222288 Bullies, 4277 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

View Poll Results: After some minor talk with the owner, Reality Defense is:

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Not a bullshit school

    2 2.78%
  • Kind of a bullshit school

    16 22.22%
  • Bullshit school-not recommended by bullshido

    54 75.00%
Results 191 to 200 of 206
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 101617181920 21 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,762

    Posted On:
    3/24/2014 11:09pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    Interesting. Typically the one who can't find fault with another's arguments and must resort to ad hominem (that's “to the man” in Latin, or a personal attack, against the other debater, to you) is the one who has lost the debate. Case in point:
    More irony.

    All I saw were silly accusations about "attacks,"
    Yep, ad hom.


    If he has no premise, why are his generalizations "not fair." LOL.

    You have YET to be rational. I do like that your excuse is "the definitions don't fit how I feel," when they describe exactly what you did and are still doing in this thread..

    Duly noted you PURPOSELY ignored this definition:
    : to set to work on <attack a problem>
    Hahahahaha...but...but.. my art LOL.
  2. cualltaigh is online now
    cualltaigh's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cooltown, SEQ
    Posts
    1,351

    Posted On:
    3/24/2014 11:20pm


     Style: BJJ, MMA, JJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    First of all, a tip for young players. There's a button below each post called "Reply with Quote". If you hit that it will do the quote for you so you don't have to type it out each time. You're welcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    Cualltaigh,

    You wrote, �You haven't provided any proof of your claims.�

    I provided the name of the school. The people who were there were Dusty and Michelle, but since this was so long ago it's highly doubtful they're even still there. Other than that, I don't have a sworn testimony, nor a video tape, nor a sperm sample, nor a DNA sample of the person I sparred. As I said, it's absurd to ask for proof for such a mundane claim. I sparred a guy... Wow! Bring in the detectives!
    So, you are the one who used an unverifiable anecdote to bolster your argument/critique. Doing so, even in the looser areas of the site, will never help your argument. However, you are posting in the Investigative forum where the burden of proof is highest and rests with the person making the claim. Want to be taken seriously? Only post what you can backup with verifiable facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    Your wrote, �Right. Your equivocation of sparring and fighting is also hilarious.�

    This is very odd. There are large differences between a real fight and a cage match. Please enlighten me on the differences or similarities. As for knowing he was in some cage matches, I think the large picture I saw of him on the wall punching a guy in a cage was a pretty good indicator. Lol
    There is an even larger one between a "cage match" and a sparring session.

    Curious, if I post a pic up of me punching someone in a cage, does that make me a cage fighter?

    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    You said, �Given that we only have your word to go by, you are unable/unwilling to back up simple checkable facts to corroborate your story and you have a tendency to (try to) change your story/facts to suit your needs there is every reason to disbelieve you and no logical reason to believe you.�

    I have provided the name of the school and in this post I added a few details about who was there. Like I said, what more can I possibly provide? Your standards of proof are unreasonable and impossible, therefore they are illogical and it is pointless for you to continue to beat a dead horse.
    And in a perfect world we could totally believe that your appeal to authority validates anything that you've said.

    The standards are not unreasonable and far from impossible, they just require a little more effort on your part. They are essential to ensure the veracity of commentary in a serious forum.

    If you can't make the burden of proof, don't post it. Or at least, don't get all butt hurt when your claims are subjected to reasonable questions, and rejected for lack of substance.

    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    You say, "Given that we only have your word to go by, you are unable/unwilling to back up simple checkable facts to corroborate your story and you have a tendency to (try to) change your story/facts to suit your needs there is every reason to disbelieve you and no logical reason to believe you."

