"Insulting the dead is in extremely poor taste."

[BK-201]

Huh? I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.

Anyway, saying "murder is wrong" means the same thing as "murder is always wrong" and therefore, there are no exceptions. Eclipse's claim is actually quite offensive and commits multiple logical fallacies.

Esau is only defending his viewpoint which came with the explicit statement that general statements can have exceptions. There's no point in discussing this stuff if one person views the argument is 100% true at all times and the other views it as a guideline.

[Makaze]

I didn't defend any generalization. I pointed out that generalizations can be used while also understanding there are underlying exceptions to them. The entirety of this debacle of a debate about the validity of underlying motive is less than relevant to any post I made. It was literally barely even a real talking point in the original area I mentioned it. My original rebuttal was actually counter to an entirely separate claim Olwen made, in which he stated he'd proven the concept of hate against the dead isn't wrong because most people publicly hate Hitler.

That's a laugh coming from the guy that cries ad hominem every time he sees his own shadow.

You said that you pointed out that a generalization can be used while it has exceptions. That is actually incorrect since you did not explain why this should be accepted. You asserted that it is the case, but there is no precedent for it. A statement is considered false when so much as one counter example is presented. When this happens, the one who stated it is forced to change the original statement to allow for the exception. There is no reason to stick to a premise that has been proven false.

Your rebuttal did not address that point at all. The arguments that Olwen and dondon presented attempted to prove the statement "Insulting anyone, dead or alive, is in poor taste." false. Proving that statement false is not the same proving the opposite true. At worst it represents the fact that there are exceptions. Universal statements can be proven false without hurting statements like "Insulting anyone, dead or alive, is usually in extremely poor taste".

In other words, he proved that it was not inherently wrong. If it is wrong, it is wrong from case to case and therefore must be wrong compared to a more complex standard than a simple assertion of absolute morality.

The way you argued against Olwen showed either that you did not understand what he was proving or that you did not care.

Coincidentally, both of you resorted to ad hominem. Even you, Olwen. Your comment was unnecessary meta and passive aggressive to boot.

What? As far as I'm aware, Serious Discussion isn't bound by the logic rules outlined by various philosophers and other experts on the matter. Generalizations aren't strictly defined as statements that are always true and while they may be fallacious in certain cases, that doesn't negate the fact that the generalizations are still worth considering. Analogously we can look to Newtonian laws that fail under relativistic conditions but are still worth considering in our daily lives without having to adjust the equations using a correction factor or whatever. Just because a generalization fails when taken to the extreme doesn't mean we can't still use the generalization... generally. I think Esau conceded that Hitler may be worthy of insults but just because Hitler doesn't get empathy doesn't mean we should ignore the generalization completely. I think your arguments only hold provided that Esau believes in the absolute power of generalizations which is a position you are trying to force him into with definitions rather than proving he actually holds such beliefs.

He mocked the idea that Hitler disproved the generalizations it runs like this:

Even if Hitler is deserving of mockery, because it is a generalization and is likely to have exceptions, Hitler is an irrelevant example that fails to disprove the generalization.

Esau has always operated under the assumption generalizations have exceptions but exceptions don't necessarily disprove the generalization.

I'm not speaking of this section in particular, but I figured it would be better to call it serious discussion than intelligent discussion or formal discussion. I can switch to them if you would like.

If you do not understand why a generalization with an exception is a contradiction or why contradiction is bad, I suggest reading the articles I posted. They are more concise than I will be.

I understand what Esau is saying, but I have no reason to accept it. Generalizations are supposed to be avoided specifically because they may have exceptions.

There are such things as non-faulty generalizations.

A non-faulty generalization is a generalization that happens to be correct in every case to date or has yet to be contradicted by an exception. If you were to state any 'known' fact that applies to all humans, it would be a non-faulty generalization because there are no counter examples at this time. It is a generalization because counter-examples could exist. It not faulty because none have been discovered yet.

As soon as a counter example comes into existence, you will not be allowed to make that generalization anymore. It has becomes a faulty generalization.

If you know that there are exceptions, then you knew it was faulty before you said it. While it is not against the rules to state a faulty generalization, it is a bad for credibility and a waste of time. Let me explain.

1. A asks for an explanation of a trait in subject X.

2. B states that they have the trait because all humans have that trait, and X is a human. B builds an explanation for why it applies to all humans based upon this premise.

