Re: Frequently Asked Questions and Problems
Darkfire:
Douchebag, I think you broke the forum's record of having the largest post that isn't a story.
Oh no I haven’t. Especially since this one is longer. Actually, this one really might be the longest post that isn’t a story. Which is a little sad… <Since I would prefer that a certain other ULMFer had it…>
Also, I’d go to another thread, but the argument would probably fall apart, and at this point, RJ has already stated that he won’t continue, so it likely won’t last much longer.
Hooker:
Wait, what? How…? –Oh! Ah, I see how you’re getting that; sorry; I ought to have been clearer. Thanks, this’ll give me an opportunity to clear this up for anyone else who might have been thinking the same.
During various points I have stated that “RJ must have been thinking that Aika and Nunu would destroy the forum”. This was not intended as my interpretation of RJ’s actual argument; that would be idiotic. The reason behind it is this:
In his first reply to my post, RJ gave an entirely jumbled and irrational argument that I did my best to interpret -
After I had given evidence that written loli was legal, and thereby unable to be removed from the forum, (because V-bulletin’s policy, as I understood it, was to ‘only get involved when there’s something illegal going on’, which I pointed out in the post RJ first replied to,) RJ claimed that we had to remove written loli otherwise the forum would be destroyed. At no point during his post did he claim that written loli was illegal; at no point did he claim that my evidence or interpretation of the law or V-bulletin’s rules was flawed – and thereby, I had no reason to assume that he believed that my evidence was wrong.
To explain in full, it is part of standard arguing procedure that stands to reason; if I say “loli is legal because of X”, and someone trying to rebut me holds the belief that X is incorrect or flawed, they would state that in their argument. To leave something out like that causes the arguing partner – and indeed, the reader – to presume that the person does not have any argument against X.
Since RJ had made no statement against my evidence or position other than ‘the admin don’t allow it’, and made no statement on the evidence itself, I automatically assumed that he accepted my evidence. With that done, the only remaining possibility is that the admin themselves would shut down the site, so I initially responded to RJ’s mess of vague ideas and impotent rage as best as I could under this belief. Of course, the idea that RJ would actually be trying to say that the admin would destroy the forum was ridiculous, and obviously not something that he would argue, so I attempted to figure out what the hell his argument really was.
Now, at the time, in my initial statement I was uncertain of the rules of the host for V-Bulletin, and so I assumed that he might be trying to argue that the –site- wouldn’t allow the inclusion of written loli, because of its own rules.
After I responded to what he had
actually written, (without any argument against my evidence, which backed him into a corner logic-wise,) I pointed out that it would be stupid to assume that the argument he had used was what he actually meant, and tried to answer what I had guessed was his actual point, typified by this:
Now, the idea that you could possibly be trying to say that Nunu or Akia personally would destroy the forum to get rid of loli content out of personal preference goes against everything that they've posted on the forum so far, so I'm going to assume you're not actually that mentally retarded and that you were instead trying to very clumsily express that "what matters is the rules of the site itself".
In all of his first post, only the slightest hint to what he was
actually trying to say existed - this one line in part of a larger sentence:
it doesn't matter how you want to twist words,
Which was such a generic, childish insult camouflaging all too well with the rest of his post that I assumed that he meant, “I don’t care what laws you show me!” as opposed to “I don’t care what laws you show me, there are other ways that will probably make loli illegal!”. Considering how mild that implication is, and that the rest of his post was an incredibly flawed argument (that somehow Nunu and Aika’s admin rules held more power than US laws), the extra meaning that was in the statement slid under my notice.
So, of course, my assumption that he was arguing about the rules of V-bulletin was wrong – I eventually figured out RJ’s actual argument while writing my previous post; something like “the law is complex, and so I might not have it right”, and that “lynch mobs can always be made to fuck us over anyway”. However, while I was able to figure this out by reading RJ’s second response, again there was
not one place in his post that actually explained why written loli was illegal, or a bad idea, and could get the forum in trouble! The closest he got was
We don't allow loli, because we WOULD be threatened with a shut down if we openly displayed it, just as the other forum was shut down for having adult content.
Without going into the fact that he’s talking about loli, not written loli as I was arguing about - RJ had yet to actually announce some reason why my evidence that “written loli is legal” was wrong; he could have pointed out that it is difficult to understand the law, could have done some actual research and found a case that contradicted my evidence – but no, his argument amounted to “You’re stupid! We’ll be threatened!”. He never so much as said ‘no, written loli isn’t legal’, he just kept on talking about the ramifications of his beliefs
without actually stating what his beliefs were.
That said, this time, after reading his post multiple times, and reading Toxics’ research, I was able to figure out what he was trying to say – or at least, it should be noted, what I
thought at the time that he was trying to say… last time I assumed what his position was I had been wrong, so I was somewhat more wary about being too confident in my assumption.