    Huh? Change my story? Wow... First a very polite review I have written is called an "attack" and now I've somehow managed to "change my story." Here is the paragraph verbatim from my comments on Goldust's review:

    �Once again, I don't see how making generalizations such as this is anywhere close to fair. To give a personal example, several years ago I went to visit my old judo school (which also taught kickboxing) after I'd been training in this reality-based art for a number of years. I sparred one of the students who had been in several cage matches and he wasn't able to hit me, or take me to the ground. When he tried to shoot in, I stuffed his takedowns with the techniques I learned in this reality-based art and punched him in the face several times.�

    Please show me where I changed my story. As I've said over and over, it's kind of hard to provide you with the information since I don't remember and I didn't ask.
    I already did. "I sparred a cage fighter who had been in several matches" =/= "I sparred some guy whose training and record i didn't check but assumed was a cage fighter".
    Dum spiro, spero.
    Tada gan iarracht.
  3. DCM079 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    41

    Posted On:
    3/24/2014 11:34pm


     Style: Reality Based Martial Art

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Yep, ad hom.
    Sorry, ad homs are against the PERSON. I was referring to your arguments being silly, therefore it's not a fallacy. Where exactly did you study philosophy again? lol

    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    You have YET to be rational. I do like that your excuse is "the definitions don't fit how I feel," when they describe exactly what you did and are still doing in this thread..
    We have yet to discuss any of the comments I made that were addressed directly to Goldust's comments. All you guys have been complaining about is a statement I made about sparring a cage fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Duly noted you PURPOSELY ignored this definition: to set to work on <attack a problem>
    Not only are you guys resorting to ad homs but you're also misquoting your own sources! The FULL DEFENITION is: " to begin to work on or deal with (something, such as a problem) in a determined and eager way."

    You're forgetting a key part of your own definition. Maybe I should be the one laughing since you had to take your own definition out of context... You're forgetting the adverb. It's not just working on a problem, but working on a problem "in a determined and eager way." Otherwise it would just be called plain old work!
  4. DCM079 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    41

    Posted On:
    3/24/2014 11:55pm


     Style: Reality Based Martial Art

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    So, you are the one who used an unverifiable anecdote to bolster your argument/critique. Doing so, even in the looser areas of the site, will never help your argument. However, you are posting in the Investigative forum where the burden of proof is highest and rests with the person making the claim. Want to be taken seriously? Only post what you can backup with verifiable facts.
    That's kind of hard on the internet and is once again an illogical demand since so many claims are impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    There is an even larger one between a "cage match" and a sparring session .

    Curious, if I post a pic up of me punching someone in a cage, does that make me a cage fighter?
    Well, the pic I believe was from Rage in the Cage, so... yeah. What else do you call people who do that? Mixed Martial Artists? Ok... but then you'd have to explain why cage fighter isn't just as good of a defeinition, since they're describin the same thing, only using different terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    Since when have I made any appeals to any authority?! Wow, do you guys even have any clue what logical fallacies are and how to point them out, or are you just looking some up on the internet?
    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    The standards are not unreasonable and far from impossible, they just require a little more effort on your part. They are essential to ensure the veracity of commentary in a serious forum.
    lol I've provided all of the info I can... sorry. A serious forum...riiiight.


    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    If you can't make the burden of proof, don't post it. Or at least, don't get all butt hurt when your claims are subjected to reasonable questions, and rejected for lack of substance.
    LOL! You guys are turning a mole hill into a mountain. Out of every single thing I said, you continue to harp on about something so insignificant compared with the entire substance of my comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by cualltaigh View Post
    I already did. "I sparred a cage fighter who had been in several matches" "I sparred some guy whose training and record i didn't check but assumed was a cage fighter".
    LOL Oh wow. I made one tiny assumption (By the way, that's called making an assumption, not changing my story. Big difference.) that he had several matches. Many people who do this kind of thing fight more than one match, so sue me. If that's all ya got, you got nothing.

    Now after writing this... I'm asking myself why in the hell did I even bother? It's been done to death already. Oh well, must be low blood sugar. Dinner time. I will only respond from now on when and if someone actually comes up with something new.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by DCM079; 3/25/2014 12:04am at .
  5. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,762

    Posted On:
    3/25/2014 12:01am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    your l
    Yep, that confirms it is an ad hom. Sorry, my schooling is fine. As we will see below, yours is now in question.


