[quote=So Boerd]
When an argument is based on immaterial and unfalsifiable premises, I can happily call it settled when all parties are free of contradiction and have thoroughly made their case, however Jorick and Turt, while my mother chose to have me, I did not choose to have the most potent emotional bond with her. The boyfriend entered knowing the risks, I was given no choice. Now if we ever say, debate minimum wage, I have ample quotes from many prominent liberals on the guild making a strenuous case for its repeal.

FYI, "You appear to be saying X" is Turt speech for "You are not saying X, but I want you to so I can argue against a strawman"
[/quote]

Oh hey Aussie, you know everyone was allowed back right? You don't need an alt, nuguild means 2nd chances for everyone!

(or third in your case) lmao.

E:

[quote=Gwazi]
I'd like to highlight that stuff like that do not have a 0% probability. 
Very little? Yes, low enough I would not take Act's story here and go around referencing it as if it's fact. I'd need hard proof before I do that.
But when simply for the sake of a a discussion, one which will not have any impact outside of the mindsets of those taking part I'm willing to act Act's word for it.
Plus regardless of if the stories were true or not I was willing to address Act's argument and treat it on it's merits, not the history/emotional responses that would accompany it.
As long as the participants are able to keep such emotional bias outside of the arguments and reasoning the harm should be minimal.

Additionally, I'd like to highlight this is the Internet. A community full of people who stay anonymous. and especially on forums are looking for community's to accept them and have a new identity in cause their real life is either hard or won't accept them and on top of that people tend to be more open about bad experiences online than in person. So please note that when online you are both more likely to run into people who have bad experiences than you are in real life and they are also more likely to talk about them.

Now, listening to my own words about separating bias/emotion. I would personally rate the story was rather unbelievable/unlikely. On top of that I would not defend it with an argument such as "You can't disprove it!", that is a huge logical fallacy. But there's nothing gained in trying to tear the claim apart/disprove it assuming it is fake, if anything Act risks having the arguments made have less weight if Act chooses to hide behind them too often for the argument being made. Though I've already said that assuming it is true I hold a strong respect for Act, and I assume it goes without saying that if said story is false my view/opinion of Act would drop drastically. But like said, there's nothing to be gained to trying to tear it apart without knowing 100% for sure that's the case.[/quote]

Ugh, I barely skimmed what you wrote, because again you're doing that thing where you use way more words then necessary.

I was just laughing at him for the absolute ridiculous story. I am allowed to find things humurous and state my opinions am I not? Or are you going to try and rile the troops to get me banned again. You know for a group of people who talk about how much they want intelligent discussion, you guys seem to do a [i]lot[/i] to discourage it.