I once again replied to what he had actually written – that the forum would be shut down despite the admin being the only ones with reason to do it, as he had not invalidated my evidence or even so much as claimed it was incorrect - as opposed to the actual argument (I assumed) he was trying to make. During the response, every time I claimed that RJ thought that the admin would destroy the forum, I put the reasoning behind why this was so – to say it once more, because he had not claimed that my evidence was wrong in any way –, in an attempt to get through his Neolithic skull and make him understand what he would have to do (argue against my evidence) to have his argument actually make sense.
Examples:
I’m not even talking about that, […] I’m talking about written loli, [which] isn’t covered by any laws. This is something I pointed out in the first post, which you’ve not even attempted to prove wrong, and thusly I can only assume you accept as right (as I have been doing throughout the argument so far).
Further, I can only surmise that RJ still does, in fact, expect the admin to suddenly destroy the form, despite his insistence against such, since he admits himself that he doesn’t assume how Aika or Nunu might act, and has yet to actually give any way in which the forum might be destroyed by something other than the admin themselves.
If you thought that Nunu might not be right, and may have made a mistake, then the only way you could have had any argument is if you assumed that Nunu was going to personally destroy the forum over the content (as, as I have said, my initial argument removed any method of the forum being destroyed over loli other than the admin, and was never refuted by you). I didn’t say it was likely, just that it was the only other logical thought you could have been having.
Point:
Your argument was nestled between two flawed premises; that the admin are flawless or that the admin will destroy the forum themselves (which you have yourself admitted is a stupid argument).
[You think that I think Aika and Nunu hate loli? Or that I think THEY'D destroy the forum over it? Where are you pulling this from?]
I provided the laws in place against loli, showing that currently there is nothing against written loli. […]
You argue that: “For the sake of not seeing this forum end like the first linemarvel forum, underage pornography is not allowed here, so long as Nunu says it isn't.”
You gave no argument against the validity of the law I had referenced, […] or any new reason why the site could be taken down in spite of it… only that our admin forbade it. Considering that this makes direct action by the admin the only remaining way that the forum could be destroyed, I can only assume that you somehow expect the admin to suddenly destroy the forum because of loli content.
As is evident in the second quote, I did, indeed, play up the idea that RJ actually believed that Aika and Nunu would destroy the forum over loli content, despite the fact that this was ludicrous; this was in the hope that he would thereby look
closely at my outrageous argument to determine just how I was managing to come to that conclusion, and thus realise that he should be trying to make an argument against the position I gave as part of my initial post(, as that would give him a net one legitimate argument against me). It wasn’t like I had made my reasoning difficult to find, being plastered(, in varying degrees of contraction,) next to each instance of my claim as it was! …Apparently, however, I underestimated how butthurt he would become, as he has instead ragequit from the argument.
After that, I went on to, once more, state what I believed RJ’s actual argument was, and this time getting it right:
It would be neglectful of me to ignore that there actually was an argument underlying RJ’s words, if one looks close enough. It took me a while to realise, but despite what was in his posts, the actual argument that RJ is trying to make is that “you are wrong in your belief that written loli is allowed under law; law is complex, and you might have missed something”. Granted, he never actually mentions anything to this end himself, and barely ever even alludes to it, but after two posts of his, I think that this underlying belief is the only remaining way that his arguments can make sense to him(, or anyone else, for that matter).
So hopefully, I’ve convinced you that I was not intentionally strawmanning RJ’s argument. I mean really, at the end of the day, it’s an argument so blatantly ludicrous for RJ to hold that it would only gain me scorn if I –was- strawmaning it to him! As evidenced by you, yourself, Hooker.
(Also, I shall use this point to point out that my reply to his statement of:
And if I'm wrong, go ahead and post some loli fiction in the blank page, and see if Nunu doesn't ask you to take it down, even if just to be on the safe side.
by posting loli on the blank page was a simple act of logic; “if I'm wrong”, “post some loli fiction in the blank page”. He was wrong, ergo I did – it wasn’t intended to have any other purpose.
Of course, I admittedly did initially hold the expectation that the story would continue to remain up, but was wrong as Nunu was, correctly, more paranoid than I had expected, though it did get Nunu somewhat involved in the argument as I had hoped.)
What’s wrong with my formatting? 0_o I thought that was reasonably paragraphed into readable blocks…
The rest of your argument consist mostly of awful lot of attributed presumptions, most of which there is no evidence.
I’ll attempt to address this one, but I’m not totally certain where my posts were, fourth-dimensionally, so I might be wrong about whether or not Toxic had pointed out the things that floored my evidence about the legality of written loli at a given time, so bear with me.
My initial argument, which was that loli was legal because the one and only law against loli only covers images, was wholly and technically correct… as long as you put your fingers in your ears and go “LALALA I’M NOT LISTENING” when someone mentions the Miller Test. However, at this point in the argument, (the start, for those not paying attention,) I was under the belief that (, based on prior research I had done some time ago,) the Miller test was actually largely - if not wholly - unenforceable, and had never been used for anything in years. This belief was, putting it lightly,
wrong. (And for the sake of being technically correct, considering what kind of vague bullshit the Miller test is, written loli probably
really is “technically” legal.) I suppose this discounting of the Miller Test based on prior knowledge could be considered a presumption, and one that I should have looked more into, before thankfully Toxic did for me.