    You're forgetting a key part of your own definition.
    Nope, you have made a reading mistake of my link. I highlighted four definitions and then gave you the one I used.

    Maybe I should be the one laughing since you had to take your own definition out of context...
    I took nothing out of context.

    You're forgetting the adverb.
    You forgot it is also used as a transitive verb. Go read that source again c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y. Please note, there are TWO sets of definitions. I actually provided both in my sourced quotes.
  6. DCM079 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    41

    Posted On:
    3/25/2014 12:09am


     Style: Reality Based Martial Art

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Sorry, the word in that context would be for example, "I'm going to attack this problem tomorrow,” which commonly means to begin a project vigorously. This I did not do. Sorry, wrong again.
  7. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,762

    Posted On:
    3/25/2014 12:14am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    Sorry, the word in that context would be for example, "I'm going to attack this problem tomorrow,” which commonly means to begin a project vigorously. This I did not do. Sorry, wrong again.
    Better example, " I'd like to address/ATTACK Goldust's review of the school."

    Backtrack denial begin now.........
  8. DCM079 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    41

    Posted On:
    3/25/2014 12:20am


     Style: Reality Based Martial Art

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You accused me of “attacking” the review, which in that context implies malicious intent. Since you cannot point to a single thing in my comments about the review that would signal that, you're trying desperately to twist the definition of attack in order to cover up and deny your mistake. You're trying to have it both ways. Now, that you've been proven wrong on your definitions, you want to pretend that the word attack simply means "address," but it does not, since it also includes the components of "determined" and "eager." I've pointed out this mistake already and you cannot point to any malicious intent in my comments.

    I did not “attack” anything. I simply wrote a calm and reasoned reply. Get it? Got it? Good. If you want to refer to my comments use the correct terms: reply, response, comments, etc.
    Last edited by DCM079; 3/25/2014 12:27am at .
  9. lionknight is online now
    lionknight's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    1,177

    Posted On:
    3/25/2014 12:28am


     Style: Much striking, SAMBO, BJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    Interesting. Typically the one who can't find fault with another's arguments and must resort to ad hominem (that's to the man in Latin, or a personal attack, against the other debater, to you) is the one who has lost the debate. Case in point:
    HAHAHA - Just to clarify I was stateing a fact not engaging in a personal attack.

    When someone such as yourself begins to loose an argument they often attack the logic of others instead of just proving their claims.

    IIF is already schooling you so it's all good.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Bullshido - No BS MMA mobile app
  10. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,762

    Posted On:
    3/25/2014 12:32am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by DCM079 View Post
    You accused me of “attacking” the review, which in that context implies malicious intent.
    This is how you wanted to take it because I dared to question what you wrote. Instead of asking or having a reasonable discussion, you wanted to argue. That's cool, I love arguing.

    Since you cannot point to a single thing in my comments about the review that would signal that,
    Why would I point out malicious intent? You attacked the conclusions he drew and called them basically unfair generalizations. I can't help it if you feel attack is a "bad word." Unlike you, I provided SUPPORT and citations of the definition I used.

    you're trying desperately to twist the definition of attack in order to cover up and deny your mistake. You're trying to have it both ways.
    Nope, I used it in a transitive verb fashion. I supported it with proof and NOW you backtrack.

    Now, that you've been proven wrong on your definitions, you want to pretend that the word attack carries both meanings at the very same time! But this is illogical, since you cannot point to any malicious intent in my comments.
    Illogical is DCM079 being angry at a word, building a straw man to make it mean what he wants and then accusing someone else of his act.

    I did not “attack” anything. I simply wrote a calm and reasoned reply. Get it? Got it? Good.
    You attacked his reply, got angry, didn't like when I cited sources with my proper use and then resorted to ad homs.


    Oh you edited your post:
    If you want to refer to my comments use the correct terms: reply, response, comments, etc.
    LOL. You say this, after you told me I truncated a definition and you were wrong? Your irony and hypocrisy are hilarious.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 3/25/2014 12:37am at .
Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 101617181920 21 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.