Re-Open the "New Guild Leader Poll"

Because you closed it. The only "info that doesn't need to be discussed" or rather shouldn't have even been brought up in the first place was Tommy's sexism. Like someone else posted, this guild is like a headless horse right now or something to that effect. So unless we're awarding the guild leadership to Lana then we really ought to re-open the polls. Although, to be honest, I think the guild has already spoken what with the sweeping majority picking Lana...

Anyways, I had this typed up before peanut closed the thread but lucky i save my posts otherwise i would've lost it all. I'll delete thread and move my post once the original's re-opened.

Tommmmmmy wrote:
1. There was no persuasion trick. At least not an intended one.

1. Yeah man, telling a girl she can't be leader (even though she's been leading in polls by a majority for the last 2 weeks?) because she doesn't want to show her pic to you isn't at all trying to persuade her to do as you want.

Tommmmmmy wrote:
2. After spotting that "do against all" is actually a both edged sword I was hoping for some nice, high level philosophical discussion. I got so disappointed after the eristical ending of yours.

2. lol..? What "high level philosophical discussion" could you possibly incur with your hypocrisy? Simple, there was none. Show us your pic or you're too shy to be a leader or if you give into the demands then you're clearly not "do things EVEN if ALL the people are against" it. But then again, was anyone really going to take you seriously after your sexist remarks let alone to have a *cough* "high level philosophical discussion" with you? Seriously?

Tommmmmmy wrote:
No offense to anyone but we should use someone with born-in natural genetic predispositions. Which brings us to the final conclusion: a MAN.

Yes that's true. Girls have more empathy and stuff, but boys have more leading skills and enviromental orientation.

I don't mind any man but let it be a man. Preferably a grown up.
LecafOz as far as I remember is a man.
So is Itachi.
So is Tommmmmmy.

For the people who still think it sounds like a very bi prejudice of mine I assure you - if it was emotional `case` I would turn myself to girls, because they are good in emotional logic.

But a leader should be a leader.

Oh snap.. by the way, i wasn't going to bring this up but since i'm quoting this post what does "environmental orientation" have to do with leading a guild in lunia?

Tommmmmmy wrote:
3. An emo sees other emos. A happy person sees other happy people. A perv sees pers everywhere. Is that why you've been calling everyone and all the time a `perv` ?

3. That's actually really weird... because like i thought one of the rules of being an emo was to believe that no one understands you. As for happy people... i really don't know much about that. I'm more of a pessimistic type of guy (prepare for the worst, then hopefully nothing can upset you further) and i honestly don't see other people as being pessimistic at all. Personally, i think most people are stupid for being too optimistic if anything (ie Lana for instance).

But anyways, i don't want to set up a strawman argument (so correct me if i'm wrong) but it looks like in all that failed argument of yours what you're basically trying to say is, "It takes one to know one." Real mature by the way.. lol. So let me ask you this, does it take a rapist to see a rapist? Does it take a racist to see a racist? Does it take a murderer to see a murderer? Does it take a sexist to see a sexist? Oh.. my gawd! I guess IcyDevil, acapella, and me are all sexist now too! Dammmmmit!!!

But I guess what you're really really asking is if i'm a perv like you. And the answer is yes. I think hugsie said it best. I'm a terrible perv.. as filthy and as disgusting as they come. The Lord have marked me XY and damn-eth me to eternal pervation!

Tommmmmmy wrote:
4. '=' means assignment while '==' means implication in both ways. They teach that in school. Have you ever been in school ? oO

4. What is this "school" that you speak of? Here in England we believe there isn't a need for school since we invented English so most of us are just pushed to perform well in football. (<-- i realize that that is not a football but it was the closest thing i saw so shaddup >.>). But seriously, the "=" as far as i know means "equals". If "==" does mean something could you send me a link cause this old dog wouldn't mind learning something new. And the word "implication" as far as i know means "suggestion". Kind of like how in your 3rd point you implied i was a perv because i called you one.. perv.