3. A presents a human who does not have the trait.

4. A is left with no rational explanation.

Ideally, B accepts that their reason was faulty and presents arguments that apply to X. B could have used specific arguments from the beginning, but instead chose the easy way out with a heuristic and ultimately failed to explain anything. They wasted time.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Makaze

[BK-201]

I'm not speaking of this section in particular, but I figured it would be better to call it serious discussion than intelligent discussion or formal discussion. I can switch to them if you would like.

If you do not understand why a generalization with an exception is a contradiction or why contradiction is bad, I suggest reading the articles I posted. They are far more concise than I will be.

I understand what Esau is saying, but I have no reason to accept it. Generalizations are supposed to be avoided specifically because they may have exceptions.

There are such things as non-faulty generalizations.

A non-faulty generalization is a generalization that happens to be correct in every case to date or has yet to be contradicted by an exception. If you were to state any 'known' fact that applies to all humans, it would be a non-faulty generalization because there are no counter examples at this time. It is a generalization because counter-examples could exist. It not faulty because none have been discovered yet.

As soon as a counter example comes into existence, you will not be allowed to make that generalization anymore. It has becomes a faulty generalization.

If you know that there are exceptions, then you knew it was faulty before you said it. While it is not against the rules to state a faulty generalization, it is a bad for credibility and a waste of time. Let me explain.

1. A asks for an explanation of a trait in subject X.

2. B states that they have the trait because all humans have that trait, and X is a human. B builds an explanation for why it applies to all humans based upon this premise.

3. A presents a human who does not have the trait.

4. A is left with no rational explanation.

Ideally, B accepts that their reason was faulty and presents arguments that apply to X. B could have used specific arguments from the beginning, but instead chose the easy way out with a heuristic and ultimately failed to explain anything. They wasted time.

Even in formal discussions, generalizations are inevitable. The only thing is whether or not you focus on the argument or semantics. Right now you're blowing the argument out of its original context as a general statement or since you want to be so specific because that obviously changes the point, "a rule of thumb".

Or you could explain it and also elaborate how that responds to my point. Honestly no matter how those articles define generalizations, it is still going to miss the point that you are being more focused on the definition of generalization than the actual argument at hand which you are hugely misrepresenting.

No, generalizations shouldn't be avoided just because you can't help but be overly technical in your representation of the argument. Fact is you've misrepresented the argument.

I will state this concisely right here: General statements can have exceptions, I have presented examples that can be viewed as generalizations depending on how technical you are willing to be, that does not make the general statement incorrect however.

Like you're literally responding to an argument that I made an explicit point to avoid. I am NOT defending your conception of general as always true statements but generalizations as something true for the majority of scenarios.

[Chiki]

BK, philosophers always avoid generalizations for the reasons we mentioned. So they aren't made in formal discussions. Please don't talk about what you don't know.

Also, by ad hominem attack, do you mean the one in my reply to you, Makaze? That doesn't take place in the argument so it's not an ad hominem attack. I was just responding to you.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Celes

[BK-201]

BK, philosophers always avoid generalizations for the reasons we mentioned. So they aren't made in formal discussions. Please don't talk about what you don't know.

Also, by ad hominem attack, do you mean the one in my reply to you, Makaze? That doesn't take place in the argument so it's not an ad hominem attack. I was just responding to you.

Cool, that still doesn't mean it applies to us. Please don't talk about what is irrelevant, I don't have to defend my words on the basis of semantics because the only thing that matters is the argument which I've clarified.

Edited October 31, 2013 by BK-201

[Chiki]

You were talking about formal discussions, not us. =_=

"Even in formal discussions, generalizations are inevitable."

Edited October 31, 2013 by Celes

[BK-201]

You were talking about formal discussions, not us. =_=

"Even in formal discussions, generalizations are inevitable."

Right but that was a different perspective of what a generalization is than what you presented. This distinction was the entire point of my previous posts.

[Chiki]

Sorry, I honestly don't see what you're trying to say anymore. You claimed formal discussions have generalizations. I said they're avoided like the plague. This is what I know from personal experience: I once made a sweeping generalization in my honors intro to philosophy class and the professor said I needed to avoid them.

Just because they're inevitable in formal discussions doesn't mean it's okay to make fallacies like them!

