X, then you say well you don’t want to do it in situation Y therefore you don’t want to do it in situation X, is just simply illogical concluding.
It does exactly that. You can not-do stuff.
? Causation is literally the cause. It tells use quite a lot. Maybe you mistake it for correlation?
I don’t remember that.
Actually technically no. You may want to do something which unknowingly to you results in somebody getting hurt and you regretting it. But at the moment in which you didn’t know, you wanted to do that. Obviously, later you might be happier if you didn’t do it.
This would be similar argument as if girl regrets having sex with you, it’s a rape. It’s not. It doesn’t matter that she doesn’t want it now, if she did want it at the moment. Similar with doing stuff. At the moment you did something you wanted to do it. Otherwise you’d not do it.
Obviously you can find some absurd examples and you’d be right (none of you found any). But that might be stretching the meaning of the word “do”. In general sense you can’t do what you don’t want to do, because if you wanted to do otherwise, then you’d not be doing anything you didn’t want to do.
You thinking otherwise can be explained by you taking the “to do” and applying it to more abstract levels. E.G. Saying you don’t want to have car accident. Yes you don’t want to do car accident. But you don’t do car accident, you do things that lead to it (unknowingly to you perhaps) but you did want to do that things (even though you might not have known consequences).
+ improving in argumentation since thats something I’ll hopefully do a lot in future. Even tho his arguments are kinda weak.