Anyways, although i've seen others pestering lana for her pic (like icydevil.. >.>) you're the only one that's been a big enough dick to try and use the guild leadership as a bargaining chip. And at first I thought you were only joking about the sexist remarks but it seems like you genuinely believe them because you keep continuing it. That makes me sad.. for any girl stupid enough to end up with you.

@Acapella:
And I totally agree with you about how a stereotype or average shouldn't be used to define every individual. Like how most girls (i know) are shorter than most guys, however, it does not equate to all girls being shorter than all guys.

As for being active, I'm totally sorry for stealing lana away from you guys (not really). We've been busy trying to make babehs.

Honestly though, let the guild decide because right now the runner up to being the leader of the guild after Lana is the most afk of all (Hyun). You guys won't believe me but just before Hyun died (may he rest in peace) he told me that i should lead Audacity to a new age of glory and enlightenment. And then he started muttering some anti-semitic comments as the rock slowly but surely crushed him to death.. and it probably didn't help that i used a spoon and plucked out his good remaining eyeball.

lol @ what you did to andrew LMAO

"And I totally agree with you about how a stereotype or average shouldn't be used to define every individual."

totally agree =D, a male holds the world record of producing the highest pitch with his vocal core

and

"You guys won't believe me but just before Hyun died (may he rest in peace) he told me that i should lead Audacity to a new age of glory and enlightenment."

don't we already live in the enlightenment today?

HeliosSilver wrote:

"You guys won't believe me but just before Hyun died (may he rest in peace) he told me that i should lead Audacity to a new age of glory and enlightenment."

reminds me of death note, ANYWAY, i agree about how the poll should be opened again and opinions and thoughts could be shared

It doesn't matter who the guild leader is.
Or if the leader is a girl or guy.

Tooo much words. =___=
Especially for lazy people like me.
How about we do something rather than just talk about it 24/7.

1. Assuming something and then providing a logically based construct on that assumption isn't a good move. Implication isn't a suggestion. An old dog should know how to use Wikipedia, aren't I right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

Which means that "==" is a bit stronger than "equals".

2. About sexism - I think you need real life example - there is a reason why 50+ USA presidents were all male. Yes there are semi-contrarguments to it, but for our simple (it's not "high" right?) discussion it's enough. Women can be good leaders. But only male can be excellent.

3. And once more....
"It takes one to know one." doesn't exclude "Does it take a sexist to see a sexist? " being truthful. And the other way around too. Learn to think logically. Please.

4. About showing pic - another life example - do you imagine, a woman, that DOESN'T show face to win national elections? Or wait, let's not make it sexist. Do you imagine a MAN that doesn't show a face at all to win national elections?

5. Good habits of having a discussion, that you have failed:
a) Don't change the words of your opponent to suit your path of logical implications.
b) Reply to the arguments, not BESIDE them.
c) No eristics.
d) Learn how to reason.
Unless you learn above I decided not to reply anymore to you. Such actions are considered by me to be pointless.

There are 3 types of people:
A) smart people - they are fascinated not only by proving their right but also by proving their wrong.
B) normal people - they are continously trying to win an argument even if they are loosing.
C) stupid people - they even don't know they are loosing.

Which category are you in?? Oh I am so sorry that I asked. How stupid I am. I should have actually read your posts. If I had done it I would have known that you "always pick C".

(the last sentence was me abusing point 5c)

so... the point of the thread is to prove tommy's sexism?

Well in my opinion, stereotypically I think men have NATURAL leading abilities than women, but its not ALWAYS true. Alanna is not bad, and even if she has inadequate(forgot how to spell this) leading capabilities than majority of the male members of the guild, she has been in the guild much longer than probably 90% of the whole guild. So, she would have a little upper hand than a few candidates. However, I have a feeling Alanna is going to migrate to another game and play with Star, so most likely I would have to pick someone else, but I have yet to hear from Alanna.