[BK-201]

Sorry, I honestly don't see what you're trying to say anymore. You claimed formal discussions have generalizations. I said they're avoided like the plague. This is what I know from personal experience: I once made a sweeping generalization in my honors intro to philosophy class and the professor said I needed to avoid them.

Just because they're inevitable in formal discussions doesn't mean it's okay to make fallacies like them!

Which is why I clarified when we're talking about generalizations we're looking more at what Makaze calls "rules of thumb".

[Makaze]

Even in formal discussions, generalizations are inevitable. The only thing is whether or not you focus on the argument or semantics. Right now you're blowing the argument out of its original context as a general statement or since you want to be so specific because that obviously changes the point, "a rule of thumb".

Or you could explain it and also elaborate how that responds to my point. Honestly no matter how those articles define generalizations, it is still going to miss the point that you are being more focused on the definition of generalization than the actual argument at hand which you are hugely misrepresenting.

No, generalizations shouldn't be avoided just because you can't help but be overly technical in your representation of the argument. Fact is you've misrepresented the argument.

I will state this concisely right here: General statements can have exceptions, I have presented examples that can be viewed as generalizations depending on how technical you are willing to be, that does not make the general statement incorrect however.

Like you're literally responding to an argument that I made an explicit point to avoid. I am NOT defending your conception of general as always true statements but generalizations as something true for the majority of scenarios.

They are not inevitable; in fact, the opposite is true. Generalizations are broken down through reasoning until at least one unfalsifiable conclusion emerges.

General statements that have exceptions are false statements. Have an example: 'Every human has a nose.' If even one human does not have a nose, this statement is false. Because it returns false, it cannot be accepted as true or acceptable in a discussion.

You and Esau have asserted that generalizations can be held even though they are false, but have not explained why this is rational or presented an example of one.

Let me go back to the assertion that is being questioned.

Insulting anyone, dead or alive, is in extremely poor taste.

Counter examples were presented. No amendment has been made to allow for these exceptions, making this statement false and thereby meaningless.

I said before that it wouldn't be such a problem if it were listed as a rule of thumb, and that is true. It has not been listed as a rule of thumb. It is being laid out as an absolute with the intention of being absolute. Outside of that, no one has acknowledged that these exceptions render it meaningless aside from those who critiqued it. Not one of the defenders has attempted to amend it into a true statement.

Aside from being a faulty generalization, it is a bald assertion. No reasoning has been left to accompany it. The best it has received is a general defense of contradictory generalizations. It has been treated as an opinion that should not be critiqued, which makes little sense in a discussion.

Then there is a different generalization that makes it even less coherent. It astounded me before that no one brought up the point that "taste" is subjective and therefore her statement also implies that every person dislikes insults. All it takes to disprove this statement is to find someone who finds insults in good taste and have them say so. While I can think of few scenarios where insults are valuable, I can think of a few. I say so.

If eclipse herself admits to an exception by her personal standards, then not only does the statement not hold true for the tastes of the one who said it, it also does not hold true for others. If she does not admit to an exception by her personal standards but refuses to discuss her stance, then she has no reason to post.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Makaze

[BK-201]

They are not inevitable; in fact, the opposite is true. Generalizations are broken down through reasoning until at least one unfalsifiable conclusion emerges.

General statements that have exceptions are false statements. Have an example: 'Every human has a nose.' If even one human does not have a nose, this statement is false. Because it returns false, it cannot be accepted as true or acceptable in a discussion.

You and Esau have asserted that generalizations can be held even though they are false, but have not explained why this is rational or presented an example of one.

Let me go back to the assertion that is being questioned.

This is a general statement for which counter examples were presented. No amendment has been made to allow for these exceptions, making this statement false and therefore meaningless.

I said before that it wouldn't be such a problem if it were listed as a rule of thumb, and that is true. It has not been listed as a rule of thumb. It is being laid out as an absolute with the intention of being absolute. Outside of that, no one has acknowledged that these exceptions render it meaningless aside from those who critiqued it. Not one of the defenders has attempted to amend it into a true statement.

Aside from being a faulty generalization, it is a bald assertion. No reasoning has been left to accompany it. The best it has received is a general defense of contradictory generalizations. It has been treated as an opinion that should not be critiqued, which makes little sense in a discussion.