My second assumption that I will address, the assumption of what RJ’s arguments were, I believe was a case of necessity. I doubt anyone would disagree if I was to say that “in any conversation each party has to assume that the other is using the language they are speaking in the same way that the listener understands it”; effectively, all things require some degree of assumption to them, even if they are only small ones. Upon reading RJ’s arguments, however, even the assumption that he was using the same language as me was something I was hesitant to accept. His arguments were so hazily worded that making broad leaps like “you must be trying to argue that V-bulletin’s rules are what’s stopping written loli/that my interpretation of the rules about written loli is incorrect” was the only way I could attribute any sense or argument to his posts at all.
Next, there is the assumption that ‘RJ must think the forum will be destroyed by our admin’, which I have already explained above and won’t go into again;
And then there are those “three presumptions” that I made, which likely constitute the majority of your complaint, which I’ll try to justify to you.
My first presumption is that RJ thought that Nunu was infallible.
The reason for this assumption was these lines,
If Nunu feels the need to question the age of our fictional characters, then we meet his standards, and make sure that our characters are over the legal age. Because none of us want to lose yet another forum.
underage pornography is not allowed here, so long as Nunu says it isn't.
Nunu and Aika are the law here, […] in this place, their word means more than the US law.
RJ gave no quarter, no exception for the questioning of Nunu’s ability, no little side note that Nunu could in some way be wrong. I’m not totally certain about how you’d take it, but when I see that, if I am to assume that it is the honest belief of the other party and not trolling, there are, in my mind, only two rationally correct (or perhaps logically correct, as I’m not sure what each term technically means,) preceding thoughts that RJ could have (which does not, by any means, mean “not stupid”):
A. Nunu is not and can never be wrong in Nunu’s ruling on the legality of loli.
The reason I pointed out this presumption of RJ’s is something I doubt I need to state, but will anyway; namely that this idea is absurd.
B. Whether or not Nunu is wrong or right is unimportant. Nunu(&or Aika) is a dictator and censors anything Nunu doesn’t like, and can be unpredictable enough that Nunu may destroy the forum over the age of the characters. Granted, parts of this are true about our beloved Dictator when we speak in jest, but in an argument this belief is nonsensical. (This is, in fact, my third, “or” assumption.)
Now, I will admit, in my expanded blurb in my second post pertaining to the point of making the first presumption, I –also- assumed, through insinuation, that it was the result of him having the view that the moderators/administrators should never be questioned - and I can readily admit that that was going too far. I should have, instead, said that it is “
related to”, as opposed to “a result of”. But in regard to my actual first assumption itself, I do honestly think that there was no other way in which RJ could have reached the conclusion that Nunu was not to be questioned on Nunu’s methods. If, however, you can see some other, logical conclusion as to how he reached his end argument, or some way in which the act of assuming this, in my belief, reasonably simple conclusion, is a bad thing to do, I am more than happy to hear it.
I might as well do the third presumption while we’ve already got it up there; my third presumption was that, if the first presumption was not the case, RJ must believe that Nunu is a dictator who censors anything they don’t like and might destroy the forum on the grounds of its posting. I hope this is the last time I have to do this, but I will
once again state that the reason RJ would have to expect Nunu to destroy the forum is because RJ, by not responding in any way to my claim that loli was legal, defaulted to agreeing that it was legal, meaning that the only remaining way that the forum could be destroyed over written loli is if the admin themselves were to destroy it. Again, as above, if you can see some other way that RJ could have made his statement about not arguing with Nunu other than these two, I would like to know about it.
The second and final presumption of the three (heh), and I believe, least judge-able, is that RJ had to assume that a line that he quoted from Nunu, asking about the age of the characters in the story Nunu was responding to, was for the sake of determining if they need to be removed due to being loli.
The reason for this assumption was these lines;
how old are the characters in this?
A quote from Nunu himself, questioning the main character's age in a written story.
If Nunu feels the need to question the age of our fictional characters, then we meet his standards, and make sure that our characters are over the legal age.
To restate, my presumption was that RJ was assuming that Nunu was asking because the character was underage, as opposed to, say, because Nunu’s a stickler for detail, and likes to get more immersed in the stories Nunu reads by knowing what age the characters are. I, personally, do not think that it is possible for RJ to have thought anything other than “Nunu is asking this because Nunu wants to remove it if it is loli”, as the argument he provided with the quote would make no sense under any other reasoning (without invoking complex motives such as trolling). In fact, it is such an obvious assumption that this was what RJ quoted it for that I would have called my pointing it out frivolous, if it were not for the fact that the quote from Nunu was very(, and characteristically,) ambiguous; while it was obvious that
RJ thought Nunu was asking for the sake of removing loli, from only the quote that RJ gave itself, we cannot presume with total certainty that this really
is the reason for which Nunu was questioning the age of the characters.
Well, hopefully I’ve addressed all the reservations you’ve got regarding the presumptions in my argument, but if I’ve missed something you’re still troubled about, point it out for me and I’ll try to address it.