Maplestory ftw? 0Mgz I n33d a 15att SCG!! M3s0s PleasE?

Andrew wrote:Well in my opinion, stereotypically I think men have NATURAL leading abilities than women, but its not ALWAYS true. Alanna is not bad, and even if she has inadequate(forgot how to spell this) leading capabilities than majority of the male members of the guild, she has been in the guild much longer than probably 90% of the whole guild. So, she would have a little upper hand than a few candidates.

Maplestory ftw? 0Mgz I n33d a 15att SCG!! M3s0s PleasE?

._. -cries- andrew won't come back to lunia anymore

Tommmmmmy wrote:1. Assuming something and then providing a logically based construct on that assumption isn't a good move. Implication isn't a suggestion. An old dog should know how to use Wikipedia, aren't I right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

Which means that "==" is a bit stronger than "equals".

wait what please explain to the more slow of minds and....the one == i kno of exists in java @@....

yukinoran wrote:

Tommmmmmy wrote:1. Assuming something and then providing a logically based construct on that assumption isn't a good move. Implication isn't a suggestion. An old dog should know how to use Wikipedia, aren't I right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

Which means that "==" is a bit stronger than "equals".

wait what please explain to the more slow of minds and....the one == i kno of exists in java @@....

We're not talking about java. o___o

thats y i need an explanation :O

yukinoran wrote:thats y i need an explanation :O

Sometimes its better to not know.

@Peanut:

xPeanut wrote:
It doesn't matter who the guild leader is.
Or if the leader is a girl or guy.

I agree with you on the last point but not with the first.

===================================================================

@Tommmmmmmmmy:

I just want to throw in a little forward here for anyone who'll even bother reading this far. Yes, this is going to be a long post because for every piece of crap he spits out it takes more effort to clean it up. And yes, most people probably don't care. But who knows, maybe one day you'll run into someone like this on the internet who's a complete dick and you'll understand my sentiments. Someone should stand up to evil or in this case idiocy.

Tommmmmmy wrote:
1. Assuming something and then providing a logically based construct on that assumption isn't a good move. Implication isn't a suggestion. An old dog should know how to use Wikipedia, aren't I right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

Which means that "==" is a bit stronger than "equals".

I never made any "assumptions" as you put it. Well if you really must, the only assumption I've made was that you were a sexist dick. The rest was just a regurge of your post. You know the one where IceDevil said that Lana is capable of being leader and that she just didn't show her pic is all. Then you responded (using those dreaded "==" signs that you've yet to cite a reputable source for so i'm assuming it was out of your ass until otherwise) saying that Lana is not a leader if she doesn't show you her pic and she is not a leader if she's influenced by everyone else's demands. To which I responded it was a catch 22 because if she didn't show you her pic then she's too shy according to you but if she did then she's clearly giving into your demands again according to you. But I think anyone reading your post can agree that you basically wanted her pic.

Of course you're not going to address any of that when it's much easier to commit right away that my entire response is beneath you. I.e. "You are making an assumption/being eristical (which I wasn't), therefore I can't possibly read the rest of your argument." So you cut and run. You've made two replies to me and this is the 2nd time you've cut and run.

And although I don't address "implication" until point 4 of my post that you responded to.. you brought it up here. Kind of takes away from the whole point of using numbers to list our points, dawg. >.>

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implication

Dictionary.com wrote:
im-pli-ca-tion
-noun
something implied or suggested as naturally to be inferred or understood

Wikipedia wrote:
Implicature is a technical term in the linguistic branch of pragmatics coined by Paul Grice. It refers to what is suggested in an utterance, even though not expressed nor strictly implied (that is, entailed) by the utterance.

Tommmmmmy wrote:
2. About sexism - I think you need real life example - there is a reason why 50+ USA presidents were all male. Yes there are semi-contrarguments to it, but for our simple (it's not "high" right?) discussion it's enough. Women can be good leaders. But only male can be excellent.