Then there is different generalization that makes it even less coherent. It astounded me before that no one brought up the point that "taste" is subjective and therefore her statement also implies that every dislikes insults. All it takes to disprove this statement is to find someone who finds insults in good taste and have them say so. While I can think of few scenarios where insults are valuable, I can think of a few. I say so.

If eclipse herself admits to an exception by her personal standards, then not only does the statement not hold true for the tastes of the one who said it, it also does not hold true for others. If she does not admit to an exception by her personal standards but refuses to discuss her stance, then she had no reason to post.

I was attempting to play referee with logic and semantics, but if you insist, I will actually argue something.

Sure, you can go with they aren't inevitable, but that still doesn't present a reason why generalizations aren't still worth considering as fair arguments. While they might not be solid in all scenarios they are still viable arguments to defend.

Yes which is why Esau defends his more as a general rule that can have exceptions - this is a matter of definition that I am defending. I do not view generalizations in the same frame as you do, it is a fair statement to generalize that punching people is wrong and even though there are exceptions that you can modify for a more exact answer, focusing on the fact that it is general is missing the argument in exchange for semantics.

Generalizations aren't strictly defined as statements that are always true and while they may be fallacious in certain cases, that doesn't negate the fact that the generalizations are still worth considering. Just because a generalization fails when taken to the extreme doesn't mean we can't still use the generalization.

Example: Analogously we can look to Newtonian laws that fail under relativistic conditions but are still worth considering in our daily lives without having to adjust the equations using a correction factor or whatever.

It has been implicitly and explicitly conceded that by generalization we are referring to rule of thumb. Again, you are only looking at the semantics which is still neglecting the actual argument.

Eclipse isn't the one making the points you're arguing though. Esau and I are defending a viewpoint of Eclipse from less of a absolute standpoint but a general rule of thumb.

[Chiki]

Which is why I clarified when we're talking about generalizations we're looking more at what Makaze calls "rules of thumb".

"Murder is wrong" is not a rule of thumb! "Murder is generally wrong" is a rule of thumb.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Celes

[BK-201]

"Murder is wrong" is not a rule of thumb! "Murder is generally wrong" is a rule of thumb.

Sure but the argument "you shouldn't insult the dead" in this case is taken to be a rule of thumb.

[Chiki]

We're considering eclipse's claim taken at face value. Nothing else. Please don't introduce anything irrelevant to the discussion.

[BK-201]

We're considering eclipse's claim taken at face value. Nothing else. Please don't introduce anything irrelevant to the discussion.

Right but you've been responding to Esau who has taken this to be a rule of thumb evident by his posts.

[dondon151]

Sure but the argument "you shouldn't insult the dead" in this case is taken to be a rule of thumb.

look, please tell me how in any way i could have taken the statement in the thread title and interpreted it to some degree as "oh, i bet eclipse was actually trying to make a nuanced claim about the legitimacy of insulting the deceased without explicitly stating any of the nuances in her claim, neither in the statement itself or in the post that included that statement." this bickering is utterly stupid. in any kind of discussion, you cannot make the assumption that a person really means Y when he says X unless you are already familiar with that person's background on the subject.

Right but you've been responding to Esau who has taken this to be a rule of thumb evident by his posts.

if that were really true, then he would at least concede or bring up his ideas of what constitutes an exception to this rule of thumb. please keep in mind that if you read the OP, what i was really asking people to do was to consider to what degree this statement should be true.

[BK-201]

look, please tell me how in any way i could have taken the statement in the thread title and interpreted it to some degree as "oh, i bet eclipse was actually trying to make a nuanced claim about the legitimacy of insulting the deceased without explicitly stating any of the nuances in her claim, neither in the statement itself or in the post that included that statement." this bickering is utterly stupid. in any kind of discussion, you cannot make the assumption that a person really means Y when he says X unless you are already familiar with that person's background on the subject.

if that were really true, then he would at least concede or bring up his ideas of what constitutes an exception to this rule of thumb. please keep in mind that if you read the OP, what i was really asking people to do was to consider to what degree this statement should be true.

I'm not contending Eclipse's argument because I've conceded it's not true in 100% of cases, I'm arguing that it can still be taken as a rule of thumb is all.

Right and the general idea is while there are exceptions (which Esau has admitted), it is still a rule of thumb.

