Sorry, that's incorrect. You've added in a conditional.

You never said "Only a crazy person would do X", you said "No-one would do X".

They are very different statements.

Would you like to try again?

Explain how A remains correct at the end of this without changing it.

A: No-one would do X.
B: I would do X.
A: No-one would do X.

Obviously there is always someone crazy to do anything in this world. Thats not a good proof for your theory, dude.

Mentally Deficient? How so?
OCD and OCPD are disorders, but it doesn't necessarily make one mental deficient. OCPD people do have rational and desirable (to them) behaviour, be it creating the perfect collection, making a perfect reproduction of the S.S. Enterprise from matches, or making any number of accounts to prove a point.

Not to mention the fact that "Only a madman would use a nuclear weapon" doesn't mean a nuclear weapon will not be used. So again, person A is not correct.


Xyem is not trying to prove his theory. He has already given an example of a person (and I'll add a second, me) that would be willing to make any number of accounts (and I do mean any number) to mess with the reputation system. But no number of experiments can prove a theory, but it takes only one to disprove a theory. So your theory (noone would make 100 accounts to mess with the reputation system) already has 2 examples of people who would do so. Your theory is proved false. You can change your theory (no sane person would make 100 accounts to mess with the reputation system), which would leave us to try and prove our sanity. Seeing how Obsessive Compulsives are recognized as sane people, your theory will have to be modified again.

Ok so what do you call people with this mental disorder then,mentally disordered?

oh and there are still nuclear weapons around,btw,so obviously no one cares about madmen

You've decided that it is a crazy theory.

You've decided that anyone that does it is crazy.

You've decided anyone who is crazy doesn't count.

-----

So, basically, your argument boiled down to "You're wrong, because I say you are".

You "win" the argument by setting the standard for evidence literally into the realm of impossibility.

Well done.. I guess?

Yes. We have a personality disorder. That does not make us mentally deficient, nor necessarily mentally ill. OCD and OCPD people do have higher functions intact, and can work in any (and I do mean any) field succesfully.

Noone cares about madmen is not the same as no precautions are taken against madmen, nor is it the same as madmen wouldn't use them.

So, let me rephrase Xyem's example, and ask you (again) to answer with a Yes or No.

"If only a madman would use nuclear weapons, and madmen exist, is the usage of nuclear weapons possible?"

I am not asking if it's probable, I'm asking if it's possible.

Bonus question.

If someone says: "The usage of nuclear weapons isn't possible", is that statement compatible with the above answer or not? Again, yes or no answer.

Feel free to elaborate on your yes/no answer once you've answered with a yes/no.

I just agreed with the other guy that someone wasting hours to make 100 accounts is a conspiracy theory. Didn't decide anything.

And after you found out that it only takes 5-10 accounts we know its even literally true that no one would make 100 accounts, because 10 are enough! Not sure how mental disorders would affect this,though.

Remind me, if someone is actually willing to go through with it, is it still a conspiracy theory or does it get upgraded to a theory?

Not to mention the fact that if the process is automated (quite simple to do actually), the number of accounts no longer becomes relevant. Instead of saying "5 accounts" or "100 accounts" I can say "30 minutes running the script" or "24 hours running the script".

You've decided that it is a crazy theory.
You've decided that anyone that does it is crazy.
You've decided anyone who is crazy doesn't count.

Actually it is. It is simple logic statements. The assumtion that something never happens (no one would do...) is disproven the moment it happens. Even if it is just once. It doesn't matter who made it happen, mental health doesn't enter at all. If you claim an absolute truth, you are wrong as soon as that absolute is disproven.

"No completely sane person would make lots of accounts to derep someone" is a true sentence.
"No one ever would make 100 accounts to derep someone." is wrong as soon as there is one, just one person in the entire world crazy enough to make 100 accounts to derep someone. Simple logic.

So your admission that a crazy person would do something like this is at the same time an admission that your statement "No one would do that" was wrong.

Guys,

At some point you have to realise that you're not going to agree on something. This is just getting silly now, you're descending into semi-personal attacks and just a straight forward "you're wrong", "Oh no I'm not", "Oh yes you are"... etc.

Obviously it's nothing to do with me, you're free to continue of course (I couldn't stop you if I wanted to). I'm just suggesting maybe this argument has run its course.

.
Could you provide the link? Perhaps we can offset the damage done. :-)

Oh yeah, sure.

Here's it is.

What we need is Vince McMahon. Settle this like men, in a steel cage!

There's a simpler solution, provided by one of America's great problem solvers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4woUsr7093o