Wikipedia, man.. wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Barack's #44. So the 43 presidents before him were all white therefore by your logic only whites can be president/excellent.

Tommmmmmy wrote:
3. And once more....
"It takes one to know one." doesn't exclude "Does it take a sexist to see a sexist? " being truthful. And the other way around too. Learn to think logically. Please.

So your argument reeeeally was as immature as "it takes one to know one"? Really??? Oh god. -.-

You're saying it's logical for a sexist to see a sexist thereby anyone pointing you out to be a sexist (myself included obviously) are sexists like you.. okay, then what about my other examples? I think O.J. Simpson killed Nicole.. does that make me a murderer?

Learn to think logically. Please.

Tommmmmmy wrote:
4. About showing pic - another life example - do you imagine, a woman, that DOESN'T show face to win national elections? Or wait, let's not make it sexist. Do you imagine a MAN that doesn't show a face at all to win national elections?

Since when was this a national election? Logically speaking, I think it was probably impossible for Obama and McCain to avoid the cameras. But I do hope you realize the innate tiny tinyyy differences between a national election and lunia's guild leadership election. And as a side note, I think it's low to use one's looks to win an election.

Tommmmmmy wrote:
5. Good habits of having a discussion, that you have failed.
a) Don't change the words of your opponent to suit your path of logical implications.
b) Reply to the arguments, not BESIDE them.
c) No eristics.
d) Learn how to reason.
Unless you learn above I decided not to reply anymore to you. Such actions are considered by me to be pointless.

5.
a) When did I change your words? I literally quote your posts and break them down point by point which makes for these extremely long posts. And btw, I'm sorry to anyone who's got the stamina to read these posts. But it really does take this much to address all the arrogant idiocy found in these posts. Put yourself in my shoes.

b) I'm not even sure what you mean by replying beside an argument. Afaik, I've been replying to all your "arguments" (if you can even call them that) whereas you've yet to address any of mine.

c) I let it slide the first time you used this word because I thought you might not realize the meaning of "eristics". But this is the second or third time you're tossing this out so I'm done letting you get away with it. To anyone who doesn't know, what tommy is basically doing is trying to avoid having to defend his weak argument by saying that all the contents in my posts are just to start an argument with no real purpose or goal. Um, yes.. actually there is a point.. you said sex was an issue for choosing the guild leader. Erstics is just a big word for flamebait essentially.

d) Learn to reason? This coming from someone who in the same post said the last 50+ presidents were men therefore "only men are excellent leaders"? ..lol?

On a side note, if you don't want to debate me or defend your (very sexist) points then fine. But don't cut and run by spewing your "arguments" and then trying to de-value mine by putting false names on them like "assumptions" and "eristics".

Tommmmmmy wrote:
There are 3 types of people:
A) smart people - they are fascinated not only by proving their right but also by proving their wrong.
B) normal people - they are continously trying to win an argument even if they are loosing.
C) stupid people - they even don't know they are loosing.

Which category are you in?? Oh I am so sorry that I asked. How stupid I am. I should have actually read your posts. If I had done it I would have known that you "always pick C".

(the last sentence was me abusing point 5c)

Edit:
You added this extra little bit after I finished my original reply so here's my extra little reply.

What you've done is setup a false trichotomy. By forcing anyone here to choose between the 3 is lose/lose/lose.

- If they choose smart then they're an arrogant fool.
- If they say they're normal or stupid then they're admitting that they are wrong and are "loosing" the argument according to you.

Question: What one would you choose for yourself?

===================================================================

@AppleProduct:

AppleProduct wrote:
so... the point of the thread is to prove tommy's sexism?

Originally, no. It was just an appeal to get the old thread re-opened and now that it is I'll lock this one and move it back. Any further posts can be continued in the original one.

Tommy's sexism was brought up on-topic because he thought only a man could lead the guild (to which he even nominated himself). I honestly don't know what he's doing anymore. He's just resorting to ad hominem attacks trying to suggest that I'm "loosing" the argument in some way...