[Makaze]

Sure, you can go with they aren't inevitable, but that still doesn't present a reason why generalizations aren't still worth considering as fair arguments. While they might not be solid in all scenarios they are still viable arguments to defend.

Yes which is why Esau defends his more as a general rule that can have exceptions - this is a matter of definition that I am defending. I do not view generalizations in the same frame as you do, it is a fair statement to generalize that punching people is wrong and even though there are exceptions that you can modify for a more exact answer, focusing on the fact that it is general is missing the argument in exchange for semantics.

Generalizations aren't strictly defined as statements that are always true and while they may be fallacious in certain cases, that doesn't negate the fact that the generalizations are still worth considering. Just because a generalization fails when taken to the extreme doesn't mean we can't still use the generalization.

Example: Analogously we can look to Newtonian laws that fail under relativistic conditions but are still worth considering in our daily lives without having to adjust the equations using a correction factor or whatever.

It has been implicitly and explicitly conceded that by generalization we are referring to rule of thumb. Again, you are only looking at the semantics which is still neglecting the actual argument.

Eclipse isn't the one making the points you're arguing though. Esau and I are defending a viewpoint of Eclipse from less of a absolute standpoint but a general rule of thumb.

I see what you're getting at. There are certain tendencies in the universe that we more or less assume to be true because counter examples are outside of our experience. This is a rational thing to do.

That said, it is important to remember that using something in your personal life is not the same as asserting it as truth. The reason why you can use Newtonian laws in those particular generalizations is because they are non-faulty.

If you were to make a statement such as, "Law X applies the same way to every member of this forum," you would be incorrect. Instead, you must say, "Law X applies in a similar way to every member of this forum."

Imagine that you tried to say that relativistic conditions don't matter or don't have an effect because you haven't felt the need to consider them. Now imagine that you did this after being exposed to different conditions. That's how you and Esau are coming off.

We use those kinds of rules of thumb because the time saved by using them is worth more than the gain produced from calculation, not because using them is correct.

I thought you wanted me to argue eclipse's statement when you said to avoid meta. My bad.

Also, by ad hominem attack, do you mean the one in my reply to you, Makaze? That doesn't take place in the argument so it's not an ad hominem attack. I was just responding to you.

I mean the way you referred to Esau in the comment to me. It belittled him as a person without addressing anything in particular.

Oops; doublepost... Someone please fix it?

Edited October 31, 2013 by Red Fox of Fire

[Chiki]

That's not an ad hominem attack because it's not part of my argument with him. By definition an ad hominem attack has to be in an argument.

[Makaze]

Right but you've been responding to Esau who has taken this to be a rule of thumb evident by his posts.

He has been taking it as a rule of thumb incorrectly, which is why we are arguing about it.

That's not an ad hominem attack because it's not part of my argument with him. By definition an ad hominem attack has to be in an argument.

Ad hominem is when one criticizes the person behind a position when the person is not the subject of the discussion. If it is in the thread, it is in the argument. What you said hurts his credibility in this argument because there is an audience who will read it whether you are speaking to him or not. I called it passive aggressive specifically because you tried to sneak it under the radar by not speaking to him directly.

Please do not try to split hairs. It is immature to discuss individuals if they are not the subject of discussion. I did not ask you about Esau and you had no reason to bring him up other than to make a jab. It is just as immature to defend a comment that had no place in the discussion besides.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Makaze

[Chiki]

Ad hominem is when one criticizes the person behind a position when the person is not the subject of the discussion. If it is in the thread, it is in the argument. What you said hurts his credibility in this argument because there is an audience who will read it whether you are speaking to him or not. I called it passive aggressive specifically because you tried to sneak it under the radar by not speaking to him directly.

Please do not try to split hairs. It is immature to discuss individuals if they are not the subject of discussion. I did not ask you about Esau and you had no reason to bring him up other than to make a jab. It is just as immature to defend a comment that had no place in the discussion besides.

This post makes me upset because I really liked your first few posts. http://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdf

An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or an argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or the person presenting the argument.

Here is an example:

1. Person A makes claim x.

2. Person B makes irrelevant insult y.

---

3. Therefore, claim x is false.

What were you accusing was an ad hominem attack?

Great post Makaze. Esau is generally clueless when it comes to posting in matters of reasoning and common sense, and you put it in a far better way than I could have.

Not once did I claim his claims were false because he can't post with reason. Not once did I imply his claim was false because of his character.

This is just by definition true. You can't really disagree with my argument on any grounds.

Am I being immature? Sure, why not. I gave up trying to be mature, formal and having serious discussions a long time ago. The only person worth talking to seriously on this forum, in my opinion, is Redwall.

I don't want to derail dondon's thread so I'm ending this here.

[Esau of Isaac]

You said that you pointed out that a generalization can be used while it has exceptions. That is actually incorrect since you did not explain why this should be accepted.

I didn't explain why it should be accepted because I don't need to. I'm not going to debate whether something so ubiquitous happens, it's a plain fact that people make general statements every day while being aware that there are exceptions to their general statements. I haven't debated that and I won't, if you feel like it's something you want to discuss then you can do it with someone else. I'm tired of talking about this. It's irrelevant to the entirety of my and anyone else's argument and the both of you have continued debating on this front for some bizarre fascination with the concept of absolutism which no one in their right mind holds when actually talking like human beings instead of robots.

This entire topic has been nothing less than pure intellectual masturbation by Olwen and frankly I'm tired of watching him blow his load in every single thread he enters. It's impossible to go any length without some obscure argument over the stupidest of basic logical reasoning.

[Makaze]

This post makes me upset because I really liked your first few posts. http://aphilosopher.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/42-fallacies.pdf

Here is an example:

1. Person A makes claim x.

2. Person B makes irrelevant insult y.

---

3. Therefore, claim x is false.

What were you accusing was an ad hominem attack?

Not once did I claim his claims were false because he can't post with reason. Not once did I imply his claim was false because of his character.

This is just by definition true. You can't really disagree with my argument on any grounds.

Am I being immature? Sure, why not. I gave up trying to be mature, formal and having serious discussions a long time ago. The only person worth talking to seriously on this forum, in my opinion, is Redwall.

I don't want to derail dondon's thread so I'm ending this here.

I concede that you did not fall into the fallacy by definition. I was wrong, and I apologize. I suppose attacking someone only applies as the fallacy if the suspect explicitly states that it discounts their partner's argument. Alas, that invalidates most claims to ad hominem as most claims are actually insults meant to discredit the person without explicitly stating that they discredit the argument. A problem of pettiness, not logic. Add that to the list of misused fallacies...

It's too late. The post you just made was entirely meta; it was the least on topic of any post in the thread, including this one. You asked why not to be immature. This is why. If you respected dondon's thread, you should have PM'd or VM'd your first irrelevant comment to me and this conversation should have taken place there.

I didn't explain why it should be accepted because I don't need to. I'm not going to debate whether something so ubiquitous happens, it's a plain fact that people make general statements every day while being aware that there are exceptions to their general statements. I haven't debated that and I won't, if you feel like it's something you want to discuss then you can do it with someone else. I'm tired of talking about this. It's irrelevant to the entirety of my and anyone else's argument and the both of you have continued debating on this front for some bizarre fascination with the concept of absolutism which no one in their right mind holds when actually talking like human beings instead of robots.

This entire topic has been nothing less than pure intellectual masturbation by Olwen and frankly I'm tired of watching him blow his load in every single thread he enters. It's impossible to go any length without some obscure argument over the stupidest of basic logical reasoning.

If you are not interested in discussing whether it should happen or not, then why did you defend it? I do not believe anyone has suggested it does not happen... I'm not sure what you were objecting to.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Makaze

[Esau of Isaac]

I am objecting to the continued several-pages discussion over a stupid game of pointless semantics that is second to the specific argument that I was making. I was interested in steering discussion away from the secondary point. I am no longer interested in humoring any of you regarding such an easily observed behavior because I realize you're only interested in pointless niggling. I am not going to aggravate myself with stupid meandering twists and turns to prove to you that people make general statements that have obvious exceptions, because I and everyone else here --including you-- are fully aware that they exist and are uttered or written several time a day by many people.

Go find someone else to try and prove to you water is wet, I'm not interested anymore.

[Aizenberg]

so basically if the suicide thread was created in the far from the forest section it wouldn't matter what people had to say about this situation. but this is the serious discussion board, and you got to have some level of maturity. im pretty sure stupid insults don't count. i understand why that thread was locked. don't understand why this is going on for 5 pages though..

Edited October 31, 2013 by Aizenberg